text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We present results of numerical simulations of sequences of binary-single scattering events of black holes in dense stellar environments. The simulations cover a wide range of mass ratios from equal mass objects to 1000:10:10$~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and compare purely Newtonian simulations to simulations in which Newtonian encounters are interspersed with gravitational wave emission from the binary. In both cases, the sequence is terminated when the binary’s merger time due to gravitational radiation is less than the arrival time of the next interloper. We find that black hole binaries typically merge with a very high eccentricity ($0.93 \le e \le 0.95$ pure Newtonian; $0.85 \le e \le 0.90$ with gravitational wave emission) and that adding gravitational wave emission decreases the time to harden a binary until merger by $\sim30$ to $40\%$. We discuss the implications of this work for the formation of intermediate-mass black holes and gravitational wave detection.'
author:
- Kayhan Gültekin
- 'M. Coleman Miller'
- 'Douglas P. Hamilton'
title: 'Growth of Intermediate-Mass Black Holes in Globular Clusters'
---
Introduction
============
Recent observations suggest that large black holes may reside in the centers of some stellar clusters. X-ray observations in the last few years have shown unresolved sources in galaxies offset from their nuclei and with fluxes that, if isotropic, correspond to luminosities of $L \approx 10^{39}$ to $10^{41}~{\mathrm {erg}}\; {\mathrm s}^{-1}$ [e.g., @fsm97; @cm99; @metal01; @fzm01]. Many of these sources are associated with stellar clusters (@fsm97; @alm01). The strong variability observed in these sources suggests that they are black holes, and if the observed fluxes are neither strongly beamed nor super-Eddington, the implied masses are as high as $M\ga 10^{3}\;{M}_{\odot}$. The fact the sources are non-nuclear implies masses $M\la 10^{6}\;{M}_{\odot}$ since a larger mass would have rapidly sunk to the center of the host galaxy due to dynamical friction [$< 10^{9}$ yr for a dispersion velocity of $100{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ and a separation from the galaxy nucleus of $10^{2}~\mathrm{pc}$ as in the case of M82; @ketal01]. In addition, optical observations of the globular clusters M15 and G1 show velocity profiles consistent with central black holes with masses of $2.5\times
10^{3}~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and $2.0\times 10^{4}~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, respectively [@getal00; @getal02; @vetal02; @grh02], although @betal03 demonstrate with their N-body simulations that the observations of G1 can be explained without a large black hole. Such intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) would be in a different mass category, and thus likely indicative of a different formation scenario, from either $3$ - $20~M_{\odot}$ stellar-mass black holes, which are thought to be the result of core-collapse supernovae, or $10^{6}$ - $10^{10}~M_{\odot}$ supermassive black holes, which are found in the centers of many galaxies.
Several models have been proposed to account for the origin of IMBHs. @mr01 and @setal02 suggest that they are the remnants of massive ($M \ga 200~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$) Population III stars. The low metallicity of these stars precludes cooling through metal line emission and enables them to reach masses much larger than ordinary main sequence stars. These large stars avoid significant mass loss due to stellar winds or pulsations, and the star may collapse to form a black hole with almost the same mass as the progenitor star. @pzm02 and @gfr04 show with numerical simulations that the core of a young stellar cluster may collapse rapidly such that direct collisions of stars will lead to runaway growth of a single object with as much as $10^{-3}$ of the original cluster mass over the course of a few million years. @mh02 propose that over a Hubble time stellar-mass black holes in dense globular clusters may grow by mergers to the inferred IMBH masses. In their model, a black hole with mass greater than $50~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ will interact with other massive objects to form binaries that will merge due to gravitational radiation. The merger process may proceed more quickly in the presence of encounters with a third black hole or another black hole binary [@mh02b] if the encounters shrink the binary’s orbit, as is known to happen with hard (tight) binaries [@h75].
Wherever and however IMBHs formed, the best candidates are found in stellar clusters where three-body encounters are important. An IMBH in a cluster, whether formed there or later swallowed by the cluster, will find its way to the center. As all of the heaviest objects in a cluster sink to the center in a process known as mass segregation, the IMBH will interact primarily with other massive objects and binaries [@sh93; @fetal02]. A single IMBH will tend to acquire companions through exchanges with binaries because the most massive pair of objects in a three-body encounter preferentially end up in the binary [e.g., @hhm96]. The IMBH binary will encounter other objects in the dense center of its host cluster, harden further, and ultimately merge.
These events are important sources of gravitational waves. The Advanced LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory) detector is expected to be capable of detecting mergers of IMBHs with $M \la 100~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ [@b00], and LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna) is expected to detect the earlier inspiral phase of an IMBH merger [@d00]. In order to predict the gravitational wave signature of the inspiral, the expected separations and eccentricities of the binaries must be known. Because three-body encounters alter the orbital parameters, simulations are needed to predict their distributions as well as the source population and event rates.
The three-body problem has been studied extensively, but with every new generation of computing power, our understanding of the problem advances with a wider range of numerical simulations and a changing perspective on this rich but conceptually simple problem. Previous studies of the three-body problem have tended to focus on the case of equal or nearly equal masses [e.g., @h75; @hb83] though other mass ratios have been studied [e.g., @fh82; @sp93; @hhm96]. The nearly equal mass case does not apply to the case of an IMBH in the core of a stellar cluster. In addition the vast majority of previous work has studied the effect of a single encounter on a binary. To determine the ultimate fate of an IMBH, simulations of sequences of encounters are needed. Furthermore, to our knowledge no previous work has considered the effects of orbital decay due to gravitational radiation between encounters, which we expect to be important for very tight binaries.
In this paper we present numerical simulations of sequences of high-mass ratio binary-single encounters. We describe the code used to simulate the encounters in § \[nummeth\]. Next, we present results of the simulations of sequences of encounters on a range of mass ratios with Newtonian gravity (§ \[newt\]) and with gravitational radiation between encounters (§ \[grseq\]) and show that including gravitational radiation decreases the duration of the sequence by $\sim 30$ to $40\%$. In § \[imbhformation\] and § \[gwdetection\] we discuss the implications of these results for IMBH formation and gravitational wave detection.
Numerical Method {#nummeth}
================
We perform numerical simulations of the interactions of a massive binary in a stellar cluster. Simulating the full cluster is beyond current N-body techniques, so we focus instead on a sequence of three-body encounters. Massive cluster objects, such as IMBHs and tight binary systems, tend to sink the centers of clusters so that a single IMBH is very likely to meet a binary [@sp95]. Exchanges in which the IMBH acquires a close companion are common. Such a binary in a stellar cluster core will experience repeated interactions with additional objects as long as the recoils from these interactions do not eject the binary. Therefore, we simulate a *sequence* of encounters between a hard binary and an interloper. We perform one interaction and then use the resulting binary for the next encounter. This is repeated multiple times until the binary finally merges due to gravitational radiation. Because typical velocities involved are non-relativistic and the black holes are tiny compared to their separations, they are treated as Newtonian point masses. In order to test the influence of the binary’s mass, we use a range of binary mass ratios. To simplify the problem we study a binary with mass ratio of $N$:10 ${\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and a 10$~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ interloper, designated as $N$:$10$:$10$, and vary $N$ between 10$~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and $10^{3}~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$.
The simulations were done using a binary-single scattering code that was written to be as general purpose as possible. Because of the vast parameter space that needs to be covered, the code uses a Monte Carlo initial condition generator. The orbits are integrated using [ hnbody]{}, a hierarchical, direct N-body integrator, with the adaptive fourth order Runge Kutta integrator option (K. Rauch & D. Hamilton, in preparation)[^1]. Because we focus on close approaches where a wide range of timescales are important, an adaptive scheme is often better than symplectic methods.
In wide hierarchical triples, direct integration can consume a large amount of computational time. To reduce this, we employ a two-body approximation scheme that tracks the phase of the inner binary. For a sufficiently large outer orbit, the orbit is approximately that of an object about the center of mass of the binary. We calculate this approximate two-body orbit analytically and keep track of the inner binary’s phase. When the outer object nears the binary again, we revert to direct numerical integration.
The orbit is integrated until one of three conditions is met: 1) one mass departs along a hyperbolic path, 2) the system forms a hierarchical triple with outer semimajor axis greater than $2000
\mathrm{~AU}$, an orbit so large that it would likely be perturbed in the high density of a cluster core and not return, or 3) the integration is prohibitively long, in which case the encounter is discarded and restarted with new randomly generated initial conditions. Roughly $10^{-4}$ of all encounters had to be restarted with most occurring for higher mass ratios where resonant encounters (encounters that have more than one close approach and are not simple fly-bys) are more common. In half of our simulations, we evolve the binary’s orbit due to gravitational wave emission after each encounter. Since a binary in a cluster spends most of its time and emits most of its gravitational radiation while waiting for an encounter rather than during an interaction, we only include gravitational radiation between encounters. To isolate this effect, we run simulations both with and without gravitational radiation. We include gravitational radiation by utilizing orbit-averaged expressions for the change in semimajor axis $a$ and eccentricity $e$ with respect to time [@p64]: $$\frac{da}{dt} = - \frac{64}{5}
\frac{G^{3} m_{0} m_{1} \left(m_{0} + m_{1}\right)}{c^{5} a^{3}
\left(1 - e^{2}\right)^{7/2}}
\left( 1 + \frac{73}{24}e^{2} + \frac{37}{96}e^{4}\right)
\label{petersa}$$ and $$\frac{de}{dt} = - \frac{304}{15}
\frac{G^{3} m_{0} m_{1} \left(m_{0} + m_{1}\right)}{c^{5} a^{4}
\left(1 - e^{2}\right)^{5/2}} \left(e + \frac{121}{304}e^{3}\right),
\label{peterse}$$ where $m_{0}$ and $m_{1}$ ($m_{0} \ge m_{1}$) are the gravitational masses of the binary pair. Here $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $c$ is the speed of light. The orbital elements are evolved until the next encounter takes place, at a time that we choose randomly from an exponential distribution with a mean encounter time, $\left<\tau_{\mathrm{enc}}\right> = 1/\left<nv_{\infty}\sigma\right>$, where $n$ is the number density of objects in the cluster’s core, $v_{\infty}$ is the relative velocity, and $\sigma$ is the cross-section of the binary. If we assume the mass of the binary $m_{0} + m_{1} \gg m_{2}$, then $$\sigma \approx \pi r_{p}^{2} + 4\pi r_{p} G
\left(m_{0} + m_{1}\right) / v_{\infty}^{2},
\label{crosssection}$$ where $r_{p}$ is the maximum considered close approach of $m_{2}$ to the binary’s center of mass. For a thermal distribution of stellar speeds, $v_{\infty} = \left( m_{\mathrm{avg}} / m_{2} \right)^{1/2}
v_{\mathrm{ms}}$, where $m_{\mathrm{avg}} = 0.4~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ is the average mass of the main sequence star and $v_{\mathrm{ms}}$ is the main sequence velocity dispersion. In our simulations, the second term of Eq. \[crosssection\], gravitational focusing, dominates over the first. Averaging over velocity (assumed to be Maxwellian) we find
$$\left<\tau_{\mathrm{enc}}\right> = 2 \times 10^{7}
\left(\frac{v_{\mathrm{ms}}}{10~\mathrm{km\;s^{-1}}}\right)
\left(\frac{10^{6}~\mathrm{pc^{-3}}}{n}\right)
\left(\frac{1~\mathrm{AU}}{r_{p}}\right)
\left(\frac{1~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}}{m_{0} + m_{1}}\right)
\left(\frac{1~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}}{m_{2}}\right)^{1/2} \mathrm{yr}.
\label{enctime}$$
We then subject the binary to another encounter using orbital parameters adjusted by both the previous encounter and the gravitational radiation emitted between the encounters. This sequence of encounters continues until the binary merges due to gravitational wave emission. If orbital decay is not being calculated, then we determine that the binary has merged when the randomly drawn encounter time is longer than the timescale to merger, which is approximately $$\tau_{\mathrm{merge}} \approx 6\times10^{17}
\frac {\left(1~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}\right)^{3}} {m_{0} m_{1} \left(m_{0} + m_{1}\right)}
\left(\frac{a}{1~\mathrm{AU}}\right)^{4}
\left(1 - e^{2}\right)^{7/2} \mathrm{yr}
\label{mergetime}$$ for the high eccentricities of importance in this paper.
Global energy and angular momentum are monitored to ensure accurate integration. The code also keeps track of the duration of encounters, the time between encounters, changes in semimajor axis and eccentricity, and exchanges (events in which the interloping mass replaces one of the original members of the binary and the replaced member escapes).
As a test of our code, we compared simulations of several individual three-body encounters to compare with the work of @hhm96. As part of a series of works examining binary-single star scattering events, @hhm96 performed numerical simulations of very hard binaries with a wide range of mass ratios and calculated their cross-sections for exchange. We ran simulations of one encounter each of a sample of mass ratios for comparison. To facilitate comparison of encounters with differing masses, semimajor axes, and relative velocities of hard binaries, @hhm96 use a dimensionless cross-section, $$\bar{\sigma} = \frac {2 v_{\infty}^{2} \Sigma}
{\pi G \left(m_{0} + m_{1} + m_{2}\right) a} ,
\label{sigmabar}$$ where $v_{\infty}$ is the relative velocity of the interloper and the binary’s center of mass at infinity and $\Sigma$ is the physical cross-section for exchanges. We calculate $\Sigma$ as the product of the fraction of encounters that result in an exchange ($f_{\mathrm{ex}}$) and the total cross-section of encounters considered: $f_{\mathrm{ex}}\pi b_{\mathrm{max}}^{2}$, where $b_{\mathrm{max}}$ is an impact parameter large enough to encompass all exchange reactions. Our cross-sections are in agreement with those of @hhm96 within the combined statistical uncertainty as seen in Table \[exchange\].
[rccc]{} 10 : 1 : 1 & 1 & 1.054 $\pm$ .105& 1.086 $\pm$ .023\
& 10 & —– & —–\
10 : 1 : 10 & 1 & 7.825 $\pm$ .360& 7.741 $\pm$ .255\
& 10 & 0.520 $\pm$ .087& 0.513 $\pm$ .043\
3 : 1 : 1 & 1 & 2.311 $\pm$ .170& 2.465 $\pm$ .073\
& 3 & 0.059 $\pm$ .025& 0.072 $\pm$ .007\
\[exchange\]
Simulations and Results {#simulations}
=======================
We used our code to run numerical experiments of three-body encounter sequences with a variety of mass ratios. The binaries consisted of a dominant body with mass, $m_{0} =$ 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, or 1000 ${\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and a secondary of mass $m_{1} = 10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$. Because of mass segregation, the objects that the binary encounters will be the heaviest objects in the cluster. In order to simplify the problem, we consider only interactions with interlopers of mass $m_{2}
= 10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$. The binary starts with a circular $a=10~\mathrm{AU}$ orbit, and the interloper has a relative speed at infinity of $v_{\infty} = 10~\mathrm{~km~s^{-1}}$ and an impact parameter, $b$, relative to the center of mass of the binary such that the pericenter distance of the hyperbolic encounter would range from $r_{p} = 0$ to $5a$. For all binaries, $v_{\mathrm{circ}} = \left[G\left(m_{0} +
m_{1}\right)/a\right]^{1/2} \ge 40{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}\gg v_{\infty}$, and thus all are considered hard. The Monte Carlo initial condition generator distributes the orientations and directions of encounters isotropically in space, and the initial phase of the binary is randomized such that it is distributed equally in time. We assume the cluster core has a density of $n = 10^{5}~\mathrm{pc}^{-3}$ and an escape velocity of $v_{\mathrm{esc}}=50{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ for the duration of the simulation. We discuss the consequences of changing the escape velocity in § \[imbhformation\]. For each mass ratio, we simulate 1000 sequences with and without gravitational radiation between encounters.
Pure Newtonian Sequences {#newt}
------------------------
Figure \[newtlife\]a shows the change of semimajor axis and pericenter distance as a function of time over the course of a typical Newtonian sequence. The encounters themselves take much less time then the period between encounters, so a binary spends virtually all its time waiting for an interloper. Most of the time in this example is spent hardening the orbit from $1{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{AU}}}$ to $0.4{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{AU}}}$ because as the binary shrinks, its cross-section decreases and the timescale to the next encounter increases. Figure \[newtlife\]b shows the same sequence plotted as a function of number of encounters. The semimajor axis decreases by a roughly constant factor with each encounter. This is expected for a hard binary, which, according to Heggie’s Law [@h75], tends to harden with each encounter at a rate independent of its hardness. The eccentricity and therefore the pericenter distance, $r_{p} = a\left(1-e\right)$, however, can change dramatically in a single encounter [for a discussion on eccentricity change of a binary in a cluster, see @hr96]. This sequence ends with a very high eccentricity ($e=0.968$), which reduces the merger time given by Eq. \[mergetime\] to less than $\tau_{\mathrm{enc}}$.
Table \[coreresults\] summarizes our main results and shows a number of interesting trends. The average number of encounters per sequence, $\left<n_{\mathrm{enc}}\right>$, increases with increasing mass ratio since the energy that the interloper can carry away scales as $\Delta
E / E\sim m_{1}/\left(m_{0} + m_{1}\right)$ [@q96] and since $n_{\mathrm{enc}} \sim E / \Delta E$ for a constant eccentricity. Energy conservation assures that every hardening event results in an increased relative velocity between the binary and the single black hole. If the velocity of the single black hole relative to the barycenter, and thus the globular cluster, is greater than the escape velocity of the cluster core [typically $v_{\mathrm{esc}} = 50
{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ for a dense cluster; see @w85], then the single mass will be ejected from the cluster. The average number of ejected masses per sequence, $\left<n_{\mathrm{ej}}\right>$, also increases with increasing mass ratio because the higher mass ratio sequences have a larger number of encounters and because the larger mass at a given semimajor axis has more energy for the interloper to tap. Conservation of momentum guarantees that when a mass is ejected from the cluster at very high velocity, the binary may also be ejected. Table \[coreresults\] lists $\left<f_{\mathrm{binej}}\right>$, the fraction of sequences that result in the ejection of the binary from the cluster. As expected, the fraction decreases sharply with increasing mass such that virtually none of the binaries with mass greater than $300~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ escape the cluster.
[rlrrrrrr]{} 10 & Newt. & 51.6 & 3.9 & 0.880 & 82.72 & 0.164 & 0.929\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**48.7**]{} & [**3.7**]{} & [**0.839**]{} & [**59.89**]{} & [**0.190**]{} & [**0.901**]{}\
20 & Newt. & 51.3 & 6.5 & 0.835 & 65.94 & 0.178 & 0.924\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**47.1**]{} & [**6.1**]{} & [**0.776**]{} & [**43.46**]{} & [**0.230**]{} & [**0.898**]{}\
30 & Newt. & 58.9 & 9.3 & 0.753 & 49.11 & 0.198 & 0.926\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**55.1**]{} & [**8.6**]{} & [**0.676**]{} & [**31.89**]{} & [**0.222**]{} & [**0.892**]{}\
50 & Newt. & 73.2 & 14.6 & 0.581 & 33.75 & 0.230 & 0.919\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**66.7**]{} & [**13.0**]{} & [**0.455**]{} & [**22.73**]{} & [**0.285**]{} & [**0.892**]{}\
100 & Newt. & 102.0 & 24.0 & 0.229 & 21.35 & 0.327 & 0.936\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**93.4**]{} & [**20.1**]{} & [**0.161**]{} & [**14.97**]{} & [**0.357**]{} & [**0.873**]{}\
200 & Newt. & 158.4 & 38.2 & 0.043 & 15.13 & 0.387 & 0.938\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**140.3**]{} & [**31.5**]{} & [**0.026**]{} & [**9.998**]{} & [**0.444**]{} & [**0.872**]{}\
300 & Newt. & 208.5 & 49.1 & 0.013 & 11.89 & 0.468 & 0.943\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**184.0**]{} & [**39.4**]{} & [**0.006**]{} & [**7.822**]{} & [**0.445**]{} & [**0.874**]{}\
500 & Newt. & 308.7 & 71.1 & 0.001 & 9.920 & 0.528 & 0.944\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**269.1**]{} & [**54.9**]{} & [**0**]{} & [**6.225**]{} & [**0.488**]{} & [**0.860**]{}\
1000 & Newt. & 562.4 & 117.3 & 0 & 7.363 & 0.641 & 0.953\
& [**GR Evol.**]{} & [**483.0**]{} & [**88.9**]{} & [**0**]{} & [**4.427**]{} & [**0.556**]{} & [**0.851**]{} \[coreresults\]
The shape and size of the orbit after its last encounter determine the dominant gravitational wave emission during the inspiral and are of particular interest to us. The distribution of pre-merger semimajor axes for all mass ratios is shown in Figure \[ahisto\]. The distributions all have a similar shape that drops off at low $a$ because the binary tends to merge before another encounter can harden it. For large orbits the binary will only merge for a high eccentricity, and thus there is a long tail in the histograms towards high $a$ from encounters that resulted in an extremely high eccentricity. The distributions for lower mass ratios are shifted to smaller $a$ because for a given orbit, a less massive binary will take longer to merge. This can also be seen in the mean final semimajor axis, $\left<a_{f}\right>$, in Table \[coreresults\].
Figure \[ehisto\] shows the distribution of binary eccentricities after the final encounter for one mass ratio. The plot is strongly peaked near $e=1$, a property shared by all other mass ratios. This distribution is definitely not thermal, which would have a mean eccentricity $\left<e\right>_{\mathrm{th}} \approx 0.7$. The high eccentricity before merger results from both the strong dependence of merger time on eccentricity and the fact that the eccentricity can change drastically in a single encounter (see Fig. \[newtlife\]). As the semimajor axis decreases by roughly the same fractional amount in each encounter, the eccentricity increases and decreases by potentially large amounts with each strong encounter. When the eccentricity happens to reach a large value, the binary will merge before the next encounter. Figure \[thermale\] shows the eccentricity distribution for all encounters after the first 10 for all 1000 sequences with a mass ratio of 1000:10:10. The distribution is roughly thermal up to high eccentricity where the binaries merge. Thus merger selectively removes high eccentricity binaries from a thermal distribution.
General Relativistic Binary Evolution {#grseq}
-------------------------------------
The addition of gravitational radiation between Newtonian encounters is expected to alter a sequence since it is an extra source of hardening and since it circularizes the binary. Figure \[grlife\] shows a typical sequence for the 1000:10:10 mass ratio including gravitational radiation. Three-body interactions drive the binary’s eccentricity up to $e=0.959$ and its semimajor axis down to $a=0.713{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{AU}}}$. Then starting at $t = 2.2\times 10^{6}~\mathrm{yr}$ over the course of about ten interactions that only weakly affect the eccentricity and semimajor axis, gravitational radiation causes the orbit to decay to $a=0.550{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{AU}}}$ and $e=0.946$ while the pericenter distance remains roughly constant. The corresponding semimajor axis change in the Newtonian only sequences in Figure \[newtlife\] takes 45 encounters and more than twice as long although one must be careful when comparing two individual sequences. Gravitational waves make the most difference when the pericenter distance is small, which is guaranteed at the end of a sequence, but can also happen in the middle as Figure \[grlife\] shows.
Table \[coreresults\] summarizes the effect of adding gravitational radiation. In general the effect is greater at higher masses because gravitational radiation is stronger for a given orbit. Because of the extra energy sink, the binaries merge with fewer encounters, fewer black holes are ejected, and the fraction of sequences in which a binary is ejected is smaller. The most dramatic change is in the duration of the sequence, which gravitational radiation reduces by 27% to 40%. The distributions of final semimajor axes (Fig. \[ahisto\]) and final eccentricities (Fig. \[ehisto\]) have similar shapes to the Newtonian only distributions. Due to the circularizing effect of gravitational radiation, binaries of all mass ratios merge with a smaller $\left<e_{f}\right>$ than Newtonian only sequences with the largest difference at high mass ratios. Gravitational radiation also produces a smaller $\left<a_{f}\right>$ for $m_{0} \ga 300~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$. This can be seen in Figure \[ahisto\] where the gravitational radiation simulations display an excess number of sequences with low $a_{f}$, which is a consequence of the binaries’ lower $e_{f}$.
Implications for IMBH Formation {#imbhformation}
===============================
We can use these simulations to test the @mh02 model of IMBH formation. We assume that a $50~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ seed black hole with a $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ companion will undergo repeated three-body encounters with $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ interloping black holes in a globular cluster with $v_{\mathrm{esc}}=50{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ and $n=10^{5}~\mathrm{pc}^{-3}$. We also assume that the density of the cluster core remains constant as the IMBH grows. We then test whether the model of @mh02 can build up to IMBH masses, which we take to be $10^{3}~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, 1) without ejecting too many black holes from the cluster, 2) without ejecting the IMBH from the cluster, and 3) within the lifetime of the globular cluster. We also test how these depend on escape velocity and seed mass.
If the number of black holes ejected is greater than the total number of black holes in the cluster core, then the IMBH cannot build up to the required mass by accreting black holes alone. To calculate the total number of black holes ejected while building up to large masses, we sum the average number of ejections using a linear interpolation of the values in Table \[coreresults\]. Assuming a cluster escape velocity of $v_{\mathrm{esc}} = 50{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$, we find that the total number of black holes ejected when building up to $1000~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ is approximately 6800 for our Newtonian only and 5300 for gravitational radiation simulations. This is far greater than the estimated $10^{2}$ to $10^{3}$ black holes available [@pzm00]. If there were initially one thousand $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black holes in the cluster, mergers of the massive black hole with a series of $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black holes would exhaust half of the black holes in $\sim 2.6 \times
10^{8}~\mathrm{yr}$ and would ultimately produce a $240~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black hole. Increasing the seed mass increases the final mass of the IMBH when half of the field black holes run out. If the seed mass were $100$, $200$, or $300~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, then the model would produce a $270$, $330$, or $410~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black hole after exhausting half of the cluster black hole population in $1.9$, $1.1$, or $0.8\times10^{8}~\mathrm{yr}$, respectively. Figure \[ejvm\] shows the number of black holes ejected as a function of initial black hole mass for a range of escape velocities. Growth times are much shorter than the $\sim 10^{9}~\mathrm{yr}$ necessary for stellar-mass black holes to eject each other from the cluster (@sh93 [@pzm00]; J. M. Fregeau, S. A. Rappaport, & V. Corless, in preparation; R. O’leary et al., in preparation). Therefore, self-depletion of stellar-mass black holes is not a limiting factor.
Of particular concern is whether the three-body scattering events will eject the binary from the cluster. The black hole can only merge with other black holes while it is in a dense stellar environment. The probability of remaining in the cluster after one sequence is $P = 1 -
\left<f_{\mathrm{binej}}\right>$. As can be seen in Table \[coreresults\], once the black hole has built up to $\sim
300~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, it is virtually guaranteed to remain in the cluster. When starting with 50 [$M_\odot$]{}, we calculate the total probability of building up to $300~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ to be 0.0356. Figure \[cumprob\] shows the probability of building up to $300~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ as a function of starting mass for different escape velocities for the gravitational radiation case. Table \[imbhtable\] lists probabilities for selected seed masses and escape velocities for the gravitational radiation case.
[ccccc]{} 50.0 & 40.0 & 0.00264 & 6414 & 7.06\
& 50.0 & 0.0356 & 5276 &\
& 60.0 & 0.129 & 4038 &\
& 70.0 & 0.269 & 3573 &\
100.0 & 40.0 & 0.0821 & 6312 & 6.15\
& 50.0 & 0.290 & 5188 &\
& 60.0 & 0.525 & 3963 &\
& 70.0 & 0.698 & 3606 &\
200.0 & 40.0 & 0.670 & 5995 & 4.93\
& 50.0 & 0.842 & 4922 &\
& 60.0 & 0.932 & 4077 &\
& 70.0 & 0.978 & 3417 &\
300.0 & 40.0 & 1.000 & 5561 & 4.05\
& 50.0 & 1.000 & 4564 &\
& 60.0 & 1.000 & 3777 &\
& 70.0 & 1.000 & 3164 & \[imbhtable\]
In a similar manner, we calculate the total time to build up to $1000~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, assuming that the supply of stellar-mass black holes and density remain constant, an assumption which leads to an underestimation of the time. While the time per merger is larger for the smaller masses, the total time is dominated at the higher masses since more mergers are needed for the same fractional increase in mass. For Newtonian only simulations the total time is $1.1\times10^{9}~\mathrm{yr}$, and for simulations with gravitational radiation the total time is $7.1\times10^{8}~\mathrm{yr}$. These are much less than the age of the host globular clusters. Figure \[timescale\] shows the time to reach a specified mass for both the Newtonian and gravitational radiation cases.
Although there is clearly enough time to build IMBHs as @mh02 propose, the issues of whether there are enough stellar-mass black holes and whether the cluster will hold onto the IMBH remain. The combination of an initial mass of $50~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and an escape velocity of $50{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ is not likely to produce an IMBH in a globular cluster through three-body interactions with $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black holes, but the general process could still produce IMBHs. @mh02 argued that a seed mass of 50$~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ would be retained, but for analytical simplicity they assumed that every encounter changed the semimajor axis by the same fractional amount $\left<\Delta a / a \right>$. Some encounters, however, can decrease the semimajor axis by several times the average value and thus impart much larger kicks. The authors therefore underestimated the minimum initial mass necessary to remain in the cluster. A hierarchical merging of stellar-mass black holes could, however, still produce an IMBH if 1) the initial mass of the black hole were were greater than $50~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, 2) the escape velocity of the cluster were greater than $50{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$, or 3) additional dynamics were involved. We consider each of these in turn.
If the mass of the initial black hole were, e.g., $250~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ before the onset of compact object dynamics, dynamical kicks would not be likely to eject the IMBH, and it would require fewer mergers to reach $1000~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and thus a smaller population of stellar mass black holes. The initial black hole could start with such a mass if it evolved from a massive Population III star or from a runaway collision of main sequence stars [@pzm02; @gfr04], or it could reach such a mass by accretion of young massive stars, which would be torn apart by tidal forces and impart little dynamical kick.
If the initial globular cluster mass is high enough (work by @m2etal01 indicate masses of $10^{7}~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ are available), then the cluster’s gravity may be strong enough to retain the gas normally expelled by the first generation of supernovae. If that increases the escape velocity to, e.g., $v_{\mathrm{esc}}=70{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$, the interactions result in a smaller fraction of ejected binaries. The probability of building from $50~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ to $1000~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ then increases by almost an order of magnitude.
In addition, processes with lower dynamical kicks could prevent ejection. One promising mechanism is the Kozai resonance [@k62; @mh02b]. If a stable hierarchical triple is formed, then resonant processes can pump up the inner binary’s eccentricity high enough so that it would quickly merge due to gravitational radiation and without any dynamical kick to eject the IMBH from the cluster. Two-body captures (captures in which an interloper passes close enough to the isolated IMBH that it becomes bound and merges due to gravitational radiation) would also result in mergers without dynamical kicks. Both Kozai-resonance-induced mergers and two-body captures are devoid of dynamical kicks, but they would suffer a gravitational radiation recoil. A system in which a $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black hole merges into a $130~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ non-rotating black hole would have a recoil velocity $20{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}\le v_{r} \le 200{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ [@fhh04]. Since $v_{r} \sim
\left(m_{1}/m_{0}\right)^{2}$, a merger between a $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black hole and a seed black hole of mass of $250~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, as discussed above, would experience a recoil velocity $\la 50{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$. Mergers with lower mass objects that are torn apart by tidal forces, such as white dwarfs, would receive no gravitational radiation recoil. Finally, a range of interloper masses instead of the simplified single mass population that we used here may also affect retention statistics since a smaller interloper would impart smaller kicks while still contributing to hardening.
Increasing the seed mass and the escape velocity will reduce the number of field black holes ejected but not by enough. As seen in Figure \[ejvm\], using a seed mass $m_{0} = 250~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ and an escape velocity $v_{\mathrm{esc}} = 70{\ensuremath{~\mathrm{km~s^{-1}}}}$ reduces the number of black holes ejected by 40%, but this is still several factors more than are available. The Kozai-resonance-induced mergers and two-body captures, however, are methods of merging without possibility of ejecting stellar-mass black holes. In order to reach our canonical $1000~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ intermediate mass while ejecting fewer than $10^{3}$ black holes, 70-80% of the mergers must come from these ejectionless methods.
Implications for Gravitational Wave Detection {#gwdetection}
=============================================
Our simulations make predictions interesting for gravitational wave detection. After the last encounter of a sequence, the binary will merge due to gravitational radiation. As the binary shrinks and circularizes, the frequency of the gravitational radiation emitted passes through the LISA band ($10^{-4}$ to $10^{0}~\mathrm{Hz}$) [@d00] and then through the bands of ground-based detectors such as LIGO, VIRGO, GEO-600, and TAMA ($10^{1}$ to $10^{3}~\mathrm{Hz}$) [@fetal97; @s98; @b00; @aetal02]. By the time the binaries are detectable by ground-based instruments, they will have completely circularized, but while in the LISA band, some will have measurable eccentricities. We calculate the distribution of eccentricities detectable by LISA by integrating Equations \[petersa\] and \[peterse\] until the orbital frequency reaches $\nu_{\mathrm{orb}} = 10^{-3}~\mathrm{Hz}$ at which point the gravitational wave frequency is in LISA’s most sensitive range and is above the expected white dwarf background. Figure \[lisafreq\] shows the distribution of eccentricities for binaries with gravitational radiation in the LISA band. There are more low eccentricities at higher mass ratios. This is because at low mass ratios each encounter takes a fractionally larger amount of energy away from the binary than at high mass ratios. Thus at low mass ratios, the last encounter will tend to harden the binary such that it is closer to merger. At high mass ratios, however, encounters take a smaller fractional amount of energy from the binary, and, thus, the high mass ratio binaries have more time to circularize more during their orbital decay. For the 1000:10:10 mass ratio, a large fraction of the eccentricities are in the range $0.1 \la e \la 0.2$ where the binary is eccentric enough to display general relativistic effects such as pericenter precession, but circular templates may be sufficient for initial detection of the gravitational wave. Finally, because the first few hundred million years of a cluster’s life witness a large number of mergers, recently formed and nearby super star clusters are promising sources of gravitational waves from IMBH coalescence.
Conclusions
===========
We present results of numerical simulations of sequences of binary-single black hole scattering events in a dense stellar environment. We simulate three-body encounters until the binary will merge due to gravitational radiation before the next encounter. In half of our simulations, we include the effect of gravitational radiation between encounters.
*1. Sequences of high mass ratio encounters.* Our simulations cover a range of mass ratios including those corresponding to IMBHs in stellar clusters. Because the binaries simulated are tightly bound, the encounters steadily shrink the binary’s semimajor axis until it merges. The eccentricity, however, jumps chaotically between high and low values over the course of a sequence. Merger usually occurs at high eccentricity since gravitational radiation is much stronger then.
*2. Gravitational wave emission between encounters.* The inclusion of gravitational radiation between encounters affects the simulations in several ways. The extra source of shrinking caused by gravitational wave emission has the effect of shortening the sequence in terms of both the number of encounters and the total time, and the circularization from gravitational waves has the effect of decreasing the final eccentricity of the binary before it merges.
*3. IMBH formation.* Our simulations directly test the IMBH formation model of @mh02. We find that there is sufficient time to build up to $1000~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ when starting from $50~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$, but our simulations also show that if there are a thousand $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black holes in the globular cluster, the seed black hole would only be able to grow to $240~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ before exhausting half of the black holes in the cluster. In addition, the probability of the binary’s remaining in the cluster during a growth from $50$ to $240~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ is small. In order to avoid ejection from the cluster with a reasonable probability, either the black hole must have a larger mass at the onset of dynamical encounters, the cluster’s escape velocity must be larger, or the black hole must grow by some additional mechanisms such as by Kozai-resonance-induced mergers, two-body captures, or from smaller interlopers.
*4. Gravitational wave detection.* The mergers of binary black hole systems are strong sources of detectable gravitational waves. We find that the merging binary will typically start with very high eccentricity. By the time the binary is detectable by the Advanced LIGO detector, it will have completely circularized, but when detectable by LISA, it may have moderate eccentricity ($0.1 \la e \la
0.2$) such that it will display general relativistic effects such as pericenter precession and still possibly be detectable with circular templates. We find a high rate of mergers in the first few hundred million years of a globular cluster. This suggests that recently formed, nearby super star clusters are promising sources for gravitational radiation from IMBH coalescence.
Further work in this study will be to include a distribution of interloper masses instead of a single population of $10~{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}$ black holes. A mass distribution of black holes is a more realistic model of a cluster core and could change the outcomes of the sequences. Exchanges will be more important since encounters with the more prevalent smaller black holes may do most of the hardening until a more massive black hole exchanges into the binary.
We thank J. M. Fregeau, F. A. Rasio, and S. Sigurdsson for helpful discussions and comments. We are also grateful for the hospitality of the Center for Gravitational Wave Physics in which many fruitful ideas were born. Many of the results in this paper were obtained using the Beowulf cluster of the University of Maryland department of astronomy. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-13229.
Ando, M. et al. 2002, Classical Quantum Gravity, 19, 1409
Angelini, L., Loewenstein, M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 2001, , 557, L35
Barish, B. C. 2000, Adv. Space Res., 25, 1165
Baumgardt, H., Makino, J., Hut, P., McMillan, S., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2003, , 589, L25
Colbert, E. J. M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1999, , 519, 89
Danzmann, K. 2000, Adv. Space Res., 25, 1129
Fabbiano, G., Schweizer, F., & Mackie, G. 1997, , 478, 542
Fabbiano, G., Zezas, A. L., & Murray, S. S. 2001, , 554, 1035
Favata, M., Hughes, S. A., & Holz, D. E. 2004 , submitted (astro-ph/0402056)
Fidecaro, F., et al. 1997, in Proc. 12th Italian Conf on General Relativity and Gravitational Physics, ed. M. Bassan, V. Ferrari, M. Francaviglia, F. Fucito, & I. Modena (River Edge: World Scientific), 163
Fregeau, J. M., Joshi, K. J., Portegies Zwart, S. F., Rasio, F. A. 2002, , 570, 171
Fullerton, L. W., & Hills, J. G. 1982, , 87, 175
Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, , 543, L5
Gebhardt, K., Rich, R. M., & Ho, L. C. , 578, L41
Gerssen, J., van der Marel, R. P., Gebhardt, K., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R. C., & Pryor, C. 2002, , 124, 3270
Gürkan, M. A., Freitag, M., & Rasio, F. A. 2004, , in press (astro-ph/0308449)
Heggie, D. C. 1975, , 173, 729
Heggie, D. C., Hut, P., & McMillan, S. L. W. 1996, , 467, 359
Heggie, D. C., & Rasio, F. A. 1996, , 282, 1064
Hut, P., & Bahcall, J. N. 1983, , 268, 319
Kaaret, P., Prestwich, A. H., Zezas, A., Murray, S. S., Kim, D.-W., Kilgard, R. E., Schelgel, E. M., & Ward, M. J. 2001, , 321, L29
Kozai, Y. 1962, , 67, 591
Madau, P., Rees, M. J. 2001, , 551, L27
Matsumoto, H., Tsuru, T. G., Koyama, K., Awaki, H., Canizares, C. R., Kawai, N., Matsushita, S., & Kawabe, R. 2001, , 547, L25
Meylan, G., Sarajedini, A., Jablonka, P., Djorgovski, S. G., Bridges, T., & Rich, R. M. 2001 , 122, 830
Miller, M. C., & Hamilton, D. P. 2002, , 330, 232
Miller, M. C., & Hamilton, D. P. 2002, , 576, 894
Peters, P. C. 1964, Phys. Rev. B, 136, 1224
Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2000, , 528, L17
Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2002, , 576, 899
Quinlan, G. 1996, New Astronomy, 1, 35
Schilling, R. 1998, in AIP Conf. Proc. 456, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Second International *LISA* Symp., ed. W. M. Folkner (New York:AIP), 217
Schneider, R., Ferrara, A., Natarajan, P., & Omukai, K. 2002, , 571, 30
Sigurdsson, S., & Hernquist, L. 1993, Nature, 364, 423
Sigurdsson, S., & Phinney, E. S. 1993, , 415, 631
Sigurdsson, S., & Phinney, E. S. 1995, , 99, 609
van der Marel, R. P. 2003 Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L. C. Ho (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press
van der Marel, R. P., Gerssen, J., Guhathakurta, P., Peterson, R. C., & Gebhardt, K. 2002, , 124, 3255
Webbink, R. F. 1985, in Dynamics of Star Clusters, IAU Symposium 113, ed. J. Goodman & P. Hut (Dordrecht:Reidel), 541
[^1]: See http://janus.astro.umd.edu/HNBody/.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Ulrich Bunke, Thomas Schick and Markus Spitzweck [^1]'
title: 'Sheaf theory for stacks in manifolds and twisted cohomology for $S^1$-gerbes'
---
Introduction
============
About the motivation
--------------------
###
Given a closed three form $\lambda\in \Omega^3(X)$ on a smooth manifold $X$, the usual definition of twisted de Rham cohomology is as the cohomology of the two-periodic complex $(\Omega^\bullet_{per}(X),d_\lambda)$, where $$\Omega^\bullet_{per}(X):=\bigoplus_{n\in {\mathbb{Z}}}\Omega^{\bullet+2n}(X)\ ,\quad \mbox{and}\quad d_\lambda:=d_{dR}+\lambda$$ is the sum of the de Rham differential and the multiplication operator by the form $\lambda$.
###
Twisted de Rham cohomology is in particular interesting as a target of the Chern character from twisted $K$-theory. In this case $[\lambda]\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ is the real image of an integral class $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}(P)\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ which classifies a principal bundle $P\to X$ with structure group $PU$, the projective unitary group of a complex infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space. The twisted $K$-theory depends functorially on $P$ in a non-trivial manner.
The twisted cohomology as defined above depends on the cohomology class $[\lambda]$ up to (in general) non-canonical isomorphism. The draw-back of this definition of twisted cohomology above is that it is not functorial in the twist $P\to X$ of $K$-theory since there no canonical choice of a three-form $\lambda$ representing the image of $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}(P)$ in real cohomology.
###
The main goal of the present note is to propose an alternative functorial definition of the twisted cohomology as the real cohomology of a stack $G_P$ which is canonically associated to the $PU$-bundle $P\to X$. The stack $G_P$ is the stack of $U$-liftings of $P\to X$, where $U$ is the unitary group of the Hilbert space and $U\to PU$ is the canonical projection map. It is also called the lifting gerbe of $P$.
In order to define the cohomology of a stack like $G_P$ we develop a sheaf theory set-up for stacks in smooth manifolds. Our main result Theorem \[main\] is the key step in the verification that the cohomology according to the new sheaf-theoretic definition is essentially isomorphic (non-canonically) to the twisted cohomology as defined above.
We have chosen to work with stacks in smooth manifolds since we are heading towards a comparison with de Rham cohomology. A parallel theory can be set up in the topological context. Together with applications to $T$-duality and delocalized cohomology it will be discussed in detail in the subsequent papers [@bss1] and [@bssm].
###
In [@MR2172499; @math.DG/0605694], a different version of sheaf theory and cohomology of stacks is developed. Already the site associated to a stack in these papers is different from ours, as we will discuss later (compare \[site-comp\]). But, there is a comparison map which in the situations we are interested in (in particular for constant sheaves and the de Rham sheaf) induces an isomorphism in cohomology.
We have to develop our own version of sheaf theory and sheaf cohomology for stacks, because our argument heavily relies on functorial constructions associated to maps between stacks. This calculus has not been developed in the references above.
###
The twists for our new cohomology theory are smooth gerbes $G\to X$ with band $U(1)$. The lifting gerbe $G_P\to X$ of a $PU$-bundle mentioned above is an example. Advantages of our new definition are:
1. The twisted cohomology depends functorially on the twist.
2. One can define twisted cohomology with coefficients in an arbitrary abelian group.
3. The definition can easily be generalized to the topological context.
###
In Subsection \[rtrt1\] we give a complete technical statement of our main result written for a reader familar with the language of stacks, sites, and sheaf theory. The third part of the introduction, Subsection \[se3\], is devoted to a detailed motivation with references to the literature and a less technical introduction of the language and the description of the result. Finally, Subsection \[introsch\] is an introduction to the technical sheaf theoretic part of the present paper.
Statement of the main result {#rtrt1}
----------------------------
###
We consider a stack $G$ on the category of smooth manifolds equipped with the usual topology of open coverings. To $G$ we associate a site ${\mathbf{G}}$ as a subcategory of manifolds over $G$. The objects of this site are representable smooth maps $U\rightarrow G$ from smooth manifolds to $G$. A covering $(U_i\rightarrow U)_{i\in I}$ is a collection of morphisms which are submersions and such that $\sqcup_{i\in I}U_i\rightarrow U$ is surjective (see \[site33\] for a precise definition).
###
To the site ${\mathbf{G}}$ we associate the categories of presheaves $\Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ and sheaves ${{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$ of sets as well as the lower bounded derived categories $D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}} {\mathbf{G}})$ and $D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$ of the abelian categories $\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ and ${{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ of presheaves and sheaves of abelian groups.
###
Let $i:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ be the natural inclusion, and let $i^\sharp:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow {{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$ be its left adjoint, the sheafification functor. As a right adjoint the functor $i$ is left exact and admits a right derived functor $Ri:D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})\to D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})$.
###
If $G\rightarrow X$ is a morphism of stacks, then we define a functor $f_*:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{X}}$. Note that if $f$ is not representable, then this map is not associated to a map of sites. If $F\in \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ and $(U\rightarrow X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$, then we set (see \[dd3\]) $$f_*(U):=\lim F(V)\ ,$$ where the limit is taken over the category of diagrams $$\xymatrix{V\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&X}\ .$$ It turns out that $f_*$ admits a left adjoint. Therefore it is left exact and admits a right derived functor $Rf_*:D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$.
### {#oldes}
Let $f:G\rightarrow X$ be a smooth gerbe with band $S^1$ over the smooth manifold $X$. We consider the sheafification $i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$ of the constant presheaf ${\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$ on ${\mathbf{G}}$ with value ${\mathbb{R}}$. Our main result describes $$i^\sharp \circ Rf_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})\in D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$$ in terms of a deformation of the de Rham complex.
The gerbe $f:G\rightarrow X$ is classified by a Dixmier-Douday class $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$. Let $\lambda\in \Omega^3(X)$ be a closed form such that $ [\lambda]\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ represents the image of $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}$ under $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})\rightarrow H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$.
For a manifold $X$ the objects $(U,p)$ of the site ${\mathbf{X}}$ are submersions $p:U\rightarrow X$ from smooth manifolds $U$ to $X$. This differs from the usual convention, where the site is the category of open subsets of $X$.
We form the complex of presheaves $(U,p)\mapsto \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(U,p)$ on ${\mathbf{X}}$, which associates to $(U,p)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ the complex of formal power series of smooth real differential forms on $U$ with differential $$d_\lambda:=d_{dR}+T\lambda\ ,$$ where $z$ is a formal variable of degree $2$, $T:=\frac{d}{dz}$, $d_{dR}$ is the de Rham differential, and $\lambda$ stands for multiplication by $p^*\lambda$. It turns out that this is actually a complex of sheaves (see Lemma \[resd97\]).
### {#section-10}
The main result of the present paper is the following theorem.
\[main\] In $D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$ we have an isomorphism $i^\sharp \circ Rf_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})\cong \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda$.
### {#section-11}
The projection map $f:G\rightarrow X$ of a gerbe is not representable so that $f_*:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{X}}$ does not come from an associated map of sites. Therefore, in order to define $Rf_*$ and to verify the theorem we have to develop some standard elements of sheaf theory for stacks in smooth manifolds. This is the contents of Section \[se1\] (see \[introsch\] for an introduction). In Section \[se2\] we verify Theorem \[main\].
Twisted cohomology and gerbes {#se3}
-----------------------------
### {#section-12}
A closed three-form $\lambda\in \Omega^3(X)$ on a smooth manifold $X$ can be used to perturb the de Rham differential $$d_{dR}\:\:\:\\\leadsto\:\:\: d_{dR}+\lambda=:d_\lambda\ .$$ The cohomology of the two-periodic complex $$\dots\stackrel{d_\lambda}{\rightarrow} \Omega^{even}(X) \stackrel{d_\lambda}{\rightarrow} \Omega^{odd}(X)\stackrel{d_\lambda}{\rightarrow} \Omega^{even}(X)\stackrel{d_\lambda}{\rightarrow}\dots$$ is called the $\lambda$-twisted cohomology of $X$ and often denoted by $H^*(X;\lambda)$. This ad-hoc definition appears in various places in the recent mathematical literature (let us mention just [@math.KT/0510674], [@MR1911247], [@MR1977885], [@MR2080959]) and in the physics literature. A closely related and essentially equivalent definition [@math.KT/0404329] uses the complex $(\Omega^\cdot(X)((u)),d_{dR}-u\lambda)$, where $u$ is a formal variable of degree $-2$, and $''((u))''$ stands for formal Laurent series.
### {#section-13}
It is known that the isomorphism class of the $\lambda$-twisted cohomology group only depends on the cohomology class $[\lambda]\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$. If $f:Y\rightarrow X$ is a smooth map, then we have a functorial map $f^*:H^*(X;\lambda)\rightarrow H^*(Y;f^*\lambda)$ which essentially only depends on the homotopy class of $f$. Furthermore, $\lambda$-twisted cohomology has a Mayer-Vietoris sequence and is a module over $H^*(X;{\mathbb{R}})$. It now appears as a natural question to understand $\lambda$-twisted cohomology as a concept of algebraic topology.
### {#section-14}
One attempt is the approach of [@math.AT/0206257] in which the complex of smooth differential forms is replaced by similar objects in algebraic topology.
The proposal of [@math.KT/0510674] to use the singular de Rham complex goes into the same direction. Observe that we can use the filtration of $\Omega^{ev}(X)$ and $\Omega^{odd}(X)$ by degree in order to construct a spectral sequence converging to $H^*(X;\lambda)$. Its $E_2$-page involves $H^{*}(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ (as ${\mathbb{Z}}/2{\mathbb{Z}}$-graded vector spaces). The next possibly non-trivial differential of this spectral sequence is the multiplication by the class $[\lambda]$. In [@math.KT/0510674] the higher differentials of this spectral sequence are identified as Massey products.
### {#section-15}
A natural homotopy theoretic framework for twisted cohomology theories would be some version of parametrized stable homotopy theory as developed e.g. in [@math.AT/0411656]. In such a theory a twist of a generalized cohomology theory (represented by a spectrum $E$) is a parametrized spectrum ${\mathcal{E}}$ over $X$ with typical fibre equivalent to $E$ (think of a bundle of spectra). The twisted cohomology groups $H^*(X;{\mathcal{E}})$ are then given by the homotopy groups of the spectrum of sections of ${\mathcal{E}}$. In order to interpret $\lambda$-twisted cohomology in this manner one would have to relate three-forms on $X$ with parametrized versions of the Eilenberg-MacLane spectrum $H{\mathbb{R}}$.
Let us mention that alternatively to [@math.AT/0411656] other reasonable versions of a stable homotopy theory over $X$ could be based on presheaves of spectra over $X$ or $\Omega(X)$-equivariant spectra, where $\Omega(X)$ denotes the based loops of $X$.
### {#section-16}
One motivation for introducing $\lambda$-twisted cohomology is based on the fact that it can be used as a target of the Chern character from twisted $K$-theory. It is known that $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ classifies a certain subset of isomorphisms classes of parametrized spectra ${\mathcal{K}}$ with fibre equivalent to the complex $K$-theory spectrum $K$. This follows from the splitting $BGL_1(K)\cong K({\mathbb{Z}},3)\wedge T$. Here $GL_1(K)$ denotes the grouplike monoid of units of the $K$-theory spectrum, $K({\mathbb{Z}},3)$ denotes an Eilenberg-MacLane space, and $T$ is an auxiliary space. We refer to [@MR0494077] for more details. Chern characters are constructed in [@MR1911247], [@math.KT/0510674], [@MR1977885], [@math.KT/0404329]. Note that in these works twisted $K$-theory is not defined in homotopy theoretic terms but using sections in bundles of Fredholm operators, bundle gerbe modules or $K$-theory of $C^*$-algebras. If $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ classifies the parametrized $K$-theory spectrum ${\mathcal{K}}$, then the Chern character has values in $H^*(X;\lambda)$, where $[\lambda]$ is the image of $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}$ under the map $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})\rightarrow H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$. Such a definition can not be natural since in general ${\mathcal{K}}$ has non-trivial automorphisms which are not reflected by $H^3(X;\lambda)$.
A completely natural definition of a Chern character with values even in a twisted rational cohomology could be induced from the canonical rationalization map ${\mathcal{K}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{K}}_{\mathbb{Q}}$ if we like to define twisted rational cohomology using ${\mathcal{K}}_{\mathbb{Q}}$.
### {#section-17}
Above we have seen that $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ classifies a subset of the isomorphism classes of parametrized $K$-theory spectra over $X$. This can in fact be seen directly. Let $U$ be the unitary group of a separable infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space. Equipped with the topology induced by the operator norm it is a topological group. By Kuiper’s theorem it is contractibe so that the projective unitary group $PU:=U/U(1)$ has the homotopy type of $BU(1)\cong K({\mathbb{Z}},2)$. Taking the classifying space once more we have $BPU\cong K({\mathbb{Z}},3)$. This shows that $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ classifies isomorphism classes of $PU$-principal bundles over $X$. One can now manufacture a $PU$-equivariant version of a $K$-theory spectrum $K$ (see e.g. [@MR2122155]). If $P\rightarrow X$ is a $PU$-principal bundle, then one can define the bundle of spectra ${\mathcal{K}}:=P\times_{PU} K$ over $X$. Alternatively one could construct twisted $K$-theory starting from a bundle of projective Hilbert spaces as in [@MR2172633]. As a result of this discussion one should consider $PU$-principal bundles as more primary objects.
### {#rrtp}
The theory of bundle gerbes initiated in [@MR1405064] and continued in [@MR1794295] aims at a categorification of $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ in a similar manner as $U(1)$-principal bundles categorify $H^2(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$. The $PU$-principal bundles considered above are particularly nice examples of bundle gerbes. Other examples of bundle gerbes are introduced in [@MR1876068]. In order to simplify we forget the smooth structure of $X$ for the moment and work in the category of topological spaces.
Let us represent $X$ as a moduli space of a groupoid $A^1\Rightarrow A^0\rightarrow X$ in topological spaces, i.e. we represent $X$ as the quotient of the space of objects $A^0$ by the equivalence relation $A^1$. In addition we shall assume that the range and source maps have local sections. Then a bundle gerbe is the same as a central $U(1)$-extension $$\xymatrix{U(1)\ar[d]&&\\ \tilde A^1\ar@{=>}[r]\ar[d]& A^0\ar@{=}[d]&\\A^1\ar@{=>}[r]&A^0\ar[r]&X}$$ of topological groupoids.
In order to relate the $PU$-principal bundle $P\rightarrow X$ with a bundle gerbe we represent $X$ as the moduli space of the action groupoid $P\times PU\Rightarrow P\rightarrow X$. The central $U(1)$-central extension of this groupoid is given by $P\times U\Rightarrow P$.
### {#section-18}
The picture of a gerbe in [@MR1876068] is obtained by choosing an open covering $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ of $X$ and forming the representation $$\bigsqcup_{i,j}U_i\cap U_j\Rightarrow \bigsqcup_{i\in I} U_i\rightarrow X\ .$$ The data of a $U(1)$-central extension of this groupoid is equivalent to transition line bundle data and trivializations over triple intersection considered in [@MR1876068].
One can build a two-category of topological groupoids by inverting Morita equivalence such that equivalence classes of $U(1)$-central extensions of groupoids representing $X$ are indeed classified by $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ (see e.g. [@math.KT/0306138]).
### {#section-19}
A more natural view on this category of groupoids is through stacks on topological spaces ${{\tt Top}}$. We consider ${{\tt Top}}$ as a Grothendieck site where covering families are given by coverings by families of open subspaces.
Note that groupoids form a two-category. A stack $G$ on ${{\tt Top}}$ can be viewed as an object which associates to each space $U\in {{\tt Top}}$ a groupoid $G(U)$, to a morphism $U^\prime\rightarrow U$ a homomorphism of groupoids $G(U)\rightarrow G(U^\prime)$, to a chain of composable morphisms $$\xymatrix{U^{\prime\prime}\ar[dr]\ar[rr]&&U\\
&U^\prime\ar[ur]&}$$ a two-isomorphism $$\xymatrix{G(U)\ar[dr]\ar[rr]&&G(U^{\prime\prime})\\
&G(U^\prime)\ar[ur]\ar@{=>}[u]&}$$ satisfying a natural associativity relation, and such that $G$ satisfies descent conditions for the covering families of $U$. Precise definitions can be found e.g. in [@math.AG/0503247], [@heinloth], [@MR1197353]. A space $V\in {{\tt Top}}$ can be viewed as a stack by the Yoneda embedding such that $V(U)={{\tt Hom}}_{{{\tt Top}}}(U,V)$ (where we consider sets as groupoids with only identity morphisms).
### {#lg}
As an illustration we explain a canonical construction which associates to a $PU$-principal bundle $P\rightarrow X$ over a space $X$ a stack $G_P$ together with a map $G_P\to X$. It will be called the lifting gerbe of $P$.
Observe that $U$ acts on $P$ via the canonical homomorphims $U\to PU$. For a space $T\in {{\tt Top}}$ the objects of the groupoid $G_P(T)$ are the diagrams $$\xymatrix{Q\ar[r]\ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
T\ar[r]&X}\ ,$$ where $Q\to T$ is a $U$-principal bundle, and $Q\to P$ is $U$-equivariant.
A morphism between two such objects $$\xymatrix{Q\ar[r]\ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
T\ar[r]&X}\ ,\quad \xymatrix{Q^\prime \ar[r]\ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
T\ar[r]&X}\ ,$$ is an isomorphism of $U$-principal bundles $Q\to Q^\prime$ over $T$ which is compatible with the maps to $P$.
Finally, for a map $T^\prime\to T$ the functor $G_P(f):G_P(T)\to G_P(T^\prime)$ maps the object $$\xymatrix{Q\ar[r]\ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
T\ar[r]&X}\in G_P(T)$$ to the induced diagram $$\xymatrix{T^\prime\times_T Q \ar[r]\ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
T^\prime\ar[r]&X}\in G_P(T^\prime)\ ,$$ and a morphism $Q\to Q^\prime$ to the induced morphism $T^\prime\times_TQ\to T^\prime\times_TQ^\prime$. We leave it as an exercise to check that this presheaf of groupoids is a stack.
The morphism $G_P\to X$ maps the object $$\xymatrix{Q\ar[r]\ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
T\ar[r]&X}\in G_P(T)$$ to the underlying map $T\to X$ which is considered as an element of $X(T)$.
### {#section-20}
A diagram of $PU$-principal bundles $$\xymatrix{P\ar[r]\ar[d]&P^\prime\ar[d]\\X\ar[r]&X^\prime}$$ functorially induces a diagram of stacks $$\xymatrix{G_P\ar[r]\ar[d]&G_{P^\prime}\ar[d]\\X\ar[r]&X^\prime}$$ in the obvious way.
### {#section-21}
A topological groupoid $A:A^1\Rightarrow A^0$ represents a stack $[A^1/A^0]$ on topological spaces. It associates to each space $U$ the groupoid $[A^0/A^1](U)={{\tt Hom}}(U,[A^0/A^1])$ of $A$-principal bundles on $X$ and isomorphisms (see [@heinloth]). A morphism of groupoids gives rise via an associated bundle construction to a map of stacks. As discussed in [@MR1401424] one can embed in this way the two-category of topological groupoids (with Morita equivalence inverted) mentioned at the end of \[rrtp\] as a full subcategory of stacks on ${{\tt Top}}$. The image of this embedding consists of topological stacks $G$, i.e. stacks which admit an atlas $A^0\rightarrow G$.
An atlas is a surjective representable morphism $A^0\rightarrow G$ admitting local sections, where $A^0$ is a space. Given an atlas of $G$ we can construct a groupoid $A^1\Rightarrow A^0$. The morphism space of the groupoid is given by $A^1:=A^0\times_GA^0$. We then have an equivalence of stacks $[A^0/A^1]\cong G$.
A map of stacks $G\rightarrow H$ is called representable if for any map $U\rightarrow H$ with $U$ a space $U\times_HG$ is equivalent to a space. The representability condition on $A^0\rightarrow G$ ensures that $A^1:=A^0\times_GA^0$ is a space.
### {#atla}
The lifting gerbe $G_P$ of a $PU$-principal bundle \[lg\] is a topological stack. In order to construct an atlas we choose a covering of $X$ by open subsets on which $P$ is trivial. Let $A$ be the disjoint union of the elements of the convering, and $A\to X$ be the canonical map. By choosing local trivializations we obtain the lift in the diagram $$\xymatrix{&P\ar[d]\\A\ar[r]\ar@{.>}^s[ur]^s&X}\ .$$ We now consider the diagram $$\xymatrix{A\times U\ar[r]^\phi \ar[d]&P\ar[d]\\
A\ar[r]&X}\in G_P(A)\ ,$$ where $\phi(a,u):=s(a)\bar u$ and $\bar u$ denotes the image of $u\in U$ under $U\to PU$. We consider this object as a morphism $A\to G_P$. We leave it as an exercise to verify that this map is an atlas.
### {#gerbw}
A morphism of stacks $G\rightarrow X$ with $X$ a space is a topological gerbe with band $U(1)$ if there exists an atlas $A\rightarrow X$, a lift $$\label{sswa}\xymatrix{&G\ar[d]\\A\ar[r]\ar@{.>}[ur]&X}$$ to an atlas of $G$ such that $$\xymatrix{U(1)\ar[d]&&\\ A\times_GA\ar@{=>}[r]\ar[d]& A\ar@{=}[d]&\\A\times_XA\ar@{=>}[r]&A\ar[r]&X}$$ is a $U(1)$-extension of topological groupoids. In particular, the bundle gerbes considered in \[rrtp\] give rise to topological gerbes with band $U(1)$. For equivalent definitions see [@math.AG/0503247], [@heinloth]. The definition of a gerbe in [@MR1197353] is slightly more general since the existence of an atlas is not required.
### {#section-22}
The lifting gerbe $G_P\to X$ constructed in \[lg\] is a topological gerbe with band $U(1)$. In fact, the construction \[atla\] produces the lift (\[sswa\]).
### {#section-23}
In the definitions above the Grothendieck site ${{\tt Top}}$ can be replaced by the Grothendieck site of smooth manifolds ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$. In this site the covering families are again coverings by families of open submanifolds.
Stacks on ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$ are called stacks in smooth manifolds. If $G$ is a stack in smooth manifolds, then an atlas $A\to G$ is a map of stacks which is representable and smooth, i.e. for any map $T\to G$ from a smooth manifold $T$ to $G$ the induced map $T\times_GA\to A$ is a submersion of manifolds. A stack in smooth manifolds which admits an atlas will then be called smooth.
### {#section-24}
Let $Y\rightarrow X$ be a map of manifolds. It is representable as a map between stacks in smooth manifolds if for any map $Z\rightarrow X$ the fibre product $Z\times_XY$ exists as a manifold. Submersions between manifolds are representable maps.[^2]
### {#section-25}
We come to the conclusion that a basic object classified by $\lambda_{\mathbb{Z}}\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})$ is the equivalence class of a smooth gerbe $f:G\rightarrow X$ with band $U(1)$. Instead of going the way through some version of parametrized stable homotopy theory it now seems natural to define a real cohomology twisted by $G$ directly using a suitable sheaf theory on stacks. A natural candidate would be something like $H^*(X;G):=H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}}):=H^*(G;i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G)$, where $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G$ is the sheafification of the constant presheaf with value ${\mathbb{R}}$, and $H^*(\dots,i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G)$ is defined using the derived global sections, or the derived $p_*$, where $p:G\rightarrow *$ is the projection to a point. In fact, if $G$ would be a manifold, then the sheaf theoretic $H^*(G,i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_G)$ would be isomorphic to the de Rham cohomology of the manifold $G$, and therefore to the topologist’s $H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}})$.
To proceed in the case of stacks we must clarify what we mean by a sheaf on $G$, and how we define $p_*$. The construction of $H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}})$ will be finalized in Definition \[cogo\]. In order to define sheaves and presheaves on $G$ we associate in \[thesite\] to $G$ a Grothendieck site ${\mathbf{G}}$. The notions of presheaves and sheaves on a site are the standard ones.
### {#section-26}
To define cohomology for stacks one can use different sites. The choices in [@math.DG/0605694] and [@heinloth] differ from our choice, but we indicate that the resulting cohomologies can be compared and are isomorphic (\[site-comp\]). One of our main aims is to study the functorial properties of the derived categories of sheaves attached to the sites ${\mathbf{G}}$, the functoriality is used here and in subsequent work, in particular in [@bssm], where we use functoriality to obtain a periodization with good properties of ordinary cohomology on stacks.
### {#section-27}
So, if $f:G\rightarrow X$ is a morphism of stacks, then we are interested in functors $f_*,f^*$. Such operations are usually obtaind from some induced morphisms of sites $f^\sharp:{\mathbf{X}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{G}}$. In fact, this works well for representable morphisms. But in the case of a gerbe $f:G\rightarrow X$ neither $f$ nor $p:G\rightarrow *$ are representable. We will define $f_*$ and $p_*$ in an ad-hoc way. The same problem with a similar solution also occurs in algebro-geometric set-ups, see e.g. [@MR1771927]. Because of this ad-hoc definitions we must redevelop some of the basic material of sheaf theory in order to check that the expected properties hold in the present set-up. For details we refer to the introduction \[introsch\] to sheaf theory part of the present paper.
### {#section-28}
After the development of elements of sheaf theory on smooth stacks we can define $$H^*(X;G):=H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}}):=H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ Rp_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G))\ ,$$ where $i:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ is the embedding of sheaves into presheaves, the sheafification functor $i^\sharp:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is the left adjoint of $i$, and the exact functor $${{\tt ev}}:{\Pr}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{{\tt Site}}(*)\rightarrow {{\tt Ab}}$$ evaluates a presheaf of abelian groups on the object $(*\rightarrow *)\in {{\tt Site}}(*)$. This last evaluation is necessary since our site is the big site of $*$ consisting of all smooth manifolds. As the notation suggests we view this as the cohomology of $X$ twisted by the gerbe $G$.
### {#section-29}
This definition is natural in $G$. If $u:G^\prime\rightarrow G$ is a smooth map of stacks, then by Lemma \[pulb\] we have a functorial map $$u^*:H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}})\rightarrow H^*(G^\prime;{\mathbb{R}})$$ since there is a canonical isomorphism $u^*i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G\cong i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{G^\prime}$. In particular, $H^*(X;G)$ carries the action of the automorphisms of the gerbe $G\rightarrow X$. One can define the map $u^*$ without the assumption that $u$ is smooth, but then the argument is more complicated, see [@bss1].
### {#section-30}
The natural question is now how the $\lambda$-twisted de Rham cohomology $H^*(X;\lambda)$ and $H^*(X;G)$ are related. The main step in this relation is provided by Theorem \[main\]. Using this result in the isomorphism $\stackrel{!}{\cong}$ and the projection $q:X\rightarrow *$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
H^*(X;G)&=& H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ Rp_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp R_G))\\
&\cong&H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ R(q\circ f)_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp R_G))\\
&\stackrel{(**)}{\cong}& H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ Rq_*\circ Rf_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G))\\
&\stackrel{(*)}{\cong} & H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ Rq_*\circ Ri\circ i^\sharp\circ Rf_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G))\\
&\stackrel{!}{\cong}&
H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ Rq_*\circ Ri(\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda))\\
&\stackrel{(****)}{\cong}&H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ R(q_*\circ i)(\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda))\\
&\stackrel{(***)}{\cong}&H^*({{\tt ev}}\circ q_*\circ i(\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda))\\
&= &H^*(\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X))\ .\end{aligned}$$ In order to justify the isomorphism $(*)$ we use Lemma \[shpre\] which says that $f_*$ preserves sheaves. The isomorphism $(**)$ follows from Lemma \[rcompo\] since $f$ is smooth. For $(****)$ we use Lemma \[ddddw\]. Finally, $(***)$ follows from Lemma \[klom\] and the fact that $\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda$ is a complex of flabby sheaves (see \[flabbydef\]).
Note that the isomorphism $\stackrel{!}{\cong}$ depends on additional choices.
### {#section-31}
It remains to relate the cohomology of the complex $(\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X),d_\lambda)$ (see \[oldes\]) with $H^*(X;\lambda)$. Let $$\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)^{p}\subset \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)$$ be the subset of polynomials $\sum_{2n+k=p} z^n \omega^k$ with $\omega^k\in \Omega^k(X)$. Then we have $d_\lambda:\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)^{p}\rightarrow \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)^{p+1}$. For $p> 0$ we construct morphisms $\psi_{p}$ such that the following diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{\dots\ar[r]&\Omega^{odd}(X)\ar[d]^{\psi_{2p-1}}\ar[r]^{d_\lambda}&\Omega^{even}(X)\ar[d]^{\psi_{2p}}\ar[r]^{d_\lambda}&\Omega^{odd}(X)\ar[d]^{\psi_{2p+1}}\ar[r]^{d_\lambda}&\dots\\
\dots\ar[r]&\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)^{2p-1}\ar[r]^{d_\lambda}&\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)^{2p}\ar[r]^{d_\lambda}&\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)^{2p+1}\ar[r]^{d_\lambda}&\dots}$$ In fact, for $e=0,1$ and $\omega=\sum_{i=0}^\infty \omega^{e+2i}$ we define $$\psi_{2p+e}(\omega):=\sum_{i=0}^{[\frac{p}{2}]} \frac{z^{p-i} \omega^{e+2i}}{(p-i)!}\ .$$ If $p>\dim(X)$, then $\psi_p$ is an isomorphism. Therefore for large $p$ the isomorphisms $\psi_p$ induce embeddings $H^*(X;\lambda)\hookrightarrow H^*(X;G)$. In this way $H^*(X;G)$ is a replacement of $H^*(X;\lambda)$ with good functorial properties.
### {#section-32}
The definition of real cohomology of $X$ twisted by a gerbe as $$H^*(X;G):=H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}})$$ has a couple of additional interesting features.
1. First of all note that ${\mathbb{R}}$ is a commutative ring. Therefore $H^*(X;G)$ has naturally the structure of a graded commutative ring. In the old picture this structure seems to be partially reflected by the product $$H^*(X;a\lambda)\otimes H^*(X;b\lambda)\rightarrow H^*(X;(a+b)\lambda)\ .$$
2. One can replace ${\mathbb{R}}$ by any other abelian group. In particular, one can define integral twisted cohomology by $H^*(X;G;{\mathbb{Z}}):=H(G;{\mathbb{Z}})$. This definition of an integral twisted cohomology proposes a solution to the question raised in the remark made in [@math.KT/0510674 Sec. 6]. Using the maps $\psi_p$ introduced above we can identify the image of $H^*(X;G;{\mathbb{Z}})\rightarrow H^*(X;G)$ as a lattice in $H^*(X;\lambda)$. The result depends on the choice of $p$, and in view of the denominators in the formula for $\psi_p$ the position of lattice is not very obvious.
3. In the proof of Theorem \[main\] we construct a de Rham model for the cohomology of $H^*(G;{\mathbb{R}})$. Let $\Omega_G^{< p}$ be the sheaf of de Rham complexes truncated at $p-1$ and form the sheaf of Deligne complexes ${\mathcal{H}}(p-1)_G:=(i^\sharp {\mathbb{Z}}_{G}\rightarrow \Omega_G^{<p})$, where $i^\sharp {\mathbb{Z}}_{G}$ sits in degree $-1$. We can then define the real Deligne cohomology $\hat H^p(G;{\mathbb{Z}})$ of $G$ as the $(p-1)$-st hypercohomology of the complex ${\mathcal{H}}_G(p-1)$ (see [@MR1197353] for a definition of Deligne cohomology for manifolds in a similar fashion).
Sheaf theory for smooth stacks {#introsch}
------------------------------
### {#section-33}
This subsection is the introduction to the sheaf theoretic part of the paper. We consider a smooth stack $X$. In order to define the notion of a sheaf on $X$ we associate to $X$ a Grothendieck site ${\mathbf{X}}$. In this paper we adopt the convention of [@MR1317816] that a site consists of a category ${\mathbf{X}}$ and the choice of covering families ${{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{X}}(U)$ for the objects $U\in {\mathbf{X}}$. Presheaves on ${\mathbf{X}}$ are just contravariant set-valued functors on ${\mathbf{X}}$. A sheaf on ${\mathbf{X}}$ is a presheaf which satisfies a descent condition with respect to the covering families.
### {#section-34}
We define the category ${\mathbf{X}}$ as a full subcategory of the category of manifolds $U$ over $X$ such that the structure map $U\to X$ is smooth. The covering families of $U\to X$ are families of submersions over $X$ whose union maps surjectively to $U$. Observe that the category of smooth manifolds can be considered as a site with the above mentioned choice of covering families. By the Yoneda embedding it maps to the two-category of smooth stacks. In Subsection \[se1\] we consider this abstract situation. We consider a site ${\mathcal{S}}$, a two-category ${\mathcal{C}}$ and a functor $z:{\mathcal{S}}\to {\mathcal{C}}$. Furthermore we consider a subcatgeory $r{\mathcal{C}}$ which plays the role of the subcategory of stacks with smooth representable morphisms. In this situation we associate to each object $X\in {\mathcal{C}}$ the site ${\mathbf{X}}$ (see \[dd1\]) as the full subcategory of $(z(U)\to X)\in {\mathcal{S}}/X$ such that the structure map belongs to $r{\mathcal{C}}$. The covering families are induced from ${\mathcal{S}}$ (see \[dd2\]).
### {#section-35}
The central topic of Subsection \[se1\] is the adjoint pair (\[apari1\]) of functors $$f^*:\Pr{\mathbf{X}}\Leftrightarrow \Pr {\mathbf{G}}:f_*$$ between presheaf categories associated to a morphism $f:G\to X$. Since in general $f$ does not induce a morphism between the sites ${\mathbf{G}}$ and ${\mathbf{X}}$ we define these functors in an ad-hoc manner (see \[dd4\] and \[dd3\]). For two composeable morphisms $f,g$ we relate $(g\circ f)^*, (g\circ f)_*$ with $g_*\circ f_*, f^*\circ g^*$ in Lemma \[trtz\].
### {#section-36}
In Subsection \[thesite\] we specialize to smooth stacks. If the morphism $f:G\to H$ between smooth stacks is smooth or representable, then it gives rise to a morphism of sites $f_\sharp$ or $f^\sharp$, respectively (\[gg\] and \[gg221\]). We verify that our ad-hoc definitions of $f^*$ or $f_*$ , respectively, coincide with the standard functors induced from the morphism of sites $f^\sharp$ or $f_\sharp$ (see Lemmas \[poi451\], \[pi\], \[zwei11\]).
### {#section-37}
Most of the statements which we formulate for the sheaf theory on stacks are well-known in the usual sheaf theory on sites and for functors associated to morphisms of sites. But for the sheaf theory on stacks we must be very careful about which of these standard facts remain true in general. For other statements we must know under which additional assumptions they carry over to stacks.
### {#section-38}
An important point is the observation that for every morphism between smooth stacks the functor $f_*$ preserves sheaves (Lemma \[shpre\]). In the Lemmas \[pulb\] and \[pulb1\] we study the compatibility of the pull back with the push forward in cartesian squares. In Lemma \[comis\] we study under which additional assumptions we have relations like $(g\circ f)^*\cong f^*\circ g^*$.
### {#section-39}
In order to define the cohomology of a gerbe we must descend the functors $f_*$ and $f^*$ to the derived categories of presheaves and sheaves of abelian groups. This question is studied in Subsection \[derouzt\]. Here the exactness properties of the functors studied in the preceding subsections play an important role. Most of the statements in this subsection are standard for the usual sheaf theory and functors associated to a morphism of sites. Here we study carefully under which additional conditions they remain true for stacks.
### {#section-40}
The main result (Lemma \[schluss\]) of Subsection \[toola\] is that the derived functor $Rf_*$ for a map $G\to X$ of smooth stack can be calculated using a simplicial approximation of $G\to X$. In particular, if $X$ is a manifold, then the calculation of $Rf_*$ can be reduced to ordinary sheaf theory on manifolds. We use this simplicial model in the proof of our main theorem, for the explicit calculation of the cohomology of the stack $[*/S^1]$ in Lemma \[bas13\], but also to verify that pull-back and push-forward commute on the level of derived functors for certain cartesian diagrams in Lemma \[derpulb\].
### {#section-41}
The covering families of the small site $(U)$ of a manifold are coverings by open subsets. Thus the sheaf theory for $(U)$ is the ordinary one. If $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$, then a presheaf on $X$ induces a presheaf on $(U)$. In the present paper the sheaf theory on $(U)$ is considered to be well-understood. The main goal of Subsection \[cckkll11\] is to compare the sheafification functors on ${\mathbf{X}}$ and $(U)$ (see Lemma \[gloloc\]). This result is very useful in explicit calculations since it says that certain questions can be studied for each $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ separately and with respect to the small site $(U)$. This sort of reasoning will be applied in the proof that the de Rham complex of a stack is a flabby resolution of the constant sheaf with value ${\mathbb{R}}$, where we use that this fact is well-known on each manifold equipped with the site $(U)$. It is also used in the proof of Lemma \[somecomu\] which says that for a smooth map between smooth stacks the pull back commutes with the sheafification functor.
Sheaf theory for smooth stacks {#se1}
==============================
Over sites {#overs}
----------
### {#situ1}
The goal of the present subsection is to develop some elements of sheaf theory in the following situation. Let ${\mathcal{S}}$ be a site (see [@MR1317816 Chapter I, 1.2.1] for a definition), ${\mathcal{C}}$ a two-category with invertible two-morphisms, and $z:{\mathcal{S}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{C}}$ a functor (we consider ${\mathcal{S}}$ as a two-category with only identity two-isomorphisms). Finally let $r{\mathcal{C}}$ be a subcategory of the category underlying ${\mathcal{C}}$ which we call the category of admissible morphisms.
To each object $G\in {\mathcal{C}}$ we will associate a site ${\mathbf{G}}$ (sometimes we will write ${{\tt Site}}(G):={\mathbf{G}}$) and the categories of presheaves $\Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ and sheaves ${{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$ of sets on this site. For a morphism $f\in {\mathcal{C}}(G,H)$ we will define an adjoint pair of functors $$f^*:\Pr{\mathbf{H}}\Leftrightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}:f_*\ .$$ In general these functors are not induced by a morphism of sites.
### {#section-42}
Let $G\in {\mathcal{C}}$. We define the underlying category of ${\mathbf{G}}$.
\[dd1\] The objects of ${\mathbf{G}}$ are pairs $(U,\phi)$, where $U\in {\mathcal{S}}$ and $\phi\in r{\mathcal{C}}(z(U),G)$. A morphism $(U,\phi)\rightarrow (U^\prime,\phi^\prime)$ is given by a pair $(h,\sigma)$, where $h\in {\mathcal{S}}(U,U^\prime)$ and $\sigma$ is a two-isomorphism $$\xymatrix{z(U)\ar[dr]^{\phi}\ar[rr]^{z(h)}&\ar@{=>}[d]^\sigma&z(U^\prime)\ar[dl]^{\phi^\prime}\\&G&}$$ The composition in ${\mathbf{G}}$ is defined in the obvious way.
Sometimes we will abbreviate the notation and write $U$ or $(z(U)\rightarrow G)$ for $(U,\phi)$.
### {#t5tt5t}
Next we define the coverings of an object $(U,\phi)$ of ${\mathbf{G}}$.
\[dd2\] A covering of $(U,\phi)$ is a collection of morphisms $$((U_i,\phi_i)\stackrel{(h_i,\sigma_i)}{\rightarrow} (U,\phi))_{i\in I}$$ such that $(U_i\stackrel{h_i}{\rightarrow} U)_{i\in I}$ is a covering of $U$ in ${\mathcal{S}}$.
In fact it is easy to verify the axioms listed in the definition [@MR1317816 1.2.1]. The only non-obvious part asserts that given a covering $((U_i,\phi_i)\rightarrow (U,\phi))_{i\in I}$ and a morphism $(V,\psi)\rightarrow (U,\phi)$, then the fibre products $(V_i,\psi_i):=(V,\psi)\times_{(U,\phi)} (U_i,\phi_i)$ exist in ${\mathbf{G}}$ and $((V_i,\psi_i)\rightarrow (V,\psi))_{i\in I}$ is a covering of $(V,\psi)$. By a little diagram chase one verifies that $(V,\psi)\times_{(U,\phi)} (U_i,\phi_i)\cong (V\times_UU_i,\phi\circ z(\kappa))$, where $V\times_UU_i$ is the fibre product in ${\mathcal{S}}$ and $\kappa: V\times_UU_i\rightarrow U$ is the natural map.
### {#section-43}
Let $f\colon G\rightarrow H$ be a morphism in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Then we can define the functor $f^*:\Pr{\mathbf{H}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ as follows. Given $(z(V)\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ we consider the category $V/{\mathbf{H}}$ (recall that $V$ abbreviates $(z(V)\to G)$) of diagrams $$\xymatrix{V\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\U&&z(U)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H}\ .$$ A morphism in this category is given by a morphism $(z(U^\prime)\to H)\rightarrow (z(U)\to H)$ in ${\mathbf{H}}$ fitting into $$\xymatrix{&U&z(V)\ar[dr]\ar[ddr]\ar[rr]&&G\ar[d]^f\\V\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&&z(U)\ar@{=>}[dr]\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H\ar@{=}[d]\\&U^\prime\ar[uu]&&z(U^\prime)\ar[r]\ar[u]&H}\ .$$ Let $F\in \Pr{\mathbf{H}}$.
\[dd4\] We define $$f^*F(V):={\mathrm{colim}}_{V/{\mathbf{H}}} F(U)\ .$$
A morphism $V^\prime\rightarrow V$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$ induces naturally a functor $V/{\mathbf{H}}\rightarrow V^\prime/{\mathbf{H}}$. The relevant diagram is $$\xymatrix{V^\prime\ar[d]&&z(V^\prime)\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar@{=}[d]\\V\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\U&&z(U)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H}\ .$$ We therefore get a map $f^*F(V)\rightarrow f^*F(V^\prime)$, and this makes $f^*F$ a presheaf on ${\mathbf{G}}$.
### {#pushdef}
Let $f:G\rightarrow H$ again be a morphism in ${\mathcal{C}}$. We define a functor $f_*:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{H}}$ as follows. We consider $(z(U)\rightarrow G)\in {\mathbf{H}}$. Then we consider the category of diagrams ${\mathbf{G}}/U$ of diagrams $$\xymatrix{V\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]^f\\U&&z(U)\ar@{=>}[ru]\ar[r]&H}\ .$$ A morphism of such diagrams is given by a morphism $V^\prime\rightarrow V$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$ which fits into $$\xymatrix{V^\prime\ar[d]&&z(V^\prime)\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar@{=}[d]\\V\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\U&&z(U)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H}\ .$$
\[dd3\] We define $$f_*F(U):=\lim_{{\mathbf{G}}/U} F(V)\ .$$
A morphism $U\rightarrow U^\prime$ in ${\mathbf{H}}$ induces naturally a functor ${\mathbf{G}}/U\rightarrow {\mathbf{G}}/U^\prime$. The relevant diagram is $$\xymatrix{V\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar@{=}[d]\\U\ar[d]&&z(U)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\U^\prime&&z(U^\prime)\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H}\ .$$ We therefore get a map $f_*F(U^\prime)\rightarrow f_*F(U)$, and this makes $f_*F$ a presheaf on ${\mathbf{H}}$.
### {#section-44}
Let $f\in {\mathcal{C}}(G,H)$ as before.
\[apari1\] The functors $f_*$ and $f^*$ naturally form an adjoint pair $$f^*\:\::\:\:\Pr{\mathbf{H}}\Leftrightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}\:\::\:\:f_*\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We give the unit and the counit. Let $(z(W)\rightarrow G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Then $$f^*f_*F(W)={\mathrm{colim}}_{U} \lim_V F(V)\ ,$$ where the colimit-limit is taken over a category of diagrams $$\xymatrix{V\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]^f\\U&&z(U)\ar[r]&H\\W\ar[u]&&z(W)\ar[u]\ar[r]&G\ar[u]_f}$$ (we leave out the two-isomorphisms). The counit is a natural transformation $$f^*f_*F(W)\rightarrow F(W)\ .$$ It is given by the universal property of the colimit and the collection of maps which associates to $U$ the canonical map $\lim_V F(V)\to F(W)$.
Furthermore, let $(z(U)\rightarrow H)\in {\mathbf{H}}$. Then $$f_*f^*F(U)=\lim_{V}{\mathrm{colim}}_{W} F(W)\ ,$$ where the limit-colimit is taken over a category of diagrams $$\xymatrix{U&&z(U)\ar[r]&H\\V\ar[u]\ar[d]&&z(V)\ar[u]\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[u]_f\ar[d]^f\\W&&z(W)\ar[r]&H}$$ (we leave out the two-isomorphisms). The unit is a natural transformation $$F(U)\rightarrow f_*f^*F(U)\ .$$ It is given by the universal property of the limit and the collection of maps which associates to $V$ the natural map $F(U)\to {\mathrm{colim}}_W F(W)$.
We leave it to the interested reader to perform the remaining checks.
### {#section-45}
Let us consider a pair of composable maps in ${\mathcal{C}}$ $$G\stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} H\stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow}L\ .$$
\[trtz\] We have natural transformations of functors $$(g\circ f)_*\to g_*\circ f_*\ ,\quad f^*\circ g^*\to (g\circ f)^*\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We discuss the transformation $f^*\circ g^*\to (g\circ f)^*$. Let $F\in \Pr{{\bf L}}$ and $(z(W)\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Inserting the definitions we have $$f^*\circ g^*(F)(W)\cong {\mathrm{colim}}_{{\mathcal{A}}} F(U)\ ,$$ where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the category of diagrams $$\xymatrix{z(W)\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\
z(V)\ar[r]\ar[d]\ar@{=>}[ur]&H\ar[d]^g\\
z(U)\ar[r]\ar@{=>}[ur]&L}$$ with $(V\to H)\in {\mathbf{H}}$ and $(U\to L)\in {{\bf L}}$. The vertical composition provides a functor ${\mathcal{A}}\to W/{{\bf L}}$, where $W/{{\bf L}}$ is the category of diagrams of the form $$\xymatrix{z(W)\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]^{g\circ f}\\
z(U)\ar[r]\ar@{=>}[ur]&L}\ .$$ We get an induced map of colimits $$f^*\circ g^*(F)(W)\to (g\circ f)^*F(W)={\mathrm{colim}}_{W/{{\bf L}}}F(U)\ .$$ The other transformation $(g\circ f)_*\to g_*\circ f_*$ is obtained in a similar manner or, equivalently, by adjointness.
In general, we can not expect that these transformations are isomorphisms. But under additional assumptions they are, see \[comis\].
The site of a smooth stack {#thesite}
--------------------------
### {#section-46}
We consider the site ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$ of smooth manifolds[^3] and open covering families. Its underlying category is the category of smooth manifolds and smooth maps. A collection of smooth maps $(U_i\rightarrow U)_{i\in I}$ is a covering if and only if this family is isomorphic to the collection of inclusions of the open subsets of $U$ given by an open covering of $U$.
We use the site ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$ in order to define stacks in smooth manifolds. We refer to [@heinloth], [@math.DG/0306176], [@math.AG/0503247] for the language of stacks.
### {#section-47}
We will also consider the site ${\mathcal{S}}$ on smooth manifolds. In this site a family $(U_i\rightarrow U)_{i\in I}$ of smooth maps is a covering if the maps $U_i\rightarrow U$ are submersions and $\sqcup_{i\in I} U_i\rightarrow U$ is surjective. We will use this site in order to define the site of a stack according to \[overs\]. In fact the descent conditions for ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$ and ${\mathcal{S}}$ are the same, and it is only a matter of taste that we use the notion site in this way.
### {#site33}
In this paragraph we recall the main notions of the theory of smooth stacks.
1. A morphism of stacks $G\rightarrow H$ is called representable, if for each manifold $U$ and map $U\rightarrow H$ the fibre product $U\times_HG$ is equivalent to a manifold. A composition of representable maps is representable.
2. A representable morphism $G\rightarrow H$ of stacks is called smooth if for each manifold $U$ and map $U\to H$ the induced map $U\times_HG\to U$ (of manifolds) is a submersion.
3. A map $U\to G$ from a manifold to a stack is called an atlas if it is representable, smooth and admits local sections.
4. A stack in smooth manifolds is called smooth if it admits an atlas [@heinloth Def. 2.4].
5. A morphism (not necessarily representable) between smooth stacks $f:G\to H$ is called smooth if for an atlas $A\to G$ the composition $A\to G\to H$ is smooth [@heinloth Def. 2.10]. A composition of smooth maps is smooth.
6. A smooth morphism $U\to G$ from a manifold to a smooth stack is representable.
### {#ccea}
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the two-category of smooth stacks in smooth manifolds. We have a Yoneda embedding $z:{\mathcal{S}}\rightarrow {\mathcal{C}}$. Note that in general we will omit the Yoneda embedding in the notation and consider ${\mathcal{S}}$ as a subcategory of ${\mathcal{C}}$. We let $r{\mathcal{C}}$ be the subcategory of representable smooth morphisms.
### {#section-48}
The conventions introduced in \[ccea\] place us in the situation of \[situ1\]. Let $G\in{\mathcal{C}}$ be a smooth stack. Then by ${\mathbf{G}}$ we denote the site according to Definitions \[dd1\] and \[dd2\]. Note that this site is derived from the site ${\mathcal{S}}$ on smooth manifolds. We now have the categories of presheaves $\Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ and sheaves ${{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$ on the stack $G$. We compare the present definition to the one of [@heinloth Sec. 4] in Subsection \[site-comp\].
### {#gg}
Let $f:G\rightarrow H$ be a representable morphism of smooth stacks in smooth manifolds. Then it induces a morphism of sites $f^\sharp:{\mathbf{H}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{G}}$ by the rule $f^\sharp(U\rightarrow H):=U\times_H G\rightarrow G$ (it is easy to check the axioms listed in [@MR1317816 1.2.2]).
### {#gg221}
If $f:G\to H$ is a smooth morphism of smooth stacks in smooth manifolds, then we can define another morphism of sites $f_\sharp:{\mathbf{G}}\to {\mathbf{H}}$ by $f_\sharp(V\to G):=(V\to G\stackrel{f}{\to} H)$.
### {#section-49}
We call a functor left exact if it preserves arbitrary limits. If it preserves arbitrary colimits, then we call it right exact. A functor is said to be exact if it is right and left exact.
Recall that a functor which is a left adjoint is right exact. Similarly, a right adjoint is left exact.
### {#section-50}
A morphism of sites $q:{\mathbf{H}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{G}}$ induces an adjoint pair $$q_*\:\::\:\:\Pr{\mathbf{H}}\Leftrightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}\:\::\:\:q^*\ .$$ (see [@MR1317816 2.3]). In the following we compare these maps with the ad-hoc definitions \[dd4\] and \[dd3\] and discuss some special properties.
### {#section-51}
\[poi451\] If $f:G\to H$ is a smooth morphism between smooth stacks, then we have $f^*\cong (f_\sharp)^*$. In particular, then $f^*$ is exact and preserves sheaves.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. According to the definition [@MR1317816 2.3] we have $$(f_\sharp)^*(F)(V\to G):=F(f_\sharp(V\to G))=F(V\to G\to H)\ .$$ If $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$, then the category $V/{\mathbf{H}}$ has an initial object $$\xymatrix{V\ar[r]\ar@{=}[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\V\ar@{=>}[ur]^{{{\tt id}}}\ar[r]&H}\ .$$ Therefore $$\label{ttgg221}(f^*F)(V\to G)\cong F(V\to G\to H)\ .$$ This implies that $f^*\cong (f_\sharp)^*$.
It is well-known [@MR1317816 3.6] that the contravariant functor (in our case $(f_\sharp)^*$) associated to a morphism of sites preserves sheaves. Therefore $f^*$ preserves sheaves.
The limit of a diagram of presheaves is defined objectwise. By (\[ttgg221\]) the functor $f^*$ commutes with limits. As a left adjoint (by Lemma \[apari1\]) it also commutes with colimits.
### {#section-52}
Let $f:G\rightarrow H$ be a representable and smooth morphism of smooth stacks.
\[pi\] We have an isomorphism of functors $(f^\sharp)_*\cong f^*$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $F\in \Pr{\mathbf{H}}$. For $(V\rightarrow G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ we have the category $V/f^\sharp$ of pairs $((U\rightarrow H)\in {\mathbf{H}},(V\rightarrow f^\sharp(U))\in {\mathrm{Mor}}({\mathbf{G}}))$. It has a natural evaluation ${{\tt ev}}_V:V/f^\sharp\rightarrow {\mathbf{H}}$ which maps $((U\rightarrow H),(V\rightarrow f^\sharp(U)))$ to $(U\to H)$. By definition (see [@MR1317816 Proof of 2.3.1]) $$(f^\sharp)_*(F)(V)={\mathrm{colim}}_{V/f^\sharp} F\circ {{\tt ev}}_V\ .$$
Now we observe that $V/f^\sharp$ can be identified with the category of diagrams $$\xymatrix{V\ar[d]\ar[r]&U\ar[d]\\
G\ar[r]^f\ar@{=>}[ur]&H}\ .$$ Since $f$ is smooth we see that $(V\to G\stackrel{f}{\to} H)\in {\mathbf{H}}$ and $$\xymatrix{V\ar[d]\ar[r]^{{{\tt id}}_V}&V\ar[d]\\
G\ar[r]^f\ar@{=>}[ur]^{{{\tt id}}}&H}$$ is the initial element of $V/f^\sharp$. We conclude that $$\label{vali}(f^\sharp)_*(F)(V\to G)\cong F(V\to G\to H)\ .$$ The equality $f^*\cong (f^\sharp)_*$ now follows from (\[ttgg221\]).
One can not expect that $f^*$ is left exact for a general map $f:G\rightarrow H$. In fact this problem occurs in the corresponding definition in [@MR1771927] of the pull-back for the lisse-etale site of an algebraic stack. For more details and a solution see [@olsson].
### {#section-53}
\[zwei11\] If $f:G\rightarrow H$ is a representable morphism of smooth stacks, then $f_*=(f^{\sharp})^*:\Pr {\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{H}}$. The functor $f_*$ is exact.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $(U\to H)\in {\mathbf{H}}$. Then $f^\sharp(U\to H)=(U\times_HG\to G)$ is the final object in ${\mathbf{G}}/U$. Therefore $$\label{objw2}f_*F(U)\cong F(U\times_HG)\cong (f^\sharp)^*F(U)\ .$$ Since $(f^{\sharp})^*$ is a right adjoint it commutes with limits. Since colimits of presheaves are defined objectwise it follows from the formula (\[objw2\]) that $f_*$ also commutes with colimits.
### {#section-54}
Let now $f:G\rightarrow H$ be a map of smooth stacks.
\[shpre\] The functor $f_*$ preserves sheaves.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $F\in {{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$. Consider $(U\rightarrow H)\in {\mathbf{H}}$ and let $(U_i\rightarrow U)$ be a covering of $U$. Consider a diagram $$\label{piu}\xymatrix{V\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]^f\\U\ar@{=>}[ru]\ar[r]&H}\ .$$ >From this we obtain a collection of diagrams $$\xymatrix{V_i:=U_i\times_UV\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]^f\\U_i\ar@{=>}[ru]\ar[r]&H}$$functorially in $V$. Observe that $(V_i\rightarrow V)$ is a covering in ${\mathbf{G}}$. We now consider the map of diagrams $$\xymatrix{f_*F(U)\ar[d]\ar[r]&\prod_i f_*F(U_i)\ar[d]\ar@{=>}[r]&\prod_{i,j}f_*F(U_i\times_UU_j)\ar[d]\\F(V)\ar[r]&\prod_i F(V_i)\ar@{=>}[r]&\prod_{i,j}F(V_i\times_VV_j)
}\ .$$ The vertical maps are given by specialization. We must show that the upper horizontal line is an equalizer diagram. The lower horizontal line has this property since $F$ is a sheaf.
We now take the limit over the category of diagrams (\[piu\]) und use the fact that a limit preserves equalizer diagrams. We get the commutative diagram of sets $$\xymatrix{f_*F(U)\ar@{=}[d]\ar[r]&\prod_i f_*F(U_i)\ar[d]^s\ar@{=>}[r]&\prod_{i,j}f_*F(U_i\times_UU_j)\ar[d]\\f_*F(U)\ar[r]&\lim \prod_i F(V_i)\ar@{=>}[r]&\lim \prod_{i,j}F(V_i\times_VV_j)
}\ .$$ Let us assume that $s$ is injective. Then the fact that the lower horizontal line is an equalizer diagram implies by a simple diagram chase that the upper horizontal line is an equalizer diagram.
We now show that $s$ is injective. Note that a priori the product of specialization maps $$s=\prod_i s_i : \prod_i f_*F(U_i)\to \prod_i \lim F(V_i)$$ may not be injective since the functors $L_i:{\mathbf{G}}/U\ni V\mapsto V_i\in {\mathbf{G}}/U_i$ are not necessarily essentially surjective. But in our situation the maps $s_i$ are injective since each object in ${\mathbf{G}}/U_i$ maps into an object in the image of $L_i$. To see this consider a diagram $$\xymatrix{W\ar[d]\ar[r]^t& G\ar[d]^f\\U_i\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H}\in {\mathbf{G}}/U_i\ .$$ Using the composition $W\to U_i\to U$ we can form the diagram $$\xymatrix{W\ar[d]\ar[r]& G\ar[d]^f\\U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&X}\in {\mathbf{G}}/U$$ and define the morphism in ${\mathbf{G}}/U_i$ $$\xymatrix{U_i\times_U W\ar@/_1cm/[dd]_{{{\tt pr}}_1}\ar[dr]^{t\circ {{\tt pr}}_2}&\\W\ar[u]^j\ar[d]\ar[r]& G\ar[d]^f\\U_i\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&H}\ ,$$ where $j:W\to U_i\times_UW$ is induced by $W\to U_i$ and ${{\tt id}}_W:W\to W$.
### {#section-55}
Assume that we have a diagram in smooth stacks $$\label{squ567}\xymatrix{G\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar[d]^{g}\\
M\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^v&N}\ ,$$ where $u$ and $v$ are smooth.
\[pulb\] We have a natural map of functors $\Pr{\mathbf{H}}\rightarrow \Pr{{\mathbf{M}}}$ $$v^*\circ g_*\rightarrow f_*\circ u^*$$ which is an isomorphism if (\[squ567\]) is cartesian.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We use the description (\[ttgg221\]) of $v^*$ obtained in the proof of Lemma \[poi451\]. Let $(U\to M)\in {{\mathbf{M}}}$. Then we have $$v^*\circ g_* F(U)\cong \lim F(A)\ ,$$ where the limit is taken over a category $D$ of diagrams $$\label{diq1}\xymatrix{&&&A\ar[dl]\ar[ddd]&\\&G\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar@{=>}[ddr]^{\sigma}\ar[d]^{g}&\\
&M\ar@{=>}[drr]\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^v&N&\\
U\ar[ru]\ar[rrr]^{{{\tt id}}}&&&U\ar[ul]}$$ (where $A$ varies). On the other hand $f_*\circ u^*(F)(U)\cong \lim F(V)$, where the limit is taken over the category $E$ of diagrams $$\label{ee122}
\xymatrix{V\ar[dr]\ar[ddd]\ar[rrr]&&&V\ar[dl]&\\&G\ar@{=>}[ddl]\ar@{=>}[urr]\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar[d]^{g}&\\
&M\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^v&N&\\
U\ar[ru]&&&}$$ ($V$ varies). We define a functor $X:E\to D$ which sends the diagram (\[ee122\]) to the diagram $$\xymatrix{&&&V\ar[ddd]\ar[dl]&\\&G\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar@{=>}[ddr]\ar[d]^{g}&\\
&M\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar@{=>}[drr]\ar[r]^v&N&\\
U\ar[ru]\ar[rrr]^{{{\tt id}}}&&&U\ar[ul]}\ .$$ We write $F_E$ and $F_D$ for the functor $F$ precomposed with the evaluations $E\to {\mathbf{H}}$ and $D\to {\mathbf{H}}$. The identity $F(V)\stackrel{\sim}{\to} F(V)$ induces an isomorphism $F_D\circ X\stackrel{\sim}{\to} F_E$. Therefore we have a natural map of limits $$\label{hin123}
v^*\circ g_* F(U)\rightarrow f_*\circ u^*F(U)\ .$$ This gives the required transformation of functors.
If (\[squ567\]) is cartesian, then we can define a functor $Y:D\to E$ which maps the diagram (\[diq1\]) functorially to $$\xymatrix{U\times_NA\ar[dr]^{h}\ar[ddd]&&&&\\&G\ar@{=>}[ddl]\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar[d]^{g}&\\
&M\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar@{=>}[drr]\ar[r]^v&N&\\
U\ar[ru]\ar[rrr]^{{{\tt id}}}&&&U\ar[ul]}\ ,$$ which employs the map $A\to H\to N$. The map $h$ is induced by the universal property of the cartesian diagram. Since $U\to M$ and $A\to H$ are smooth, the map $h$ is smooth, too. The map $A\to U$ together with the two-isomorphism $\sigma$ gives a map $A\to U\times_NA$ in ${\mathbf{H}}$. This map induces the natural transformation $F_E\circ Y \to F_D$. It gives a map of limits $$\label{her123}
f_*\circ u^*(F)(U)\to v^*\circ g_*F(U)\ .$$ One can check that (\[her123\]) is inverse to (\[hin123\]).
### {#section-56}
Assume again that we have a diagram in smooth stacks $$\label{squ}\xymatrix{G\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar[d]^{g}\\
M\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^v&N}\ .$$ We now assume that $f$ and $g$ are representable, and that $u,v$ are smooth.
\[pulb1\] We have a natural map of functors $\Pr{\mathbf{H}}\rightarrow \Pr{{\mathbf{M}}}$ $$v^*\circ g_*\rightarrow f_*\circ u^*$$ which is an isomorphism if (\[squ\]) is cartesian.
This is a special case of Lemma \[pulb\]. But under the additional representablility assumptions on $f$ and $g$ the proof simplifies considerably.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $F\in \Pr {\mathbf{H}}$. For $(U\to M)\in {{\mathbf{M}}}$ we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
v^*\circ g_*(F)(U)&\cong& {\mathrm{colim}}_{V\in U/{\mathbf{N}}} \lim_{W\in {\mathbf{H}}/V} F(W)\\
&\stackrel{(\ref{ttgg221})}{\cong}&\lim_{W\in {\mathbf{H}}/(U\to M\to N)} F(W)\\
&\stackrel{(\ref{objw2})}{\cong}&F(H\times_NU\to H)\ .\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
f_*\circ u^*(F)(U)&\cong&\lim_{Z\in {\mathbf{G}}/U}{\mathrm{colim}}_{W\in Z/{\mathbf{H}}} F(W)\\
&\stackrel{(\ref{objw2})}{\cong}&{\mathrm{colim}}_{W\in (U\times_MG)/{\mathbf{H}}} F(W)\\
&\stackrel{(\ref{ttgg221})}{\cong}&F(U\times_MG\to G\to H)\ .\end{aligned}$$ The transformation $v^*\circ g_*(F)(U)\to f_*\circ u^*(F)(U)$ is now induced from the map $(G\times_MU\to H\times_N U)\in {\mathbf{H}}$.
If the diagram is cartesian, then we have $G\times_MU\cong (H\times_NM)\times_MU\cong H\times_NU$ so that the transformation is an isomorphism.
### {#section-57}
Let us consider a pair of composable maps of smooth stacks $$G\stackrel{f}{\longrightarrow} H\stackrel{g}{\longrightarrow}L\ .$$ In Lemma \[trtz\] we have found natural transformations of functors between presheaf categories $$(g\circ f)_*\to g_*\circ f_*\ ,\quad f^*\circ g^*\to (g\circ f)^*\ .$$
\[comis\] If $g$ is representable, or if $f$ is smooth, then these transformations are isomorphisms.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We consider the transformation $f^*\circ g^*\to (g\circ f)^*$ which appears as a transformation of colimits induced by a functor between indexing categories ${\mathcal{A}}\to W/{{\bf L}}$, where we use the notation introduced in the proof of Lemma \[trtz\]. Under the present additional assumptions on $f$ or $g$ we have a functor $W/{{\bf L}}\to {\mathcal{A}}$ which induces the inverse of the transformation. In the following we describe these functors.
If $g$ is representable, then each diagram $$\label{rrwq1}\xymatrix{W\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]^{g\circ f}\\
U\ar[r]\ar@{=>}[ur]&L}$$ in $W/{{\bf L}}$ naturally completes to $$\xymatrix{W\ar[r]\ar[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\
U\times_LH\ar[r]\ar[d]\ar@{=>}[ur]&H\ar[d]^g\\
U\ar[r]\ar@{=>}[ur]&L}$$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$.
If $f$ is smooth, then the diagram (\[rrwq1\]) can be naturally completed to $$\xymatrix{W\ar[r]\ar@{=}[d]&G\ar[d]^f\\
W\ar[r]\ar[d]\ar@{=>}[ur]^{{{\tt id}}}&H\ar[d]^g\\
U\ar[r]\ar@{=>}[ur]&L}$$ in ${\mathcal{A}}$.
It follows from adjointness that under the additional assumptions on $f$ or $g$ the transformation $(g\circ f)_*\to
g_*\circ f_*$ is an isomorphism, too.
### {#section-58}
Let $f:G\rightarrow H$ be a smooth map of smooth stacks. The following Lemma is standard, we include a proof for the sake of completeness.
\[lef\] There exists a functor $f_!:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr{\mathbf{H}}$ so that we get an adjoint pair $$f_!:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\Leftrightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{H}}:f^*\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Then by (\[ttgg221\]) we have $f^*F(V)\cong F(V\to G\to H)$.
Let $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ and $h_{V\to G} \in \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ be the corresponding representable presheaf. Then we have a natural isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
{{\tt Hom}}(h_{V\to G},f^*F)&\cong&f^*F(V\to G)\\
&\cong&F(V\to G\to H)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}(h_{V\to G\to H},F)\end{aligned}$$ which leads us to the definition $$f_! h_{V\to G}:=h_{V\to G\to H}\ .$$ If $L\in \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$, then we can write $L\cong {\mathrm{colim}}_{h_{V\to G}\to L}h_{V\to G}$. Since a left-adjoint must commute with colimits we are forced to set $$f_!L:={\mathrm{colim}}_{h_{V\to G}\to L}h_{V\to G\to H}\ .$$ Then we have indeed $$\begin{aligned}
{{\tt Hom}}(L,f^*F)&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}({\mathrm{colim}}_{h_{V\to G}\to L}h_{V\to G},f^*F)\\
&\cong&\lim_{h_{V\to G}\to L} {{\tt Hom}}(h_{V\to G},f^*F)\\
&\cong&\lim_{h_{V\to G}\to L} {{\tt Hom}}(h_{V\to G\to H},F)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}({\mathrm{colim}}_{h_{V\to G}\to L}h_{V\to G\to H},F)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}(f_!L,F)\end{aligned}$$
Presheaves of abelian groups and derived functors {#derouzt}
-------------------------------------------------
### {#section-59}
In the previous Subsections \[overs\] and \[thesite\] we have developed a theory of set-valued presheaves and sheaves on stacks. We are in particular interested in the abelian categories of presheaves and sheaves of abelian groups and their derived categories. The functors $(f^*,f_*)$ and $(i^\sharp,i)$ preserve abelian group valued objects. In the present subsection we study how these functors descend to the derived categories. Furthermore, we check some functorial properties of these descended functors which will be employed in later calculations.
The derived version (Lemma \[derpulb\]) of the fact that pull-back commutes with push-forward in certain cartesian diagrams (Lemma \[pulb\]) would fit into the present subsection, but can only be shown after the development of a computational tool in Subsection \[toola\].
A similar remark applies to Lemma \[somecomu\] saying that sheafification commutes with pull-back along smooth maps between smooth stacks. We will show this Lemma in Subsection \[cckkll11\].
### {#section-60}
For a site ${\mathbf{G}}$ let $\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ and ${{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ denote the abelian categogies of presheaves and sheaves of abelian groups on ${\mathbf{G}}$. These categories have enough injectives [@MR1317816 2.1.1 and 2.1.2]. Let $D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$ and $D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$ denote the lower bounded derived categories of $\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ and ${{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$.
### {#section-61}
If $f:G\rightarrow H$ is a morphism of smooth stacks then $f_*:\Pr {\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr {\mathbf{H}}$ is left exact since it is a right adjoint. We therefore have the right derived functor $Rf_*:D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}} {\mathbf{H}})$.
If $g:H\to L$ is a second morphism of smooth stacks, then we have a natural transformation $$R(g\circ f)_*\to Rg_*\circ Rf_*\ .$$ In fact, let $F\in D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$ be a lower bounded complex of injective presheaves. Then we choose an injective resolution $f_*F\to J$. Note that $g_*(J)$ represents $Rg_*\circ Rf_*(F)$. Then using (\[trtz\]) the required morphism is defined as the composition $$R(g\circ f)_*(F)\cong (g\circ f)_*(F)\to g_*\circ f_*(F)\to g_*(J)\cong Rg_*\circ Rf_*(F)\ .$$
\[rcompo\] If $f$ is smooth or $g$ is representable, then $$R(g\circ f)_*\cong Rg_*\circ Rf_*\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}If $f$ is smooth, then $f^*$ is exact. In this case $f_*$ preserves injectives and we can take $J:=f_*(F)$. We can now apply Lemma \[comis\] in order to see that the natural transformation $(g\circ f)_*(F)\to g_*\circ f_*(F)$ is an isomorphism.
If $g$ is representable, then $g_*$ is exact by Lemma \[zwei11\]. In this case we have again by Lemma \[comis\] that $R(g\circ f)_*(F)\cong (g\circ f)_*(F)\cong g_*\circ f_*(F)\cong Rg_*\circ Rf_*(F)$.
### {#section-62}
Let $i:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ denote the inclusion. It has a left adjoint $i^{\sharp}:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow {{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$, the sheafification functor (see [@MR1317816 3.1.1, 3.2.1]). Since the functor $i$ is a right adjoint, it is left exact. We can form its right derived $Ri:D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$.
Let $f:G\to H$ be a morphism of smooth stacks.
\[ddddw\] The functor $i$ preserves injectives and we have an isomorphism $R(f_*\circ i)\cong Rf_*\circ Ri$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Since $i^\sharp$ is exact (see [@MR1317816 Thm. 3.2.1 (ii)]) the functor $i$ preserves injectives. This implies the assertion.
### {#section-63}
Let $\tau:=(U_i\to U)_{i\in I}\in {{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(U\to G)$ be a covering family of $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. For a presheaf $F\in \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ we form the Čech complex $\check{C}^*(\tau,F)$. Its $p$th group is $$\check{C}^p(\tau,F):=\prod_{(i_0,\dots,i_p)\in I^{p+1}} F(U_{i_0}\times_U\dots\times_UU_{i_p})\ ,$$ and the differential is given by the usual formula.
\[flabbydef\] A sheaf $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is called flabby if for all $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ and all $\tau\in {{\tt cov}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}(U\to G)$ we have $H^k(\check{C}(\tau,F))\cong 0$ for all $k\ge 1$.
### {#section-64}
Let $f:{\mathbf{G}}\to {\mathbf{H}}$ be a smooth map between smooth stacks.
\[flabbypres\] The functor $f^*:\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}$ preserves flabby sheaves.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We have the functor $f_\sharp:{\mathbf{G}}\to {\mathbf{H}}$ given by $f_\sharp(V\to G):=(V\to G\to H)$ (see \[gg221\]). By Lemma \[poi451\] we know that $f^*$ preserves sheaves.
Let $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ and $\tau:=(U_i\to U)\in {{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(U)$. Observe that $f_\sharp\tau:=(f_\sharp(U_i)\to f_\sharp(U))$ is a covering family of $f_\sharp U$ in ${\mathbf{H}}$.
Let $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}$. By Lemma \[ttgg221\] we have $f^*F(U)\cong F(f_\sharp U)$. We therefore have an isomorphism of complexes $$\check{C}^\cdot(\tau,f^*F)\cong \check{C}^\cdot(f_\sharp\tau,F)\ .$$ If $F$ is in addition flabby, then the cohomology groups of the right-hand side in degree $\ge 1$ vanish.
### {#section-65}
Let $f:G\to H$ be a representable map between smooth stacks.
\[klom\] If $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is flabby, then $F$ is $(f_*\circ i)$-acyclic.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ be flabby. We must show that $R^k(f_*\circ i)(F)\cong 0$ for $k\ge 1$. By Lemma \[zwei11\] the functor $f_*$ is exact so that $R^k(f_*\circ i)(F)\cong f_*\circ R^ki(F)$. Since $F$ is injective it is flabby. Since flabby sheaves are $i$-acyclic by [@MR1317816 Corollary 3.5.3] we get $R^ki(F)\cong 0$.
### {#section-66}
Let $G$ be a smooth stack, $F\in D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$, and $p:G\rightarrow *$ the canonical morphism. Then we have the object $Rp_* \circ Ri\in D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}} {{\tt Site}}(*))$. Let ${{\tt ev}}:\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{{\tt Site}}(*)\rightarrow {{\tt Ab}}$ be the evaluation at the object $(*\rightarrow *)\in {{\tt Site}}(*)$. This functor is exact.
\[cogo\] We define the cohomology of $F\in D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$ as $$h(G;F):={{\tt ev}}\circ Rp_* \circ Ri(F)\in D^+({{\tt Ab}})$$ Furthermore we set $H^*(G;F):=H^*h(G;F)$.
In particular, for an abelian group $Z$ we have the constant presheaf $Z_G$ with value $Z$.
We define the cohomology of the smooth stack $G$ with coefficients in $Z$ by $$H^*(G;Z):=H^*(G;i^\sharp Z_G)\ .$$
### {#site-comp}
In [@math.DG/0605694 p. 19/20] another site is used for sheaves on a smooth stack and their (hyper)cohomology. In the language of [@math.DG/0605694] a stack is represented as a fibered category over ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$, and the open covering topology is used on the underlying category to define sheaves and cohomology. This site is equivalent to the site ${{\tt Site}}^a(G)$ of [*arbitrary*]{} maps from smooth manifolds to the stack $G$ equipped with the open covering topology which contains more objects than ${{\tt Site}}(G)$. In [@heinloth] also the site ${{\tt Site}}^a(G)$ is used. We have the embedding $\varphi_G \colon {{\tt Site}}(G) \to {{\tt Site}}^a(G)$ which gives rise to an exact restriction functor $\varphi_G^* \colon {{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}} {{\tt Site}}^a(G) \to
{{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}} {{\tt Site}}(G)$. The cohomology $h(G;F)$ can also be defined as the right derivation of the global sections functor $\Gamma \colon {{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}} {{\tt Site}}(G) \to {{\tt Ab}}$. In [@math.DG/0605694] the cohomology is defined as the right derivation of the analogous global sections functor $\Gamma^a \colon {{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}} {{\tt Site}}^a(G) \to {{\tt Ab}}$. By universality and the fact that global sections commute with the restriction $\varphi_G^*$ there is an induced transformation $R \Gamma^a \to R \Gamma \circ R \varphi_G^*$. One shows that this is an isomorphism by using that $\varphi_G^*$ preserves flabby sheaves, and the simplicial model description of the cohomology of Section \[toola\] which works for both sites, and is used in [@MR2172499] as well as in the present paper.
Simplicial models {#toola}
-----------------
### {#section-67}
For a morphism $f:G\to X$ between smooth stacks we defined a functor $f_*:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr {\mathbf{X}}$ (see Definition \[dd3\]). We are in particular interested in its derived version $Rf_*\circ Ri:D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})\to D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$. The definitions of $f_*$ in terms of a limit, and of $Rf_*$ using injective resolutions are very useful for the study of the functorial properties of $f_*$. For explicit calculations we would like to work with more concrete objects. In the present subsection we associate to a flabby sheaf $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ an explicit complex of presheaves $C^\cdot_A(F)\in C^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$ which represents $Rf_*\circ i(F)\in D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$ (see Lemma \[schluss\]). It looks like a presheaf of Čech complexes and depends on the choice of a surjective smooth and representable map $A\to G$ such that $A\to G\to X$ is also representable (e.g. an atlas of $G$).
In the present paper we consider three applications of this construction. The first is the derived version of Lemma \[pulb\] which says that pull-back and push-forward in certain cartesian diagrams commute (see Lemma \[derpulb\]). In the second application we use the complex $C_A^\cdot$ in order to get a de Rham model of the derived push-forward of the constant sheaf with value ${\mathbb{R}}$ on ${\mathbf{G}}$ (see equation (\[derham-model\]). Finally we use this construction in Lemma \[bas13\] in order to calculate the cohomology of the gerbe $[*/S^1]$ explicitely.
### {#section-68}
Let $G$ be a smooth stack and $(A\to G), (B\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$.
\[fibcat\] The fibre product in stacks $$\xymatrix{&A\times_GB\ar[dd]\ar[dr]\ar[dl]&\\A\ar[dr]&\ar@{=>}[l]^u&B\ar[dl]\ar@{=>}[l]^{{{\tt id}}}\\&G&}$$ is the categorical product $(A\to G)\times_{{\mathbf{G}}}(B\to G)$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}The fibre product $(H\to G),(L\to G)\mapsto H\times_GL$ of stacks $H,L\in {\mathcal{C}}$ over $G$ is the two-categorical fibre product in the two-category ${\mathcal{C}}/G$ of stacks over $G$. Let ${\mathcal{C}}_0\subset{\mathcal{C}}$ be the full subcategory of stacks which are equivalent to smooth manifolds, i.e. the essential image of the Yoneda embedding ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty\to {\mathcal{C}}$. We define the one-category $\overline{{\mathcal{C}}_0/G}$ by identifying two-isomorphic morphisms and observe that the canonical functor ${\mathcal{C}}_0/G\to \overline{{\mathcal{C}}_0/G}$ is an equivalence. Under this equivalence the restriction of the fibre product to ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ becomes the one-categorical product. This implies the result since the natural functor $${\mathbf{G}}\to {\mathcal{C}}_0/G\to \overline{{\mathcal{C}}_0/G}$$ is an equivalence of categories.
### {#gensi}
Let $f:G\rightarrow X$ be a map of smooth stacks. Let further $A$ be a smooth stack and $A\rightarrow G$ be a representable, surjective and smooth map such that the composition $A\to G\to X$ is also representable. An atlas of $G$ would have these properties, but in applications we will need this more general situation where $A$ is not necessarily equivalent to a manifold. Let $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ and form the following diagram of cartesian squares: $$\label{dopw123}\xymatrix{
A_U\ar[d]\ar[r]&A\ar[d]\\
G_U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^{j^U}\ar[d]&G\ar[d]\\
U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&X}\ .$$ Since smoothness is preserved by pull-back the horizontal maps are smooth. Since surjectivity is also preserved by pull-back the two upper vertical maps are surjective and smooth. Since $A\to X$ is representable, the stack $A_U\cong U\times_XA$ is equivalent to a manifold.
### {#section-69}
Note that $(A_U\to G_U)\in {\mathbf{G_U}}$. In view of Lemma \[fibcat\] we can take powers of $A_U$ in ${\mathbf{G_U}}$. Using these powers we form a simplical object $A_U^\cdot\in {\mathbf{G_U}}$. Its $n$-th object is given by $$\underbrace{A_U\times_{G_U}\dots\times_{G_U}A_U}_{n+1\: factors}\to G_U\ .$$ We let $j^U_!A_U^\cdot\in {\mathbf{G}}$ denote the simplicial object in ${\mathbf{G}}$ with $n$th object $(A_U^n\to G_U\stackrel{j^U}{\to} G)$. If $V\to U$ is a morphism in ${\mathbf{X}}$, then we obtain an induced morphism of simplicial objects $j^V_!A^\cdot_V\to j^U_!A^\cdot_U$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$.
### {#check}
\[localo\]
If $F\in \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$, then we consider the cosimplicial object $U\mapsto F(j^U_!A_U^\cdot)$ in $\Pr{\mathbf{X}}$. For a morphism $V\to U$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$ the structure map $F(j^U_! A_U^\cdot)\to F(j^V_!A_V^\cdot)$ is induced by the morphism of simplicial objects $j^V_!A^\cdot_V\to j^U_!A^\cdot_U$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$.
For a presheaf of abelian groups $F\in {\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ let $$C_A^\cdot(F)\in C^+({\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$$ denote the chain complex of presheaves associated to the cosimplicial presheaf of abelian groups $U\mapsto F(j^U_!A_U^\cdot)$. Its differential will be denoted by $\delta$.
### {#section-70}
Let $F\in \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$.
\[zz\] We have a natural transformation $\psi:f_*F\rightarrow H^0C_A^\cdot(F)$ which is an isomorphism if $F$ is a sheaf.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$. We recall definition of the push-forward \[pushdef\]: $$f_*F(U)=\lim_{(V\to G)\in{\mathbf{G}}/U} F(V)\ .$$ Observe that $$\xymatrix{&G_U\ar@{.>}[dr]^{j^U}&\\A_U\ar@{.>}[ur]\ar[d]\ar[rr]&&G\ar[d]\\
U\ar[rr]\ar@{=>}[urr]&&X}$$ belongs to ${\mathbf{G}}/U$ so that we have an evaluation $$\xymatrix{f_*F(U)\ar[rr]^{evaluation}\ar[dr]^\psi&&C^0_A(F)(U)\\&H^0C_A^\cdot(F)(U)\ar[ur]&}$$ with a canonical factorization $\psi$ by the definition of $H^0C_A^\cdot(F)(U)$ as a kernel.
Assume now that $F$ is a sheaf. Then we must show that $\psi$ is an isomorphism. Let $$\label{uoverg1}\xymatrix{V\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]\\U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&X}$$ be in ${\mathbf{G}}/U$. Then we have a canonical factorization $$\xymatrix{V\ar[dr]\ar[ddr]\ar[drr]&&\\&G_U\ar[d]\ar[r]&G\ar[d]\\&U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&X}\ .$$ Using the induced map $V\to G_U$ we form the diagram $$\xymatrix{V\times_{G_U}A_U\ar[r]\ar[d]&A_U\ar[d]\ar[dr]&\\
V\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&G_U\ar[r]^{j^U}&G}$$ We consider the composition $(V\times_{G_U}A_U\to A_U\to G)$ as an object in ${\mathbf{G}}$. Since $A_U\to G_U$ is smooth and surjective the map $(V\times_{G_U}A_U\rightarrow V)$ is a covering of $V$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$ (it is here where we use the submersion-pre-topology). For a sheaf $F$ we have $$F(V)\cong \lim\left(\xymatrix{F(A_U\times_{G_U}V)\ar@{=>}[r]&F((A_U\times_{G_U} V)\times_V(A_U\times_{G_U} V))}\right)\ .$$ We further have $$(A_U\times_{G_U} V)\times_V(A_U\times_{G_U} V)\cong A_U\times_{G_U}A_U\times_{G_U}V$$ and a diagram $$\xymatrix{F(A_U\times_{G_U}V)\ar@{=>}[r]&F(A_U\times_{G_U}A_U\times_{G_U}V)\\F(j_!^UA^0_U)\ar@{=>}[r]\ar[u]&F(j_!^UA^1_U) \ar[u]}$$ (recall that $A_U^0=A_U$ and $A_U^1=A_U\times_{G_U}A_U$) induced by the projection along $V$. Since $H^0C_A^\cdot(F)(U)$ is the limit of the lower horizontal part the left vertical map induces a map $H^0C_A^\cdot(F)(U)\rightarrow F(V)$. Since this construction is natural in the object (\[uoverg1\]) of ${\mathbf{G}}/U$ we obtain finally a map $H^0C_A^\cdot(F)(U)\rightarrow f_*F(U)$ which is the inverse to $\psi$.
### {#section-71}
\[injvan\] If $F\in \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is injective, then $H^iC_A^\cdot(F)=0$ for $i\ge 1$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We follow the ideas of the last part of the proof of [@MR1317816 Thm. 2.2.3]. Let $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_U^\cdot$ denote the simplicial presheaf of sets represented by $j^U_!A_U^\cdot$. Furthermore, let ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_U^\cdot}$ be the (non-positively graded) complex of free abelian presheaves generated by ${\mathcal{A}}_U^\cdot$. Then for any presheaf $F\in \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ we have $$C_A^\cdot(F)(U)\cong {{\tt Hom}}_{\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}}({\mathbb{Z}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_U^\cdot},F)\ .$$
Since $F$ is injective ${{\tt Hom}}_{\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}}(\dots ,F)$ is an exact functor. Hence it suffices to show that $H^i({\mathbb{Z}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_U^\cdot})=0$ for $i\le -1$. For $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ the complex ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{\mathcal{A}}_U^\cdot}(V)$ is the complex associated to the linearization of the simplicial set ${{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}(V,j^U_!A_U^\cdot)$. We now rewrite $$\label{onecatego}A_U\times_{G_U}\dots \times_{G_U}A_U\cong (A\times_G\dots\times_GA)\times_XU\cong (A\times_G\dots\times_GA)\times_GG_U\ .$$ We consider $V$, $(A\times_G\dots\times_GA)$ and $G_U$ with their canonical maps to $G$ as objects of the two-category ${\mathcal{C}}/G$ of stacks over $G$. The first object is a manifold and therefore does not have non-trivial two-automorphisms. Since the maps $(A\times_G\dots\times_GA)\to G$ and $G_U\to G$ are representable these objects of ${\mathcal{C}}/G$ also do not have non-trivial two-automorphisms. By the same reasoning as in the proof of Lemma \[fibcat\] we can interpret the fibre product (\[onecatego\]) as a one-categorical product. We get $$\begin{aligned}
{{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}(V,j^U_!A_U^\cdot)&=&{{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,(A\times_G\dots\times_GA)\times_GG_U)\\
&\cong&({{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,A)\times \dots\times {{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,A))\times {{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,G_U) \\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,A)^\cdot\times {{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,G_U) \end{aligned}$$ For any set $S$, if we take the simplicial set $S^\cdot$ of the powers of $S$, the complex associated to the linearization ${\mathbb{Z}}_{S^\cdot}$ is exact in degrees $\le -1$. Therefore the complex ${\mathbb{Z}}_{{{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,A)^\cdot}$ is exact in degree $\le -1$. Since the tensor product with the free abelian group ${\mathbb{Z}}_{ {{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,G_U)}$ is an exact functor the complex $${\mathbb{Z}}_{{{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}(V,j^U_!A_U^\cdot)}\cong {\mathbb{Z}}_{{{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,A)^\cdot}\otimes
{\mathbb{Z}}_{ {{\tt Hom}}_{{\mathcal{C}}/G}(V,G_U)}$$ is exact in degree $\le -1$, too.
### {#dpluss}
Since exactness of complexes of presheaves is defined objectwise the functors $C^p_A:\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}}$ are exact for all $p\ge 0$. Composing with the total complex construction we extend the functor $C^\cdot_A$ to a functor between the categories of lower bounded complexes $C_A:C^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow C^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$ (in order to distinguish this from the double complex we drop the ${}^\cdot$ at the symbol $C_A$). Since this functor is level-wise exact it descends to a functor $C_A:D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$ between the lower-bounded derived categories.
### {#alg}
Assume that $F$ is a presheaf of associative algebras on ${\mathbf{G}}$. Then $C_A^\cdot(F)$ is a presheaf of $DG$-algebras in the following natural way. Pick $$\alpha\in F(j_!^UA_U^{p})\cong C^p_A(F)(U)\ ,\quad \beta\in F(j_!^UA_U^{q})\cong C_A^q(F)(U)\ .$$ We have natural maps $u:j_!^UA_U^{p+q}\rightarrow j_!^UA_U^{p}$ and $v:j_!^UA_U^{p+q}\rightarrow j_!^UA_U^{q}$ in ${\mathbf{G}}$ projecting onto the first $p+1$ or last $q+1$ factors, respectively. Then we define $\alpha\cdot\beta\in F(j_!^UA_U^{p+q})\cong C_A^{p+q}(F)(U)$ by $u^*\alpha\cdot v^*\beta$. One easily checks that $\delta(\alpha\cdot\beta)=\delta\alpha+(-1)^{p} \alpha\cdot \delta\beta$.
### {#shdg}
If $F^\cdot$ is a presheaf of commutative $DG$-algebras, then $C_A(F^\cdot)$ is a presheaf of associative $DG$-algebras central over the presheaf of commutative $DG$-algebras $(\ker(\delta):C^0_A(F^\cdot)\to C^1_A(F^\cdot))$.
### {#section-72}
By Lemma \[zz\] we have a map $$\psi:f_*F\rightarrow H^0 C^\cdot_A(F)$$ which is an isomorphism if $F$ is a sheaf.
For all $F\in \Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ we have a natural isomorphism $RH^0C_A^\cdot(F)\cong C^\cdot_A(F)$ in $D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}} X)$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $F\rightarrow I^\cdot$ be an injective resolution. Then we have $RH^0C^\cdot_A(F)\cong H^0C^\cdot_A(I^\cdot)$. By Lemma \[injvan\] the inclusion $H^0C_A^\cdot(I^\cdot)\rightarrow C_A(I^\cdot)$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Since $C_A^\cdot$ is exact the quasi-isomorphism $F\rightarrow I^\cdot$ induces a quasi-isomorphism $C_A^\cdot(F)\cong C_A(I^\cdot)$.
### {#section-73}
Recall that $i:\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}\rightarrow {{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is left exact and admits a right derived functor $Ri:D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})$, and that $C_A$ descends to a functor between the lower bounded derived categories (see \[dpluss\]).
\[schluss\] We have a natural isomorphism of functors $$C_A\circ Ri\cong Rf_*\circ Ri:D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{G}})\rightarrow D^+({\Pr}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}By Lemma \[zz\] we have an isomorphism of functors $f_*\circ i\cong H^0C_A\circ i$. Hence we have an isomorphism $$Rf_*\circ Ri\stackrel{!}{\cong} R(f_*\circ i)\cong R(H^0C^\cdot_A\circ i)\stackrel{!}{\cong} RH^0C^\cdot_A\circ Ri\cong C_A\circ Ri\ ,$$ where at the marked isomorphisms we use that $i$ preserves injectives (compare Lemma \[ddddw\]).
### {#section-74}
Assume that we have a diagram in smooth stacks $$\label{squ5671}\xymatrix{G\ar[r]^{u}\ar[d]^f&H\ar[d]^{g}\\
X\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^v&Y}\ ,$$ where $u$ and $v$ are smooth. Note that $u^*$ and $v^*$ are exact (Lemma \[poi451\]).
\[derpulb\]
1. We have a natural transformation of functors $D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$ $$v^*\circ Rg_*\rightarrow Rf_*\circ u^*\ .$$
2. The induced transformation $D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}})\rightarrow D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$ $$v^*\circ Rg_*\circ Ri\rightarrow Rf_*\circ u^*\circ Ri$$ is an isomorphism if (\[squ5671\]) is cartesian.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}The transformation $(1)$ is induced by $$v^*\circ Rg_*\cong R(v^*\circ g_*)\stackrel{\ref{pulb}}{\cong} R(f_*\circ u^*)\to Rf_*\circ u^*\ .$$
In order to show the second part $(2)$ we must show that $$R(f_*\circ u^*)\circ Ri\to Rf_*\circ u^*\circ Ri$$ is an isomorphism. We calculate $Ri$ using injective resolutions. Note that $i$ preserves injectives. Hence in order to show that this map is an isomorphism it suffices to show that $u^*$ maps injective sheaves to $f_*$-acyclic presheaves.
Note that $u^*$ preserves sheaves (Lemma \[poi451\]). We let $u^*_s:{{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}\to {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ denote the restriction of $u^*$ to sheaves. Let $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}$ be injective. Since injective sheaves are flabby, flabby sheaves are $i$-acyclic, and $u^*$ preserves flabby sheaves (see Lemma \[flabbypres\]) we have $$Rf_*\circ i\circ u_s^*(F)\cong Rf_*\circ Ri\circ u^*_s(F)\stackrel{Lemma\:\ref{schluss}}{\cong} C_A\circ Ri\circ u^*_s(F)\cong C_A\circ u^*\circ i(F)\ .$$
We now show that the higher cohomology presheaves of $C^\cdot_A\circ u^*\circ i(F)$ vanish. Let $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ and choose an atlas $B\to H$. Then we get the following extension of the diagram (\[dopw123\]) $$\label{dopw123ex}\xymatrix{
A_U\ar[d]\ar[r]&A\ar[d]\ar[r]&B\ar[d]\\
G_U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^{j^U}\ar[d]&G\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[d]\ar[r]^u&H\ar[d]^g\\
U\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]&X\ar@{=>}[ur]\ar[r]^v&Y}$$ such that all squares are cartesian. The three upper vertical maps are smooth and surjective. The composition $A\to G\to X$ is representable. All horizontal maps are smooth. We have the simplicial object $(A_U^\cdot\to G_U)\in {\mathbf{G_U}}$ and let $u_!j^U_! A_U^\cdot\in {\mathbf{H}}$ be the induced simplicial object $A_U^\cdot\to G_U\stackrel{j^U}{\to} G\stackrel{u}{\to} H$ in ${\mathbf{H}}$. Then we have by the definition \[check\] of $C_A$ and the formula (\[ttgg221\]) for $u^*$ that $$C_A^\cdot\circ u^*\circ i(F)(U)=F(u_!j^U_! A_U^\cdot)\ .$$ We now observe the isomorphisms $$\begin{aligned}
A_U\times_{G_U}\dots\times_{G_U}A_U&\cong&(A\times_G\dots\times_GA)\times_XU\\
&\cong&(B\times_H\dots\times_HB)\times_YU\\
&\cong&B_{v_!U}\times_{H_{v_!U}}\dots\times_{H_{v_!U}}B_{v_!U}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where the notation is explained by the cartesian diagram $$\xymatrix{H_{v_!U}\ar[d]\ar[r]^k&H\ar[d]\\U\ar[r]&Y}\ ,$$ and where $v_!U:=(U\to X\stackrel{v}{\to} Y)\in {\mathbf{Y}}$. We can thus identify the simplicial object $u_!j_!A_U^\cdot$ with the similar simplicial object $k_!B_{v_! U}$ in ${\mathbf{H}}$. In other words, we have an isomorphism of complexes $$C_A^\cdot\circ u^*\circ i(F)(U)\cong C_B^\cdot\circ i(F)(v_!U)\ .$$ Since $i(F)$ is an injective presheaf the right-hand side is exact by Lemma \[injvan\].
Comparison of big and small sites {#cckkll11}
---------------------------------
### {#section-75}
Let $X$ be a smooth stack and $(U\to X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$. A presheaf on $X$ naturally induces a presheaf on the small site $(U)$ of the manifold $U$ consisting of the open subsets. This restriction functor will be used subsequently in order to reduce assertions in the sheaf theory over $X$ to assertions in the ordinary sheaf theory on $U$. The goal of the present subsection is to study exactness properties of this restriction and its relation with the sheafification functors.
### {#cdsa1}
If $U$ is a smooth manifold, then we let $(U)$ denote the small site of $U$ where covering families are coverings by families of open submanifolds. A presheaf with respect to the big site on $U$ is in particular a presheaf with respect to $(U)$.
### {#section-76}
Let $G$ be a smooth stack and $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Then we have a functor $\nu_U:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr(U)$ which associates to the presheaf $F\in \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ the presheaf $\nu_U(F)\in \Pr(U)$ obtained by restriction of structure. Since limits and colimits in presheaves are defined objectwise the functor $\nu_U$ is exact.
### {#section-77}
\[sheafres1\] The functor $\nu_U$ preserves sheaves and induces a functor $\nu_U^s:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}(U)$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}An object $V\in (U)$ gives rise to an object $(V\to U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Observe that covering families of objects of $V\in (U)$ are also covering families of $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. For open subsets $V_1,V_2\subset V$ the fibre products $V_1\times_V V_2$ in $(U)$ and in ${\mathbf{G}}$ coincide by the discussion in \[t5tt5t\]. Therefore the descent conditions on $\nu_U(F)$ to be a sheaf on $(U)$ are part of the descent conditions for $F$ to be a sheaf on ${\mathbf{G}}$. Hence the functor $\nu_U$ restricts to $\nu_U^s:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}(U)$.
### {#section-78}
Since limits of sheaves are defined objectwise the functor $\nu_U^s$ commutes with limits. The goal of the following discussion is to show that it also commutes with colimits.
\[exgt5\] The functor $\nu_U^s:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}(U)$ is exact.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{} If $F$ is a diagram of sheaves, then we have $${\mathrm{colim}}^s(F)\cong i^\sharp\circ {\mathrm{colim}}\circ i(F)\ ,$$ where ${\mathrm{colim}}^s$ is the colimit of sheaves. Note that $\nu_U\circ i\cong i\circ \nu^s_U$ and $\nu_U\circ {\mathrm{colim}}\cong {\mathrm{colim}}\circ \nu_U$. In order to show that $\nu^s_U$ commutes with ${\mathrm{colim}}^s$ it remains to show the following Lemma.
### {#section-79}
\[gloloc\] We have $$i^\sharp\circ \nu_U\cong \nu_U^s\circ i^\sharp:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}(U)\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}For the moment it is useful to indicate by a subscript (e.g. $i_{\mathbf{G}}$ or $i_{(U)}$) the site for which the functors are considered. Following the discussion in [@MR1317816 Section 3.1] we introduce an explicit construction of the sheafification functor. Consider the site ${\mathbf{G}}$. We define the functor $P_{\mathbf{G}}:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr{\mathbf{G}}$ as follows. Let $(V\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Then we have the category of covering families ${{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(V)$ whose morphisms are refinements. For $\tau:=(V_i\to V)\in {{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(V)$ we define $H^0(F)(\tau)$ by the equalizer diagram $$H^0(F)(\tau)\to\prod_{i} F(V_i)\Longrightarrow \prod_{i,j}F(V_i\times_V V_j)\ .$$ We get a diagram $\tau\to H^0(F)(\tau)$ in ${\mathcal{S}ets}^{{{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(V)}$ and define $$P_{\mathbf{G}}(F)(V):={\mathrm{colim}}_{\tau\in {{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(V)} H^0(F)(\tau)\ .$$ Then we have $$i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp:=P_{\mathbf{G}}\circ P_{\mathbf{G}}:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr{\mathbf{G}}\ .$$
In a similar manner we define a functor $P_{(U)}:\Pr(U)\to \Pr(U)$ and get $$i_{(U)}\circ i_{(U)}^\sharp:= P_{(U)}\circ P_{(U)}:\Pr(U)\to \Pr(U)\ .$$
In order to show the Lemma it suffices to show that $$P_{(U)}\circ \nu_U\cong \nu_U\circ P_{\mathbf{G}}\ .$$
Let $V\subset U$ be open and consider the induced $(V\to
G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Then we have a functor $$\label{cifin}a:{{\tt cov}}_{(U)}(V)\to {{\tt cov}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}(V)\ .$$ If $\tau\in {{\tt cov}}_{(U)}(V)$, then we have an isomorphism $$H^0(F)(a(\tau))\cong H^0(\nu_U(F))(\tau)\ .$$ We therefore have an induced map of colimits $$P_{(U)}\circ \nu_U(F)(V)\to \nu_U\circ P_{{\mathbf{G}}}(F)(V)\ .$$ This map is in fact an isomorphism since we will show below that (\[cifin\]) defines a cofinal subfamily.
Let $\sigma:=(U_i\to V)_{i\in I}\in {{\tt cov}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}(V)$. Since the maps $U_i\to V$ are submersions they admit local sections. Hence there exists a covering $\tau:(V_j\to V)_{i\in J}\in {{\tt cov}}_{(U)}$, a map $r:J\to I$ and a family of sections $s_j:V_j\to U_{r(j)}$ such that $$\xymatrix{&U_{r(j)}\ar[dr]\\V_j\ar[ur]^{s_j}\ar[rr]&&V}$$ commutes for all $j\in J$. This data defines a morphism $\sigma\to a(\tau)$ in ${{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(V)$. This finishes the proof of Proposition \[exgt5\].
### {#section-80}
Recall the definition of a flabby sheaf \[flabbydef\].
\[flow12\] The functor $\nu_U^s:{{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}(U)$ preserves flabby sheaves.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $V\subset U$ be an open subset and $\tau\in {{\tt cov}}_{(U)}(V)$. Let $a:{{\tt cov}}_{(U)}(V)\to {{\tt cov}}_{\mathbf{G}}(V)$ be as in (\[cifin\]). We have an natural isomorphism $\check{C}(\tau,\nu^s_U(F))\cong \check{C}(a(\tau),F)$. If $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is flabby, then for $k\ge 1$ we have $H^k\check{C}(\tau,\nu^s_U(F))\cong H^k(\check{C}(a(\tau),F))
\cong 0$.
### {#derdecs1}
Since $\nu_U:\Pr{\mathbf{G}}\to \Pr (U)$ is exact it descends to a functor $\nu_U: D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})\to D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}(U))$ between the lower bounded derived categories. Since $\nu_U^s:{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}\to {{\tt Sh}}(U)$ is exact, it descends to a functor $\nu^s_U: D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})\to D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}(U))$.
### {#section-81}
Using the techniques above we show the following result which will be useful later. Let $f:G\to H$ be a smooth map between smooth stacks. Note that $f^*:\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}\to \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ is exact.
\[somecomu\]
1. We have an isomorphism of functors $$f^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp\cong i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*:{\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}\to {\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}\ .$$
2. We have an isomorphism of functors $$f^*\circ Ri_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp\cong Ri_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*:D^+({\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}})\to D^+({\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})\ .$$
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Let $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$ and $f_!U:=(U\to G\stackrel{f}{\to} H)\in {\mathbf{H}}$. We calculate for $F\in \Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}$ that on the one hand $$\begin{aligned}
(f^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp F)(U)&\stackrel{(\ref{poi451})}{\cong}&(i_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp F)(f_{!}U)\\&\cong&(\nu_{f_!U}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp F)(U)\\
&\stackrel{\ref{sheafres1} ,\ref{gloloc}}{\cong}&(i_{(U)}\circ i_{(U)}^\sharp\circ \nu_{f_!U}F)(U)\ .\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand we have $$\begin{aligned}
(i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*F)(U)&\cong &(\nu_U\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*F)(U)\\
&\stackrel{\ref{sheafres1} ,\ref{gloloc}}{\cong}&(i_{(U)}\circ i_{(U)}^\sharp\circ \nu_U \circ f^*F)(U)\ .\end{aligned}$$ Finally we use the fact that $\nu_U\circ f^*F\cong \nu_{f_!U} F$. Indeed, for $V\subset U$ we have $$\nu_U\circ f^*F(V)\cong F(f_!V)\cong \nu_{f_!U} F(V)\ .$$ The combination of these isomorphisms gives the first assertion.
Since $f^*$ preserves sheaves we can consider the restriction $f_s^*:{{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{H}}\to {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ of $f^*$. Using the first part of the Lemma and the isomorphism $i^\sharp\circ i\cong {{\tt id}}$ we get $$\label{teiluo001}f_s^*\circ i^\sharp_{\mathbf{H}}\cong i^\sharp_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ f_s^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp\cong i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}^\sharp\stackrel{(1)}{\cong}
i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*\cong i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*\ .$$ Note that $f_s^*$ is an exact functor. In order to see that it is right exact we use that $f_*$ preserves sheaves we consider its restriction $f_*^s$ to sheaves. For $X\in {{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{H}}$ and $Y\in {{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}$ we get a natural isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
{{\tt Hom}}_{{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}}(f_s^*X,Y)&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{G}}}(i^\sharp_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}f_s^*X,Y)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{\Pr{\mathbf{G}}}( i_{\mathbf{G}}f_s^*X, i_{\mathbf{G}}Y)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{\Pr{\mathbf{G}}}(f^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}X, i_{\mathbf{G}}Y)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{\Pr{\mathbf{H}}}(i_{\mathbf{H}}X, f_*\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}Y)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{\Pr{\mathbf{H}}}(i_{\mathbf{H}}X, i_{\mathbf{H}}\circ f^s_* Y)\\
&\cong&{{\tt Hom}}_{{{\tt Sh}}{\mathbf{H}}}(X, f^s_* Y)\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $f^*_s$ is a left adjoint and therefore right exact. We now write $$f_s^*\cong i^\sharp_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ f_s^*\cong i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ f^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}}\ .$$ Since $i^\sharp_{\mathbf{G}}$ is exact, and $f^*$ and $i_{\mathbf{H}}$ are left exact (since they are right adjoints, see Lemma \[lef\] for a left adjoint of $f^*$ ) we conclude that $f^*_s$ is left exact, too
Using the that $f_s^*$ preserves flabby sheaves (Lemma \[flabbypres\]) and that it is an exact functor we get $$f^*\circ Ri_{\mathbf{H}}\cong R(f^*\circ i_{\mathbf{H}})\cong R(i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ f_s^*)\cong
Ri_{\mathbf{G}}\circ f_s^*\ .$$ Combining this with (\[teiluo001\]) we get the desired isomorphism $$f^*\circ Ri_{\mathbf{H}}\circ i^\sharp_{\mathbf{H}}\cong Ri_{\mathbf{G}}\circ f^*_s\circ i^\sharp_{\mathbf{H}}\cong
Ri_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i^\sharp_{\mathbf{G}}\circ f^*\ .$$
The de Rham complex {#se2}
===================
The de Rham complex is a flabby resolution
------------------------------------------
### {#section-82}
We want to apply Lemma \[schluss\] to the sheafification $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$ of the constant presheaf with value ${\mathbb{R}}$ on ${\mathbf{G}}$. In particular, we must calculate $Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})$. This can be done by applying $i$ to a flabby resolution of $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$. In the present subsection we introduce the de Rham complex $G$ and show that it is a flabby resolution of $i^\sharp
{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$. The de Rham complex of smooth stacks has also been investigated in the papers [@MR2172499], [@math.DG/0605694 Sec. 3], [@MR2183389].
The de Rham complex of $G$ is built from the de Rham complexes of the manifolds $U$ for all $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. For each $U$ equipped with the topology of the small site it is well known that the de Rham complex resolves the constant sheaf with value ${\mathbb{R}}$ and is flabby. Our task here is to extend these properties to the stack $G$ and the big site.
### {#section-83}
Let $G$ be a smooth stack and fix an integer $p\ge 0$. We define the presheaf $\Omega^p(G)$ by $$\Omega^p(G)(U):=\Omega^p(U)\ .$$ If $\phi:U\to V$ is a morphism in ${\mathbf{G}}$, then $\Omega^p(G)(\phi):=\phi^*:\Omega^p(V)\to \Omega^p(U)$. Since $\phi^*$ commutes with the de Rham differential we get a complex $(\Omega^\cdot(G), d_{dR})$ of presheaves.
\[resd97\] The presheaf $\Omega^p(G)$ is a sheaf and flabby.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{} Let $(U\to G)\in {\mathbf{G}}$. Observe that $\nu_U(\Omega^p(G))$ is the presheaf of smooth sections of the vector bundle $\Lambda^pT^*U$. This is actually a sheaf. In order to show that $\Omega^p(G)$ is a sheaf it suffices to show that the unit $\Omega^p(G)\to i_{{\mathbf{G}}}\circ i_{{\mathbf{G}}}^\sharp (\Omega^p(G))$ of the adjoint pair $(i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp,i_{\mathbf{G}})$ is an isomorphism. This follows from the calculation $$\begin{aligned}
i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp (\Omega^p(G))(U)&\cong&\nu_U\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp (\Omega^p(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma\: \ref{sheafres1}}{\cong}&i_{(U)}\circ \nu_U^s\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp (\Omega^p(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma\: \ref{gloloc}}{\cong}&i_{(U)}\circ i_{(U)}^\sharp\circ \nu_U (\Omega^p(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{\nu_U (\Omega^p(G))\:is \:a\: sheaf}{\cong}&\nu_U (\Omega^p(G))(U)\ .\end{aligned}$$
A sheaf $F\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}(U)$ on a paracompact space $U$ is called soft if for all closed subsets $Z\subset U$ the restriction $\Gamma_U(F)\to \Gamma_Z(F)$ is surjective. For a soft sheaf we have $R^i\Gamma_U(F)\cong 0$ for all $i\ge 1$ (see [@MR1299726 Ex. II 5]). It now follows from [@MR1317816 Corollary 3.5.3] that a soft sheaf is flabby.
A sheaf of smooth sections of a smooth vector bundle on a smooth manifold is soft. In particular, $\nu_U^s(\Omega^p(G))$ is soft and therefore flabby.
In order to show that the sheaf $\Omega^p(G)$ is flabby it suffices by [@MR1317816 Corollary 3.5.3] to show that $R^k i(\Omega^p(G))\cong 0$ for $k\ge 1$. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
R^k i(\Omega^p(G))(U)&\cong& \Gamma_U\circ R^k i(\Omega^p(G))\\
&\stackrel{\Gamma_U \:exact}{\cong}&H^k(\Gamma_U\circ Ri(\Omega^p(G)))\\
&\stackrel{H^k\: object wise}{\cong}&H^k(Ri(\Omega^p(G))(U))\\
&\stackrel{definition \:of\:\nu_U }{\cong}&H^k(\nu_U\circ Ri_{\mathbf{G}}(\Omega^p(G))(U))\\
&\stackrel{\nu_U\:exact}{\cong}&R^k(\nu_U\circ i_{\mathbf{G}})(\Omega^p(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma \:\ref{sheafres1}}{\cong}&R^k(i_{(U)}\circ \nu_U^s)(\Omega^p(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma \:\ref{flow12}}{\cong}&R^ki_{(U)}\circ \nu_U^s(\Omega^p(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{\nu_U^s(\Omega^p(G))\:is\:flabby}{\cong}&0 \ . \end{aligned}$$
### {#deh}
Let ${\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$ denote the constant presheaf on ${\mathbf{G}}$ with value ${\mathbb{R}}$ and $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$ its sheafification. We have a canonical map ${\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}\to H^0(\Omega^\cdot(G))$. Since $ H^0(\Omega^\cdot(G))$ is a sheaf we get an induced map $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G\to H^0(\Omega^\cdot(G))$.
\[red98\] The map $$i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_G\to \Omega^\cdot(G)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}Note that the cohomology sheaves $H^k_s(F^\cdot)\in {{\tt Sh}}_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}}$ of a complex $F^\cdot$ of sheaves of abelian groups on ${\mathbf{G}}$ are defined by $H^k_s(F^\cdot):=i^\sharp_{\mathbf{G}}\circ H^k\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}(F^\cdot)$, where $H^k$ takes the cohomology of a complex of presheaves objectwise. We calculate $$\begin{aligned}
H_s^k(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)&\stackrel{definition\:of\: H^k_s}{\cong}&(i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ H^k\circ i_{\mathbf{G}})(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma \:\ref{sheafres1}}{\cong}&(\nu_U^s\circ i_{\mathbf{G}}^\sharp\circ H^k\circ i_{\mathbf{G}})(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma \ref{gloloc}}{\cong}&(i_{(U)}^\sharp\circ \nu_U\circ H^k\circ i_{\mathbf{G}})(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{\nu_U\: is\: exact}{\cong}&(i_{(U)}^\sharp \circ H^k \circ \nu_U \circ i_{\mathbf{G}})(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{Lemma \:\ref{sheafres1}}{\cong} &(i_{(U)}^\sharp \circ H^k \circ i_{(U)}\circ \nu^s_U)(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)\\
&\stackrel{definition\:of\: H^k_s}{\cong}&(H_s^k\circ \nu^s_U)(\Omega^\cdot(G))(U)\ .\end{aligned}$$
Since $\nu_U^s(\Omega^\cdot(G))$ is the de Rham complex of the manifold $U$ its higher cohomology sheaves vanish by the Poincaré Lemma. This implies that $H^k(\Omega^\cdot(G))\cong 0$ for $k\ge 1$.
Furthermore, it is well-known that $H^0(\nu_U(\Omega^\cdot(G)))\cong i^\sharp_{(U)}{\mathbb{R}}_{(U)}$. It follows from the observation $$\nu_U^s\circ i^\sharp_{{\mathbf{G}}}{\mathbb{R}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}\cong i^\sharp_{(U)}{\mathbb{R}}_{(U)}$$ (proved by arguments similar as above) that $i^\sharp_{{\mathbf{G}}}{\mathbb{R}}_{{\mathbf{G}}}\cong H^0(\Omega^\cdot(G))$.
### {#klhu}
By Lemmas \[resd97\] and \[red98\] the complex $\Omega^\cdot(G)$ is a flabby resolution of $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}}$. Therefore $$Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})\cong i(\Omega^\cdot(G))$$ in $D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})$. By Lemma \[schluss\] we have the isomorphism $$\label{derham-model}(Rf_*\circ Ri)(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_G)\cong C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$$ in $D^+(\Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$.
Calculation for $U(1)$-gerbes
-----------------------------
### {#section-84}
In this subsection we specialize the situation of \[gensi\] to the case where $f:G\rightarrow X$ is a gerbe with band $U(1)$ according to the definition in \[gerbw\] over a manifold $X$. We thus can assume that $A\to X$ is an atlas obtained from a covering of $X$ by open subsets such that the lift $s:A\rightarrow G$ is an atlas of $G$. The $U(1)$-central extension of groupoids in manifolds $(A\times_GA\Rightarrow A)\to (A\times_XA\Rightarrow A)$ (we forget the structure maps to $G$ for the moment) is the picture of a gerbe as presented in [@MR1876068]. In order to compare the sheaf theoretic construction of the cohomology of $G$ with the twisted de Rham complex we must choose some additional geometric structure on $G$, namely a connection in the sense of [@MR1876068]. The comparison map will depend on this choice.
### {#section-85}
A connection on the gerbe $f:G\rightarrow X$ consists of a pair $(\alpha,\beta)$, where $\alpha\in \Omega^1(A\times_GA)$ is a connection one-form on the $U(1)$-bundle $A\times_GA\rightarrow A\times_XA$, and $\beta\in \Omega^2(A)$. Observe that $\Omega^2(A)$ and $\Omega^1(A\times_GA)$ are the first two spaces of the degree-two part of the graded commutative DG-algebra $C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))(X)\cong \Omega^\cdot(G)(A^\cdot)$ discussed in \[alg\] and \[localo\]. To be a connection the pair $(\alpha,\beta)$ is required to satisfy the following two conditions:
1. $\delta \beta=d_{dR}\alpha$ (where $\delta$ is the Čech differential of the complex $\Omega^\cdot(A^\cdot)$, and $d_{dR}$ is the de Rham differential) and
2. $\delta\alpha=0$.
Note that $\delta d_{dR}\beta=0$ so that there is a unique $\lambda\in \Omega^3(X)$ which restricts to $d_{dR}\beta$. We have $d_{dR}\lambda=0$, and the class $[\lambda]\in H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ represents the image under $H^3(X;{\mathbb{Z}})\rightarrow H^3(X;{\mathbb{R}})$ of the Dixmier-Douady class of the gerbe $G\rightarrow X$ (see [@MR1876068] for this fact and the existence of connections).
### {#section-86}
Let us choose a connection $(\alpha,\beta)$, and let $\lambda\in \Omega^3(X)$ be the associated closed three form. We consider $(\alpha,\beta)\in C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))^2(X)$.
We consider the sheaf of complexes $\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda$ on ${\mathbf{X}}$ which associates to $(U\stackrel{i}{\rightarrow} X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ the complex $$\Omega^\cdot(U)[[z]], \quad d_\lambda:=d_{dR}+ \lambda T\ ,$$ where $T:=\frac{d}{dz}$, $z$ has degree two, and $\lambda$ acts by right multiplication by $i^*\lambda$. In particular we have $d_\lambda z=i^*\lambda$. Note that $\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda$ is a sheaf of left $\Omega_X^\cdot$-$DG$-algebras.
### {#free}
Observe that $z\in \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(X)$ is central. Let $L\in \Pr_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}}$ be a presheaf of graded unital central $\Omega_X^\cdot$-algebras. A map of presheaves of graded unital central $\Omega_X^\cdot$-algebras $\phi:i\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\rightarrow L$ determines a section $\phi(z)\in L(X)$. Vice versa, given a section $ l\in L(X)$ of degree two, there is a unique map of presheaves of graded unital central $\Omega_X^\cdot$-algebras $\phi:i\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\rightarrow L$ such that $\phi(z)=l$. For $(U\stackrel{i}{\to} X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ the map $\phi_U:i\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda(U)\to L(U)$ is given by $$\phi_U(\sum_{k\ge 0} \omega_k z^k):=\sum_{k\ge 0} \omega_k i^*(l)^k\ ,$$ where $i^*:L(X)\to L(U)$ is determined by the presheaf structure of $L$.
If $(L,d^L)$ is a presheaf of $DG$-algebras over $\Omega_X^\cdot$, then $\phi$ is a homomorphism of $DG$-algebras over $\Omega_X^\cdot$ if and only if $d^L l = \lambda$.
### {#prode}
\[er3\] We have an isomorphism $$\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\cong i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$$ in $D^+({{\tt Sh}}_{{{\tt Ab}}}{\mathbf{X}})$.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}$C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$ is a presheaf of $DG$-algebras by the \[shdg\]. Given $(U\rightarrow X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$ we have a natural projection $\pi:A_U^0\to U$ (see \[localo\] for the notation). It induces a homomorphism of $DG$-algebras $\Omega_X^{\cdot}(U)\to (\ker(\delta):\Omega^\cdot(G)(A_U^0)\to \Omega^\cdot(G)(A_U^1))$ and therefore on $\Omega^\cdot(G)(A_U^\cdot)$ the structure of an $\Omega_X^\cdot(U)$-$DG$-module (see \[shdg\]). In this way $C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$ becomes a sheaf of central $\Omega_X^\cdot$-$DG$-algebras.
By the discussion in \[free\] we can define a map of presheaves of central $\Omega_X^\cdot$-algebras $$\tilde \phi:i\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\rightarrow C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$$ such that $\tilde \phi(z)=(\alpha,\beta)\in C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))^2(X)$. Because of $d \tilde \phi(z)=d(\alpha,\beta)=\lambda$, the map $\tilde \phi$ is a map of presheaves of $DG$-algebras over $\Omega_X^\cdot$, hence in particular a map of presheaves of complexes.
We let $$\phi:\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\stackrel{\sim}{\to}i^\sharp \circ i \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda \stackrel{i^\sharp \tilde \phi}{\to } i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$$ be the induced map, where the first isomorphism exists since $\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda$ is a complex of sheaves.
### {#section-87}
It remains to show that $\phi$ is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of sheaves. This can be shown locally. We can therefore assume that $X$ is contractible. We then have a pull-back diagram $$\xymatrix{G\ar[r]^q\ar[d]^f&[*/S^1]\ar[d]^g\\X\ar[r]^p&\mbox{*}}\ .$$ Since $p$ is smooth, so is $q$. By Lemma \[derpulb\] we have a canonical isomorphism $$\label{yxcv12}p^*\circ Rg_*\circ Ri\stackrel{\sim}{\to} Rf_*\circ q^*\circ Ri\ .$$
Applying (\[yxcv12\]) to $i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])}$ we obtain $$\label{waqw1}
p^*\circ Rg_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} Rf_*\circ q^* \circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([* /S^1])})$$ in $D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{X}})$. We now use (see \[klhu\]) that $$Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([* /S^1])})\cong i(\Omega^\cdot{([*/S^1])})\ .$$ By the calculation of $q^*$ in Lemma \[poi451\] and the definition of the de Rham complex we have $$q^*\circ i(\Omega^\cdot{([*/S^1])})\cong i(\Omega^\cdot(G))\ .$$ Therefore in $D^+(\Pr_{{\tt Ab}}{\mathbf{G}})$ we have $$q^*\circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([* /S^1])})\cong i(\Omega^\cdot(G)) \stackrel{\ref{klhu}}{\cong} Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})\ .$$ It follows by \[klhu\] that $$\label{waqw2}Rf_*\circ q^* \circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([* /S^1])})\cong Rf_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})\cong C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))\ .$$
### {#section-88}
We now must calculate the cohomology of the gerbe $[*/S^1]$ with real coefficients.
\[bas13\] We have an isomorphism $$i^\sharp\circ Rg_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\cong i^\sharp ({\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{{{\tt Site}}(*)})\ ,$$ where $z$ has degree two.
[[*Proof.$\:\:\:\:$*]{}]{}We choose the atlas $A:=*\to [*/S^1]$ and use the isomorphism $$Rg_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\cong C_A(\Omega^\cdot([*/S^1]))\in D^+({\Pr}_{{\tt Ab}}{{\tt Site}}(*))\ .$$ Note that ${{\tt Site}}(*)$ is the category of smooth manifolds. Let $U$ be a smooth manifold. We have $$A_U\cong U\to U\times [*/S^1]\cong [*/S^1]_U$$and $$C_A(\Omega^\cdot([*/S^1]))(U)\cong \Omega^\cdot(A_U^\cdot)\ ,$$ where $$A_U^p=\underbrace{A_U\times_{[*/S^1]_U }\dots\times _{[*/S^1]_U}A_U}_{p+1 \:factors}\cong U\times (\underbrace{*\times_{[*/S^1] }\dots\times _{[*/S^1]}*}_{p+1 \:factors}) \cong U\times (S^1)^{p}\ .$$ The simplicial manifold $$A_U^\cdot\cong U\times (S^1)^\cdot$$ is the simplicial model of the space $U\times BS^1$, where $BS^1$ is the classifying space of the group $S^1$. We can use the simplicial de Rham complex in order to calculate its cohomology. Note that $H^*(BS^1,{\mathbb{R}})\cong {\mathbb{R}}[[z]]$ with $z$ in degree two. Let us fix a form $\zeta\in (\Omega^\cdot ((S^1)^\cdot)_{tot}^2$ which represents the generator $z$. Then we define a map $$\mu_U: \Omega^\cdot(U)[[z]]\to \Omega^\cdot(U\times (S^1)^\cdot)$$ by $$\mu(\omega z^k):=\omega\wedge \zeta^k\ .$$ This map induces a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of abelian groups. The family of maps $\mu_U$ for varying $U$ defines a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of presheaves $\mu:i\Omega(*)[[z]]\to C_A(\Omega^\cdot([*/S^1]))$. It induces the quasi-isomorphism of complexes of sheaves $$\Omega(*)[[z]]\cong i^\sharp\circ i \Omega(*)[[z]]\stackrel{i^\sharp \mu}{\cong} i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot([*/S^1]))\ .$$ Finally observe that the canonical map $$i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{{{\tt Site}}(*)}\to\Omega(*)[[z]]$$ is a quasi-isomorphism by Lemma \[red98\]
### {#section-89}
It follows from Lemma \[bas13\] by applying $p^*\circ Ri$ that $$p^*\circ Ri\circ i^\sharp \circ Rg_* \circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\cong p^*\circ Ri\circ i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{{{\tt Site}}(*)}\ .$$ We now use the second assertion of Lemma \[somecomu\] in order to commute $Ri\circ i^\sharp$ with $p^*$. We get $$Ri\circ i^\sharp \circ p^*\circ Rg_* \circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\cong Ri\circ i^\sharp\circ p^* {\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{{{\tt Site}}(*)}\ .$$ We now apply $i^\sharp$ and use that $i^\sharp \circ Ri\cong {{\tt id}}$ in order to drop the functor $Ri$ and get the quasi-isomorphism $$i^\sharp \circ p^*\circ Rg_* \circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\cong i^\sharp\circ p^* {\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{{{\tt Site}}(*)}\ .$$
By the explicit description of $p^*$ given in the proof of Lemma \[pi\] we see that $$p^*({\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{{{\tt Site}}(*)})\cong {\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{\mathbf{X}}\ .$$ We thus have a quasi-isomorphism $$\label{waqw3}
i^\sharp \circ p^*\circ Rg_* \circ Ri(i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{{{\tt Site}}([*/S^1])})\cong i^\sharp({\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{\mathbf{X}})\ .$$
Combining the isomorphisms (\[waqw1\]), (\[waqw2\]) and (\[waqw3\]) we obtain a quasi-isomorphism $$i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))\cong i^\sharp({\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{\mathbf{X}})\ .$$ In particular we see that $z$ generates the cohomology.
### {#section-90}
Since $X$ is contractible we find $\gamma\in \Omega^2(X)$ such that $d_{dR}\gamma=\lambda$. We define a map of complexes of sheaves $$\psi:i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{\mathbf{X}}\rightarrow \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_0\stackrel{e^{-\gamma T}}{\rightarrow} \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\ .$$ The first map is given by the inclusion $i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{X}}\rightarrow \Omega_X^\cdot$ and is a quasi-isomorphism. The second map is an isomorphism of sheaves of complexes. Therefore $\psi$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Note that $\psi$ is multiplicative and $\psi(z)=z-\gamma$. We further define $\kappa:i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{\mathbf{X}}\rightarrow i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))$ such that $\kappa(z)=(\alpha,\beta-\gamma)=\phi(z-\gamma)$. Then we have a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{ i^\sharp{\mathbb{R}}[[z]]_{\mathbf{X}}\ar[rr]^\kappa\ar[dr]^\psi&&i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))\\&\Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\ar[ur]^\phi}\ .$$ If we show that $\kappa$ is a quasi-isomorphism, then since $\psi$ is a quasi-isomorphism, $\phi$ must be a quasi-isomorphism, too. It suffices to see that $\kappa(z):=(\alpha,\beta-\gamma)$ represents a non-trivial cohomology class. Assume that it is a boundary locally on $(U\rightarrow X)\in {\mathbf{X}}$. Then there exists $x\in \Omega^0(G)(A_U^1)$ and $y\in \Omega^1(G)(A_U^0)$ such that $\delta x=0$, $d_{dR}x+\delta y=\alpha_U$ and $d_{dR} y=(\beta-\gamma)_U$ (the subscript indicates that the forms are pulled back to $A_U^*$). By exactness of the $\delta$-complex we can in fact assume that $x=0$. But then the equation $\delta y=\alpha_U$ is impossible since $\delta y$ vanishes on vertical vectors on the bundles $A_U^1\rightarrow A_U^0$ given by the source and range projections while $\alpha$ as a connection form is non-trivial on those vectors.
### {#fini}
We now finish the proof of Theorem \[main\]. We combine Proposition \[er3\] with \[klhu\] and the fact that $f_*$ preserves sheaves (Lemma \[shpre\]) in order to get $$i^\sharp\circ Rf_*\circ Ri(i^\sharp {\mathbb{R}}_{\mathbf{G}})\cong i^\sharp C_A(\Omega^\cdot(G))\cong \Omega^\cdot[[z]]_\lambda\ .$$
[10]{}
Michael Atiyah and Graeme Segal. .
Michael Atiyah and Graeme Segal. Twisted [$K$]{}-theory. , 1(3):287–330, 2004.
K. Behrend. Cohomology of stacks. In [*Intersection theory and moduli*]{}, ICTP Lect. Notes, XIX, pages 249–294 (electronic). Abdus Salam Int. Cent. Theoret. Phys., Trieste, 2004.
Kai Behrend and Ping Xu. .
Kai A. Behrend. On the de [R]{}ham cohomology of differential and algebraic stacks. , 198(2):583–622, 2005.
Peter Bouwknegt, Alan L. Carey, Varghese Mathai, Michael K. Murray, and Danny Stevenson. Twisted [$K$]{}-theory and [$K$]{}-theory of bundle gerbes. , 228(1):17–45, 2002.
Peter Bouwknegt, Jarah Evslin, and Varghese Mathai. -duality: topology change from [$H$]{}-flux. , 249(2):383–415, 2004.
Jean-Luc Brylinski. , volume 107 of [*Progress in Mathematics*]{}. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1993.
U. Bunke, Th. Schick, and M. Spitzweck. . In preparation.
U. Bunke, Th. Schick, and M. Spitzweck. . In preparation.
Daniel S. Freed, Michael J. Hopkins, and Constantin Teleman. .
Jochen Heinloth. Survey on topological and smooth stacks. In [*Mathematisches Institut G[ö]{}ttingen, WS04-05 (Y. Tschinkel, ed.)*]{}, pages 1–31. 2005.
Nigel Hitchin. Lectures on special [L]{}agrangian submanifolds. In [*Winter School on Mirror Symmetry, Vector Bundles and Lagrangian Submanifolds (Cambridge, MA, 1999)*]{}, volume 23 of [*AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math.*]{}, pages 151–182. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
Michael Joachim. Higher coherences for equivariant [$K$]{}-theory. In [*Structured ring spectra*]{}, volume 315 of [*London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser.*]{}, pages 87–114. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004.
Masaki Kashiwara and Pierre Schapira. , volume 292 of [*Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. With a chapter in French by Christian Houzel, Corrected reprint of the 1990 original.
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*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
Varghese Mathai and Danny Stevenson. . Advances in Mathematics, vol. 200 no. 2 (2006) 1-33.
Varghese Mathai and Danny Stevenson. Chern character in twisted [$K$]{}-theory: equivariant and holomorphic cases. , 236(1):161–186, 2003.
J. P. May and J. Sigurdsson. .
J. Peter May. . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977. With contributions by Frank Quinn, Nigel Ray, and Jørgen Tornehave, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 577.
David Metzler. .
M. K. Murray. Bundle gerbes. , 54(2):403–416, 1996.
Michael K. Murray and Daniel Stevenson. Bundle gerbes: stable isomorphism and local theory. , 62(3):925–937, 2000.
Behrang Noohi. .
Martin Olsson. Sheaves on artin stacks.
Dorette A. Pronk. Etendues and stacks as bicategories of fractions. , 102(3):243–303, 1996.
G[ü]{}nter Tamme. . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994. Translated from the German by Manfred Kolster.
Jean-Louis Tu, Ping Xu, and Camille Laurent-Gengoux. Twisted k-theory of differentiable stacks.
[^1]: Mathematisches Institut, Universit[ä]{}t G[ö]{}ttingen, Bunsenstr. 3-5, 37073 G[ö]{}ttingen, GERMANY, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: We do not know the converse, i.e. whether a representable map between manifolds is necessarily a submersion.
[^3]: In order to avoid set-theoretic problems one must require that a site is a small category. In the present paper we will ignore this problem. It can be resolved by either working with universes or replacing ${{\tt Mf}}^\infty$ by an equivalent small category (see e.g. [@math.DG/0306176]).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that well-separated quantum superposition states, measurements of strongly nonlinear observables, and quantum dynamics driven by anomalous diffusion can all be achieved for single atoms or molecules by imaging spontaneous photons that they emit via resonance florescence. To generate anomalous diffusion we introduce continuous measurements driven by Lévy processes, and prove a number of results regarding their properties. In particular we present strong evidence that the only stable Lévy density that can realize a strictly continuous measurement is the Gaussian.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts at Boston, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02125, USA'
- 'Department of Physics and Oregon Center for Optics, 1274 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1274'
author:
- Kurt Jacobs
- 'Daniel A. Steck'
title: 'Engineering Quantum States, Nonlinear Measurements, and Anomalous Diffusion by Imaging'
---
{#section .unnumbered}
starttoc[toc]{}
Introduction
============
The measurement of the position of a particle is perhaps the most basic quantum-mechanical measurement, but it poses many subtleties. The archetype for a position measurement is the Heisenberg microscope—the imaged detection of light scattered from the particle. Here we consider photodetection of the light emitted by a single two-level atom. If the photons first pass through a lens designed to form an image of the atom before detection, then the photodetections provide information about the location of the atom. The detections therefore modify the spatial wave function of the atom. This situation was first considered by Holland *et al.* [@Holland96], as a tool for the efficient simulation of atomic decoherence due to spontaneous emission. As applications, they considered spatial flights correlated with quantum jumps, and Lévy statistics due to trapping in potential wells of an optical lattice [@Marksteiner96].
Under the proper conditions, this type of imaged photodetection can lead to the standard form of a continuous position measurement [@JacobsSteck06], which gives rise to Gaussian projection noise [@CMnotes]. However, as we will discuss in detail, it is the diffraction pattern of the imaging system that gives the form of the collapse in the Heisenberg microscope. Imaging systems often involve hard-edged apertures and thus long-tailed (non-Gaussian) diffraction patterns. Such long-tailed distributions lead in the context of random walks to exotic Lévy noise—so-called “anomalous diffusion” [@Klafter96; @Tsallis95; @Metzler00]. Another situation in which one can naturally tailor the form of the collapse would be the detection of resonance fluorescence in the presence of a magnetic field gradient [@Thomas95]. In this case it is the Lorentzian line shape that enters as the collapse function. Thus, in moving towards experiments to realize continuous position measurements via imaging, it is important to understand the impact of long-tailed collapse operators, and under what conditions there may be qualitative modifications to the quantum noise and the conditioned dynamics of the continuously observed atom.
Our purpose here is threefold. In Sec. \[sec::2\] we examine the effect of imaging on the wave-function of a single atom, and show that this can be used to prepare non-classical states, and realize highly nonlinear measurements. In Sec. \[sec::3\], in preparation for exploring how imaging can be used to generate anomalous diffusion, we examine continuous measurements that contain Lévy noise. We are able to show that there are no truly continuous measurements that are driven only by stable Lévy processes [@JacobsSP; @ContTankov], with the sole exception being the Gaussian. It turns out that the underlying reason for this is a result that we prove in Sec. \[sec::4\]: repeated measurements whose errors are given by the stable Lévy distributions will eventually collapse the wave-function to a Gaussian, just like the usual Gaussian measurements. In Sec. \[sec::3\] we also discuss how truly continuous measurements *can* contain Lévy noise, by combining a stable Lévy process with a Poisson or Gaussian process. Finally, in Sec. \[sec::4\] we use the above results to examine how imaging can be designed to make measurements that induce anomalous diffusion, an effect that, in this case, is quantum-mechanical in origin.
Position measurements via photodetection {#sec::2}
========================================
We consider the motion of a single two-level atom (or molecule) along a single direction, which we will refer to as the $z$-axis. We illuminate the atom with a resonant laser traveling along the $x$-axis, and place two lenses or mirrors on opposite sides of the atom that image the emitted photons in the $xz$-plane. This configuration is depicted in Fig. \[fig::setup\]. In addition to forming an image of the atom at the detector, the mirrors have a mask over them, which can apply an angle-dependent phase, as well as having an angle-dependent absorption profile. This mask introduces an aperture for the imaging optics.
To describe the angular dependence of the aperture, we use spherical polar coordinates $\theta$ and $\phi$. As usual $\theta$ is the angle to the $z$-axis, and $\phi$ is the angle in the $xy$-plane. The center of each lens is on the $y$-axis, and thus given by $\theta = \pi/2$. We parameterize the distance from the center of each lens by $\xi = \cos\theta \in [-1,1]$. We will denote the aperture transmission function of the aperture, $t(\xi,\phi)$, and for simplicity we will take this to be independent of $\phi$ in a fixed window $\Delta\phi$ (centered at the center of the lens), and to be zero otherwise. We note that since the aperture may include a phase mask, $t$ can be complex.
The basic analysis of the above imaging setup has been performed in Refs. [@Holland96; @JacobsSteck06], and the relevant results are as follows. Upon detecting a single photon at location $z=a$ on the image, the wavefunction of the atom, $\psi(z)$, undergoes the transformation $$\psi(z) \rightarrow \frac{A(z - a) \psi(z)}{\mathcal{N}} ,$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the required normalization, and the “collapse" operator $A(z)$ is $$A(z) = \int_{-1}^{1} \!\!\! \chi (\xi) \, e^{ i k z \xi} \, d\xi .
\label{eq::Az}$$ Here $k$ is the wave number of the emitted photon, and $$\chi (\xi) = t(\xi) \sqrt{f(\xi)},$$ where $f(\xi) = (3/4)\sin^2(\theta)$ is the dipole angular emission function for the photon. By choosing the aperture transmission appropriately, $\chi$ can be [*any*]{} function satisfying $|\chi (\xi)|^2 \leq f(\xi)$, with the restriction that $\chi $ is zero outside the aperture capture region. The fraction $\eta$ of photons captured by the optics is given by the integral of $|\chi |^2$ over the capture region. An emitted photon that is not detected transforms the atomic wave function via the collapse operator $B(z-a)$, where $B(z)$ is given by Eq. (\[eq::Az\]), with $\chi$ replaced with $\chi' = \sqrt{f}(1 - t)$. Since the photon is not detected, the density matrix of the system is given by averaging over all the possible image locations $a$.
The power of the above imaging setup comes partly from the ability to engineer the collapse (or [*measurement*]{}) operator $A(z)$ by selecting an appropriate aperture profile, $t(\xi)$. Since $t(\xi)$ is zero outside $[-1,1]$, for a given $A(z)$ we can find the required profile by using the inverse Fourier transform: $$t (\xi) \propto \frac{1}{\sqrt{f(\xi)}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \!\!\! A(z) \, e^{ -i k z \xi} \, dz .$$ The other key component of imaging is the ability to engineer the mixing of optical modes prior to detection. We now present three examples that illustrate how these two components can be exploited.
![Spontaneous emissions from a single atom or molecule are imaged by mirrors. Each mirror has a mask whose transmission profile can be modified. \[fig::setup\]](fig1_mirrorimagingsetup.eps){width="4in"}
Application: Preparing spatially separated superpositions
---------------------------------------------------------
The imaging configuration described above can be used to prepare an atom in a superposition of two spatially separated states. This is achieved by chosing the aperture of the imaging system so that the collapse function $A(z)$ is the sum of two well-separated Gaussians. Let $\sigma^2$ be the variance of both Gaussians, and $L\gg\sigma$ their separation. An aperture function that does this is shown in Fig. \[fig::Tprof\]. This aperture covers about $29^\circ$ of arc in $\theta$ (i.e. $\xi \in [-1/4,1/4]$), and gives well-separated Gaussians with $\sigma = 1.5\lambda$ and $L = 15\lambda$. Here $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the emitted photon. The separation is easily increased by increasing the number of oscillations in the profile. The fraction of photons captured by the aperture, assuming the two-mirror configuration in Fig. \[fig::setup\], and $\Delta\phi = 29^\circ$, is approximately 1/186. The aperture size we have chosen is conservative — using two mirrors with $120^{\mbox{\tiny o}}$ of arc as the focussing elements, capture rates greater than 1 in 20 should be feasible with this aperture profile.
One now prepares the atom in a broad Gaussian state, centered at $z=0$, by cooling it to the ground state of a harmonic trap using standard techniques [@Diedrich89]. One then illuminates the atom with a laser pulse to prepare it in the excited state, and allows it to emit a photon. This preparation process is repeated until the emitted photon is detected. (One must repeat the preparation because a single undetected emission destroys the spatial coherence.) This prepares the atomic wave function in a superposition of two spatially separated wave-packets, with separation $L$ and widths $\simeq \sigma$. The relative heights of the two localized wave-packets is determined by the location of the detected photon. The closer the photon to $z=0$, the more equal the weighting of the two packets. Naturally one requires that the probability of the smaller packet, $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize s}}$, should not be too small. If the ground state of the trap is broad compared to $L$, a numerical calculation shows that when a photon is detected, the probability that it gives $P_{\mbox{\scriptsize s}} \geq 1/3$ is approximately $95\%$. Furthermore, the superposition can be made arbitrarily symmetric with a sufficient number of repetitions of the preparation process.
![Aperture amplitude transmission profiles for preparing (a) a spatially separated superposition, and (b) a state with an infinite position variance. \[fig::Tprof\]](fig2.vsc.eps)
Application: Measuring nonlinear observables
--------------------------------------------
Measurements of nonlinear observables have applications in state-preparation [@Jacobs09] and in detecting signatures of quantum motion, among others. The usual method of measuring nonlinear observables (e.g. nonlinear functions of position, $z$), is to couple a probe to the system via a nonlinear interaction proportional to the observable. Generating effective nonlinear interactions is not easy, however. Feasible methods exist to generate effective $z^4$ interactions, but generating higher powers becomes increasingly more difficult [@Jacobs09c]. We show now that imaging can be used to engineer a measurement of the highly nonlinear function, $|z|$, without the need for a nonlinear interaction. This measurement can be used to generate spatially separated superposition states, in a similar manner to that of $z^2$ measurements [@Jacobs09], with the advantage that it is linear everywhere but at $z=0$. This linearity means that the wave-packets in the resulting superposition will be very nearly Gaussian squeezed states.
To realize a measurement of $|z|$ we make the aperture fully transmitting. This allows one, in principle, to capture the majority of emitted photons. This time we use the optics to first collimate the light. We then split the light into two beams with a 50-50 beam splitter, invert one of them about $z=0$, and recombine them. Finally we focus the beam to an image, which is now a superposition of the original image and its reflection about $z=0$. Since we cannot now tell $z$ from $-z$, the detected photon only contains information about $|z|$. This measurement can be made quasi-continuous by repeatedly exciting the atom and detecting the emitted photons. The method can also be extended to more complex measurements, erasing information about multiple intervals of the values of $z$.
Anomalous diffusion and Lévy measurements {#sec::3}
=========================================
All continuous measurements that have been realized to date on quantum systems generate Gaussian or Poissonian noise. That is, in each infinitesimal time step $dt$, the error in the measurement record, and the noise induced in the system, is either the Gaussian (Wiener) increment $dW$, with variance $dt$, or the discrete jump of a Poisson process. These noise processes are ubiquitous in nature because of the central limit theorem. There are, however, a whole range of more exotic noise processes that do not have these statistics, and find applications in wide range of phenomena [@Klafter96; @Tsallis95]. A remarkable class of these are the [*symmetric stable Lévy processes*]{}, $L_\alpha(t)$, indexed by the continuous parameter $\alpha \in (0,2]$ [@JacobsSP; @ContTankov]. We will denote the random infinitesimal increment of one of these processes by $dL_{\alpha}$. When $\alpha =2$, the Lévy process is just the Wiener process. All other stable Lévy processes break the central limit theorem because they have infinite variances.
The “stable” Lévy processes are so-called because the sum of two or more of their increments has the [*same*]{} probability density as each individual increment (except that the width of this density is larger by a factor of $2^{1/\alpha}$). This is familiar for Gaussian random variables (the sum of two Gaussian deviates is also Gaussian), but is usually not true for other probability densities. In fact, if a probability density satisfies the conditions for the central limit theorem, and is not Gaussian, then the sum of multiple samples from this density *must* differ from the original density, since ultimately this sum must have a Gaussian density in the limit of many samples.
When two increments of the (Gaussian) Wiener process are added together, the width (uncertainty) of the sum is $\sqrt{2}$ times that of each increment. As stated above, for the stable Lévy process $L_\alpha$ this factor becomes $2^{1/\alpha}$. This factor determines how the width (the uncertainty) of the process scales with time. The result is that the process $L_\alpha (t)$ has a width proportional to $t^{1/\alpha}$. For Gaussian noise this reduces to the familiar scaling: the standard deviation increases as $\sqrt{t}$. This is the usual behavior of diffusion, for example the diffusion of a pollen grain undergoing Brownian motion. If the uncertainty of a dynamical system scales instead as $t^{1/\alpha}$, for $\alpha < 2$, then this behavior is referred to as [*anomalous diffusion*]{} [@Metzler00]. The case $\alpha=1$ is the Cauchy process, whose increment, $dC \equiv dL_1$, has the [*Lorentzian*]{} probability density $$P(dC) = \frac{dt}{\pi[(dC)^2 + (dt)^2]} .$$ The uncertainty of the Cauchy process scales at $t$. For readers new to Lévy processes, realizations of the Wiener and Cauchy processes are displayed in Fig. \[fig:paths\]. A realization, or “sample path”, of the Cauchy process is quite distinct from the Wiener process. An introduction to Lévy processes may be found in [@JacobsSP; @ContTankov]. With this background out of the way, we ask how stable Lévy processes might be realized by continuous quantum measurements.
![(a) Wiener noise and (b) Cauchy noise. \[fig:paths\]](fig3.vsc.eps){width="4in"}
Absence of continuous measurements with stable Lévy noise
---------------------------------------------------------
A continuous measurement of position, $X$, is characterized by the error of the measurement result in an infinitesimal time-interval $dt$. Specifically, if $d\varepsilon$ is the random variable describing this error, then the increment of the measurement result obtained in the time-interval $dt$ is given by $$dr = \langle X \rangle dt + \gamma\, d\varepsilon,
\label{eq::dr}$$ where $\gamma$ is a constant that fixes the overall size of the error. Gaussian measurements have $d\varepsilon = dW$ [@JacobsSteck06; @WMBook; @Brun02]. Little is yet known as to what classes of exotic Lévy processes can appear as the errors in continuous measurements [@Holevo86]. We now show that continuous measurements can *never* have errors given purely by stable Lévy processes, with the sole exception being the Gaussian.
The amount of information that the measurement obtains about $X$ in a short time interval $\Delta t$ is determined by the width of the probability density of the measurement result in each time interval. The measurement result is given by dividing $dr$ by $dt$, and is the mean value of the measured quantity plus the random error: $$\frac{dr}{dt} = \langle X \rangle + \gamma\, \frac{d\varepsilon}{dt}.$$ The amount of information extracted is determined by the width of the probability density of $d\varepsilon/dt$; if the error has a large “variance” (width) the observer gains little information, and vice versa. In particular, the observers probability density for $X$ (the diagonal elements of the density matrix in the basis of $X$) after the measurement is given by multiplying her initial probability density by the probability density for $d\varepsilon/dt$, shifted by the measurement result, $dr/dt$ [@JacobsSteck06].
For a sequence of measurements to produce a valid continuous measurement in the continuum limit, the amount of information extracted (the change to the observers state-of-knowledge) must scale in the right way as we reduce the time interval between the measurements, $\Delta t$. In particular, the average change to the observer’s state-of-knowledge in a fixed time interval, $T$, must remain the same as we reduce the time-step and thus increase the number of measurements in the interval. For this reason we can show immediately that Eq. (\[eq::dr\]) cannot describe a continuous measurement if $d\varepsilon = dL_\alpha$ for $\alpha \leq 1$. Consider first the case when $\alpha = 1$. Because the width of $dL_1$ scales as $dt$, we see that the width of $d\varepsilon/dt = dL_1/dt$ is *independent of dt*. Since it does not decrease with $dt$, as we increase the number of measurements, and take the limit $dt \rightarrow 0$, the amount of information extracted by the observer tends to infinity, resulting in an instantaneous collapse of the wave-function. This will also be true for $\alpha < 1$.
Showing that continuous measurements cannot be realized for $1 < \alpha < 2$ is not so simple, since in this case the width of the probability density for the error, $d\varepsilon/dt = dL_\alpha/dt$, diverges as $dt \longrightarrow 0$, and thus the extracted information tends to zero as required. To determine whether a continuum limit exists for these measurements we begin by way of a numerical example before we proceed with an analytic calculation. We start with a state of knowledge for $X$ given by a Gaussian with unit variance, and simulate a sequence of measurements for $\alpha = 1.5$. This involves repeatedly multiplying by the probability density for $L_\alpha$, which must be obtained from the Fourier transform of its characteristic function [@JacobsSP]. We simulate four sequences of measurements, in which each sequence has half the time-step of the one before. We then examine how the change in the width of the observer’s state-of-knowledge scales with the time-step. We obtain this change by averaging each sequence over four thousand realizations. The results for the four sequences are displayed on a log-log plot in Fig. \[fig:stable\_test\]. From this we see that the reduction in the observers uncertainty increases as a power of the inverse time-step (the exponent, or slope in the plot here, is consistent with $1/3$), and thus will reduce the observer’s uncertainty to zero in the limit $dt \rightarrow 0$. A sensible continuum limit would require a flat slope (flat scaling exponent) in such a plot as this, as happens in the Gaussian case $\alpha=2$. Again, this means that the amount of information extracted per unit time becomes asymptotically constant as $dt\longrightarrow 0$.
![The scaling of the average reduction in an observer’s uncertainty, for a sequence of stable Lévy measurements, as the time step is decreased, and thus as the number of repetitions is increased. The horizontal axis gives the number of repetitions. The straight line gives the best (logarithmic) fit. \[fig:stable\_test\]](fig4.vsc.eps)
To test this for all $\alpha\in (1,2)$, we can compute the scaling exponent as a function of $\alpha$. To perform this calculation numerically, we can use a deterministic method that is more efficient than the Monte Carlo method of Fig. \[fig:stable\_test\]. The idea is to take a narrow, Gaussian initial state, and compute the uncertainty reduction that results from applying the measurement operator centered about a particular measurement result. We then average the reduction in uncertainty over all measurement results by performing a numerical integral.
The above numerical procedure for calculating the scaling exponent as a function of $\alpha$ is rather cumbersome, since there is not a general expression for the measurement operator for arbitrary $\alpha$. Remarkably we can bypass this procedure, and obtain a simple analytic expression for this scaling exponent, using the following insight: if the initial state is Gaussian, the application of the measurement function (Lévy density) *leaves the final state in a Gaussian distribution, and the reduction of the variance behaves, on average, as if the measurement function were itself Gaussian*. This is not an obvious statement, and we will justify it in Sections \[section:arbproject\], \[section:gaussian\], and Appendix \[section:appendix-clt\]. This result means that the reduction in the variance due to the collapse is simple for every Lévy measurement: it is proportional to the inverse square of the width of the distribution for the error). Now that we know how the reduction in the variance depends on the width, and we know how the width of the Lévy distribution scales with $dt$, we can easily determine the scaling of the reduction in the variance. Specifically, if the measurement error is given by $dL_\alpha/dt$, then the square width of this distribution is $w^2(dt) = dt^{2/\alpha-2}$. So the reduction in the variance for a single measurement for duration $dt$ is $\Delta V(dt) \propto - 1/(w^2) = - dt^{2 - 2/\alpha}$. If we now make $N$ measurements, each with duration $dt/N$, then the total reduction is $$\Delta V_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}} = N \Delta V (dt/N) \propto - N (dt/N)^{2 - 2/\alpha} = N^{2/\alpha-1} \Delta V(dt).$$ The scaling exponent we seek is therefore $2/\alpha-1$.
![The dependence of the power-law scaling exponent (i.e., the slope of the line in Fig. \[fig:stable\_test\]) as a function of $\alpha$. The solid curve is the analytic result ($2/\alpha-1$), and the points indicate values obtained by a numerical calculation of the uncertainty reduction due to projection with the corresponding Lévy distribution. \[fig:alphascaling\]](fig5.vsc.eps)
Fig. \[fig:alphascaling\] shows the dependence of the power-law scaling exponent (i.e., the slope of the line in Fig. \[fig:stable\_test\]) as a function of $\alpha$. The analytic result $2/\alpha-1$ is shown along with numerical tests at the specific points indicated. Again, only a scaling exponent of zero can correspond to a sensible continuous limit of a sequence of Lévy measurements. Thus we see that, even in the range $1<\alpha<2$, the uncertainty decreases *too quickly* to correspond to a continuous measurement, as the continuous limit will lead to instantaneous collapse of the state—essentially, corresponding to a divergent measurement strength. Though we have only analyzed a Gaussian state, a valid continuous measurement must work for *every* state, and thus our analysis is sufficient to rule out these kinds of continuous measurements. (Further, as we will show below, measurements with Lévy collapse operators tend to produce Gaussian states anyway.) Consequently, only the Gaussian ($\alpha=2$) case can correspond to a continuous measurement.
Chained processes and exotic noise
----------------------------------
Despite the above result, it [*is*]{} possible to construct continuous measurements that contain the exotic statistics of [*any*]{} stable Lévy process. To do so we combine the stable process with a Poisson process in the following way: we replace the time index upon which the stable process $L_\alpha(t)$ depends with the Poisson process ${\mathcal P}(t)$, to form the “chained” process ${\mathcal S}_\alpha(t) = L_\alpha({\mathcal P}(t))$. (In the mathematics literature this chaining procedure is referred to as [*subordinating*]{} $L_\alpha$ with ${\mathcal P}$ [@ContTankov].) Now examine the behavior of this new Lévy process. Between jumps of the Poission process the time index for the Cauchy process does not change, and thus the increment $d{\mathcal S}_\alpha$ is zero. Upon an event (a jump) in the Poisson process, the time index of the stable process increases by unity, and thus generates a finite increment $\Delta L_\alpha = \int_0^1 dL_\alpha$. The temporal scaling of the stable process $L_\alpha$ no longer prevents the process ${\mathcal S}_\alpha$ from representing a continuous measurement, since the scaling as $\Delta t \rightarrow 0$ is entirely determined by the Poisson process.
When there are many jumps in a given time interval, the number of jumps fluctuates only a little from its mean value. Because of this, if we make the rate of jumps $\lambda$ large, and set $\sigma \propto 1/\lambda$ so that the effect of each jump on the measured system is small, then the Poisson-subordinated Lévy measurement realizes what is effectively a quasi-continuous Lévy measurement, with $\Delta t = 1/\lambda$. Our simulations show that the measurement records of these measurements are qualitatively the same as those of the stable Lévy processes (e.g., Fig \[fig:paths\]).
Measurements described by the Lévy processes $\mathcal{S}_\alpha$ can be realized by using the imaging setup of Fig. \[fig::setup\]. The photodetection events are the jumps of the Poisson process, so we need each of these to correspond to a measurement with the result $\Delta r = \langle X \rangle + \gamma \Delta L_\alpha$ for some $\gamma$. This is accomplished by choosing the aperture so that the square of the collapse operator is the density $P(\Delta L_\alpha)$, with $\gamma$ set by scaling the width of $P$. In Fig. \[fig::Tprof\]b we give the aperture profile $T(\xi)$ for a Cauchy measurement. This prepares a state with a Cauchy probability density for position, and we display the Wigner function for this state in Fig. \[fig:Wig\].
Anomalous diffusion and continuous measurement {#sec::4}
==============================================
Action of an arbitrary position measurement {#section:arbproject}
-------------------------------------------
So far we have focused on the statistics of the measurement results. Now we turn to the question of generating anomalous diffusion in the [*dynamics*]{} of a quantum system. In particular, we address the question of what happens to the quantum state under the action of a Lévy (or any other) spatial projection operator. We will assume a Gaussian initial state, with probability density $$\rho(x,x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}e^{-x^2/4\sigma^2},$$ where for convenience we assume the state is centered at $x=0$. As we are interested in the quasi-continuous—and thus weak-measurement—limit, we will assume that the width of the projection operator is much wider than the width of the state. Given a Hermitian collapse operator $\Omega$, we have the (unnormalized) measurement reduction $\rho\longrightarrow\Omega\rho\Omega$, or $\rho(x,x)\longrightarrow\Omega^2(x)\rho(x,x)$ in the position representation. The operator $\Omega^2(x)$ is very broad, though not necessarily centered at $x=0$. Given that it varies slowly over the extent of the state, we can expand the operator to second order as $$\Omega^2(x)
= \Omega_0+\Omega_1 x+\Omega_2 x^2+O(x^3),
= \Omega_0e^{ax-bx^2}+O(x^3)$$ provided that $a=\Omega_1/\Omega_0$ and $b=a^2/2 + \Omega_2/\Omega_0$. After dropping normalization factors, the reduced state is $$\Omega^2(x) \rho(x)\propto
e^{ax-bx^2}e^{-x^2/4\sigma^2}\propto e^{-(x-\mu)^2/4\tau^2},$$ where $$\mu=\frac{2a\sigma^2}{1+4b\sigma^2},\qquad \tau=\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{1+4b\sigma^2}}$$ are the new mean and standard deviation, respectively,
There are several points to note here. For a Gaussian collapse operator, for example, the $b$ parameter is *constant*, since it is only the $a$ parameter that controls the displacement of the Gaussian from $x=0$. This reiterates the well-known result that a Gaussian measurement will reduce the uncertainty of a Gaussian state *deterministically*—i.e., independent of the measurement result. In particular, $b=1/2\sigma'^2$, where $\sigma'$ is the standard deviation of the measurement function. For any *other* form of the collapse operator, a particular measurement may increase or decrease the uncertainty. It is only on *average* that the uncertainty of the state decreases. Again, the $b$ parameter, which represents a particular function of the local curvature $\Omega_2$ of the collapse function at $\langle x \rangle$, controls how the uncertainty changes due to the collapse. For example, for a long-tailed distribution such as the Cauchy, the uncertainty *decreases* if the measurement result is close to zero, but *increases* if the measurement result is very far from zero. Also since the $a$ parameter controls the displacement of the measurement operator, it likewise controls the shift of the mean of the state in response to the measurement, as we see from $\mu\propto a$. However, the main point of this section is this: in this regime of broad measurement distributions, the action of the collapse preserves the Gaussian form of the quantum state, *independent* of the form of the measurement operator. In particular, even measurements of stable Lévy distributions preserve the Gaussian form of the quantum state.
Collapse to a Gaussian wave packet {#section:gaussian}
----------------------------------
Now we extend the analysis above and prove a somewhat surprising result:
![Wigner function for a state with a Cauchy probability density for position. Here $X$ and $P$ are scaled so that $[X,P] = i$, and the width of the Cauchy density is $\sigma = 0.3$. Blue is positive, green negative. \[fig:Wig\]](fig6.vsc.eps)
[*Theorem:*]{} In the absence of any Hamiltonian evolution, a sequence of many repeated Lévy measurements generates a Gaussian wave function — independent of the initial state — just as do Gaussian measurements.
[*Proof:*]{} A sequence of $N$ Lévy measurements of $X$ corresponds to multiplying the initial position density, $P(X) = |\psi(x)|^2$, by a sequence of Lévy densities. This means that the characteristic function of the resulting density is the convolution of the characteristic functions of $N$ Lévy densities. The characteristic functions of the symmetric $\alpha$-stable densities, $L_\alpha(x)$, are $\chi_\alpha(s) = \exp[-\sigma^\alpha |s|^\alpha + i\mu s]$, where $\sigma$ is a width parameter and $\mu$ is the mean [@JacobsSP; @ContTankov]. For $\alpha\geq 1$, $\mu$ is the mean of the Lévy density. If we now think of $\chi_\alpha(s)$ as a probability density (for $s$), then convolving $N$ of them corresponds to adding $N$ random variables with density $\chi_\alpha$. Since every $\chi_\alpha(s)$ has a finite second moment, the central limit theorem tells us that for large $N$ the result of these convolutions tends to a Gaussian. (Note that the usual central limit theorem does not handle complex-valued distributions, so we extend the theorem to cover this case in Appendix \[section:appendix-clt\].) If the final characteristic function is Gaussian, then the final density is also Gaussian. Thus, while a [*single*]{} Lévy measurement on an initially flat density creates a Lévy density, many repeated Lévy measurements generate Gaussian densities, and thus Gaussian wave functions. $\square$
Anomalous diffusion induced by back-action: a proposed experiment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Once the wave-function of a single particle has been reduced to a Gaussian, even the exotic measurements discussed above induce only Gaussian noise in the dynamics of $X$. This is not difficult to show analytically for very strong (small $\gamma$) and very weak (large $\gamma$) measurements, and the numerical simulation we have performed confirm it more generally. So how does one make measurements that [*do*]{} generate anomalous diffusion? We now show that one can do this using imaging, and in a manner that directly exploits the quantum nature of the measurement back-action. This distinguishes it from the Lévy noise in Ref. [@Marksteiner96] (as well as the momentum Lévy flights in Refs. [@Bardou94; @Bardou01; @Breuer07] that arise in subrecoil laser cooling), which can be treated semiclassically. After initially preparing the atom in a broad Gaussian state, we make a “square" measurement producing a wave function with a square profile; that is, a flat wave function with a sharp cut-off at each end. This is achieved by choosing the aperture to be a sinc function. The quantum back-action of this measurement simultaneously generates a momentum probability density that is the square of the sinc function. This has an infinite variance. We then wait for a quarter period of the harmonic evolution, and this transfers the momentum density to position. Repeating the “square-profile" measurement now produces an infinite-variance change in the mean position of the atom, and thus anomalous diffusion. Of course, in an experiment, each time we make a measurement, a number of photons will be lost before one is detected. We will refer to the average number of photons emitted for each one detected as the [*loss rate*]{}. We must check that the anomalous diffusion remains in the presence of this loss.
![Eight trajectories of the mean atomic position, resulting from photodetection using an aperture with a square profile, and total efficiency of 50%. \[fig:eighttraj\]](fig7.vsc.eps)
We now simulate this experiment, assuming mirrors with a $130^{\mbox{\tiny o}}$ arc. Using an aperture profile that gives a square-profile measurement with a width of $32$ wavelengths results in a loss rate of 119. We note that the loss rate per measurement can be reduced by post-selecting those photodetections in which the photo was detected very soon after the laser pulse. For these detections there will be, on average, many fewer photons that were not detected. For example, in the present case post-selecting $1$ in $118$ measurements reduces the loss rate per post-selected measurement to unity.
To show that our square-profile measurement induces anomalous diffusion in the mean position, $\langle X \rangle$, we must examine the statistics of the change to $\langle X \rangle$ caused by a single photodetection. Let us denote the change induced in $\langle X \rangle$ as $\Delta \langle X\rangle$. To determine whether this change exhibits anomalous diffusion, we examine how the width of the probability density for $\Delta \langle X \rangle$, which we will call $\sigma_1$, compares to that for the sum of two independent samples of $\Delta \langle X \rangle$, which we will call $\sigma_2$. Anomalous diffusion is achieved when $\sigma_2 = 2^{\beta}\sigma_1$, with $\beta > 0.5$. To obtain accurate estimates of $\beta$ we must simulate sequences with a large number of measurements. As a example, to determine $\beta$ when the loss rate per measurement is 5, we simulated 24 sequences of 600 photodetections each. This is numerically intensive due to the long tails of the wave functions involved, and so we employ a parallel computer. For a loss rate of unity (50% efficiency) we find that $\beta = 0.69 \pm 0.16$, and for a loss rate of $5$ (17% efficiency) $\beta = 0.60 \pm 0.07$. This shows us that while $\beta$ does decrease with increasing loss, the signature of anomalous diffusion remains. This indicates that one can generate exotic noise for considerably higher loss rates, although confirming this numerically is prohibitive with our present computing resources. Examples of the evolution of the mean atomic position, for a loss rate of 50%, are shown in Fig. \[fig:eighttraj\].
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Jeremy Thorn for comments and corrections. This work was performed with the supercomputing facilities in the College of Science and Mathematics at UMass Boston. K.J. is supported by the National Science Foundation under Project No. PHY-0902906, and D.A.S. is supported by the National Science Foundation under Project No. PHY-0547926.
Appendix: Modified Central Limit Theorem {#section:appendix-clt}
========================================
The usual version of the central limit theorem states that, given a random walk of independent, identically distributed steps, the resulting distribution converges to a Gaussian in the limit of many steps $N$, with a width scaling as $\sqrt{N}$. The variance of each step must be finite for the central limit theorem to hold. Under certain other conditions, the one-step distributions need not be identical. To support our argument in Section \[section:gaussian\], we will now modify the standard proof (see, e.g., Ref. [@Korner]) of the central limit theorem, where the one-step distribution is the Lévy characteristic function $$\chi_{\alpha,n}(s) = e^{-\sigma^\alpha |s|^\alpha + i\mu_n s},
\label{charfunconestep}$$ where $\mu_n$ is randomly chosen on each “step” from the corresponding Lévy probability distribution $P_\alpha(x)$ with zero mean. Obviously, this is not a sensible probability distribution. However, the central limit theorem examines the successive convolutions of the one-step distribution, which is well-defined, and ultimately what we are interested in. The characteristic function (Fourier transform) of the one-step distribution (\[charfunconestep\]) is $$\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha,n}(k) = 1-ik\tilde\mu_n
-\frac{k^2(\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}+\tilde{\mu}_n^{\,2})}{2}+O(k^3),
\label{charfunconestepchar}$$ where we have introduced an overall scaling factor to normalize the one-step distribution, and the first two “cumulants” are given by $$\renewcommand{\arraycolsep}{0ex}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\tilde{\mu}_n &{}:={}&\displaystyle \int ds\,s\chi_{\alpha,n}(s)\\
\tilde{\sigma}_n &{}:={}&\displaystyle \int ds\,(s-\tilde{\mu}_n)^2\chi_{\alpha,n}(s).
\end{array}$$ (Recall that the terms in the expansion of the characteristic function give the successive moments of the original distribution.) In general, both of these quantities are nonzero, but the integrals are finite. Also, $\tilde{\mu}_n$ is a random variable with zero mean and finite variance.
Now we will consider $N$ “steps” taken in the random walk, but first it is convenient to rescale the width of the one-step distribution to make it narrower by a factor of $\sqrt{N}$. This amounts to the replacements $s\longrightarrow s\sqrt{N}$ and $k\longrightarrow k/\sqrt{N}$, so that the characteristic function of the characteristic function becomes $$\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha,n}'(k) = 1-\frac{ik\tilde\mu_n}{\sqrt{N}}
-\frac{k^2(\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}+\tilde{\mu}_n^{\,2})}{2N}+O(N^{-3/2}).
\label{charfunconestepcharrescaled}$$ After $N$ steps in the “random walk,” or the successive convolution of $N$ of the one-step distributions, we have simply the product of the corresponding characteristic functions via the convolution theorem (again dropping overall factors): $$\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha}^{(N)}(k) = \prod_{n=1}^N\left[1-\frac{ik\tilde\mu_n}{\sqrt{N}}
-\frac{k^2(\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}+\tilde{\mu}_n^{\,2})}{2N}+O(N^{-3/2})\right].
\label{charfunconestepcharrescaledNsteps}$$ The logarithm of the characteristic function of the convolution is $$\log\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha}^{(N)} = \sum_{n=1}^N\log\left[1-\frac{ik\tilde\mu_n}{\sqrt{N}}
-\frac{k^2(\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}+\tilde{\mu}_n^{\,2})}{2N}+O(N^{-3/2})\right].
\label{charfunconestepcharrescaledNstepslog}$$ Expanding the logarithm gives $$\renewcommand{\arraycolsep}{0ex}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\log\tilde{\chi}_{\alpha}^{(N)}
&{}={}& \displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^N\left[-\frac{ik\tilde\mu_n}{\sqrt{N}}
-\frac{k^2\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}}{2N}+O(N^{-3/2})\right]\\
&{}={}& \displaystyle -\frac{ik}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{n=1}^N\tilde\mu_n
-\frac{k^2}{2N}\sum_{n=1}^N\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}.
\end{array}
\label{charfunconestepcharrescaledNstepslogexp}$$ The usual central limit theorem applies to the first sum, which is $O(\sqrt{N})$, so the first term remains finite with unit probability as $N\longrightarrow\infty$. In the same way, the stochastic part of the second sum vanishes as $N\longrightarrow\infty$, and the second term becomes $-k^2\langle\tilde{\sigma}_n^{\,2}\rangle/2$, where the angle brackets denote an expectation value with respect to $\mu_n$. Letting $k\longrightarrow -ik$, we obtain the cumulant-generating function for the distribution after $N$ steps. We see that in the limit of large $N$, the first two cumulants are finite and the rest vanish—this is the cumulant-generating function for a Gaussian distribution.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
M. Holland, S. Marksteiner, P. Marte, and P. Zoller. Measurement induced localization from spontaneous decay. , 76:3683, 1996.
S. Marksteiner, K. Ellinger, and P. Zoller. Anomalous diffusion and [Lé]{}vy walks in optical lattices. , 53(5):3409–3430, 1996.
K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck. A straightforward introduction to continuous quantum measurement. , 47:279, 2006.
C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn. , 36:5543, 1987.
J. Klafter, M.F. Shlesinger, and G. Zumofen. Beyond brownian motion. , 49:33, 1996.
C. Tsallis, S. V. F. Levy, A. M. C. Souza, and R. Maynard. Statistical-mechanical foundation of the ubiquity of [L]{}évy distributions in nature. , 75:3589–3593, 1995.
R. Metzler and J. Klafter. The random walk’s guide to anomalous diffusion: A fractional dynamics approach. , 339:1–77, 2000.
J. E. Thomas and L. J. Wang. Precision position measurement of moving atoms. , 262:311–366, 1995.
K. Jacobs. . CUP, Cambridge, 2010.
R. Cont and P. Tankov. . Chapman & Hall, New York, 2004.
F. Diedrich, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland. Laser cooling to the zero point energy of motion. , 62:403, 1989.
K. Jacobs, L. Tian, and J. Finn. Engineering superposition states and tailored probes for nanoresonators via open-loop control. , 102:057208, 2009.
K. Jacobs and A. J. Landahl. Engineering giant nonlinearities in quantum nanosystems. , 103:067201, 2009.
H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn. . CUP, Cambridge, 2010.
Todd A. Brun. A simple model of quantum trajectories. , 70:719, 2002.
A. S. Holevo. L[é]{}vy precesses and continuous quantum measurements. In O. E. Barndorff-Nielsen [*et al.*]{}, editor, [*L[é]{}vy processes: theory and applications*]{}. Birkh[ä]{}user Boston, Boston, 2001.
F. Bardou, J. P. Bouchaud, O. Emile, A. Aspect, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji. Subrecoil laser cooling and [Lé]{}vy flights. , 72:203–206, 1994.
F. Bardou, J.-P. Bouchaud, A. Aspect, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji. . CUP, Cambridge, 2001.
H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione. . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
T. W. K[ö]{}rner. . CUP, Cambridge, 1988.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on four radio-detected cosmic-ray (CR) or CR-like events observed with the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA), a NASA-sponsored long-duration balloon payload. Two of the four were previously identified as stratospheric CR air showers during the ANITA-I flight. A third stratospheric CR was detected during the ANITA-II flight. Here we report on characteristics these three unusual CR events, which develop nearly horizontally, 20-30 km above the surface of the Earth. In addition, we report on a fourth steeply upward-pointing ANITA-I CR-like radio event which has characteristics consistent with a primary that emerged from the surface of the ice. This suggests a possible $\tau$-lepton decay as the origin of this event, but such an interpretation would require significant suppression of the Standard Model ${\tau}$-neutrino cross section.'
author:
- 'P. W. Gorham'
- 'J. Nam'
- 'A. Romero-Wolf'
- 'S. Hoover'
- 'P. Allison'
- 'O. Banerjee'
- 'J. J. Beatty'
- 'K. Belov'
- 'D. Z. Besson'
- 'W. R. Binns'
- 'V. Bugaev'
- 'P. Cao'
- 'C. Chen'
- 'P. Chen'
- 'J. M. Clem'
- 'A. Connolly'
- 'B. Dailey'
- 'C. Deaconu'
- 'L. Cremonesi'
- 'P. F. Dowkontt'
- 'M. A. DuVernois'
- 'R. C. Field'
- 'B. D. Fox'
- 'D. Goldstein'
- 'J. Gordon'
- 'C. Hast'
- 'C. L. Hebert'
- 'B. Hill'
- 'K. Hughes'
- 'R. Hupe'
- 'M. H. Israel'
- 'A. Javaid'
- 'J. Kowalski'
- 'J. Lam'
- 'J. G. Learned'
- 'K. M. Liewer'
- 'T.C. Liu'
- 'J. T. Link'
- 'E. Lusczek'
- 'S. Matsuno'
- 'B. C. Mercurio'
- 'C. Miki'
- 'P. Miočinović'
- 'M. Mottram'
- 'K. Mulrey'
- 'C. J. Naudet'
- 'J. Ng'
- 'R. J. Nichol'
- 'K. Palladino'
- 'B. F. Rauch'
- 'K. Reil'
- 'J. Roberts'
- 'M. Rosen'
- 'B. Rotter'
- 'J. Russell'
- 'L. Ruckman'
- 'D. Saltzberg'
- 'D. Seckel'
- 'H. Schoorlemmer'
- 'S. Stafford'
- 'J. Stockham'
- 'M. Stockham'
- 'B. Strutt'
- 'K. Tatem'
- 'G. S. Varner'
- 'A. G. Vieregg'
- 'D. Walz'
- 'S. A. Wissel'
- 'F. Wu'
title: 'Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA'
---
We have previously reported the observation of ultra-high energy (UHE) cosmic ray (CR) air showers detected from suborbital altitudes with the ANITA balloon payload [@ANITA_CR] during our first flight in 2007 [@HooverThesis]. The initial blind neutrino-search analysis that led to their identification in the data found 16 events in a signal box with an expected background of 1.6 events. Three of these 16 events were deemed background: two of unknown origin, and one a likely thermal noise fluctuation with no apparent signal content. The remaining 13 events were consistent with geomagnetically-induced CR radio pulses seen in reflection off the Antarctic ice surface. Three additional CRs were also found in cross-correlation analysis after the unblinding, including two events from directions above the geometric horizon but below the horizontal. These stratospheric air showers represent a class of CR which has not been previously observed.
ANITA [@ANITA-inst] makes precise horizontal (Hpol) and vertical (Vpol) polarization measurements of each detected impulse, using custom dual-polarized quad-ridged horn antennas. For the CR events, their nearly horizontal planes of polarization correlated closely with Lorentz-force components of the predominantly vertical Antarctic geomagnetic field, once Fresnel coefficients for reflection from the ice surface were accounted for. The above-horizon CR events had opposite polarity compared to the reflected events, consistent with a lack of inversion by reflection, and also had geomagnetically correlated planes of polarization. In addition to these two above-horizon events observed in ANITA-I, an additional event of the same type was observed in the 2009 ANITA-II flight, selected according to its high correlation to CR waveform templates. ANITA-II, which was optimized for in-ice neutrino detection [@ANITA-II], did not have a dedicated CR trigger but still detected a small number of CR impulses that had sufficient signal strength. Further details of the two flights are given in [@Suppl1].
event No. flight index Latitude Longitude$^{\dag}$ angle $D^*_{1200}$ $D_{Xmax}$ $D_{300}$ $D_{100}$ $H_{X_{max}}$
----------- -------- ------- ---------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------- ------------- ---------------
5152386 I A 80.2S 49.0W $-4.25\pm0.25^{\circ}$ $622(+88,-100)$ $694\pm80$ $780\pm 77$ $860\pm 70$ $22.0\pm 1.0$
7122397 I B 82.405S 12.5E $-3.4\pm0.32^{\circ}$ $331(+125,-200)$ $444(+100,-120)$ $570\pm 80$ $667\pm 70$ $24.2\pm 2.2$
21684774 II C 83.24S 0.87E $-2.3\pm0.3^{\circ}$ $-83.5(+9,-6)$ $-17(+189,-75)$ $285\pm 85$ $416\pm 70$ $29.9\pm 1.3$
Latitude and Longitude of the estimated location of shower maximum $X_{max}$, or for event C, payload location.
Distances from payload, in km, to location of indicated shower slant depth in g/cm$^2$.
\[tbl1\]
Motivated by recent results in which searches for upward-directed or Earth-skimming CR air showers have been used to constrain the flux of $\tau$ lepton decays arising from UHE $\nu_{\tau}$ [@Auger15; @Fargion06; @Feng02], we have performed more detailed evaluation of the properties of these apparently up-coming radio-detected CRs. The three stratospheric events appear consistent with our expectations for ANITA’s acceptance to the known CR flux at energies above $10^{18}$ eV. In reviewing the other putative background events that passed our blind analysis cuts, we found that one of these was dominated by Hpol content, consistent with the geomagnetic parameters of a CR. It arrived at the payload from a direction of $27.4^{\circ}$ below the horizontal, which was a fairly typical angle for the reflected CR events. Yet it did not appear to correlate well with the [*reflected*]{} CR signal shape, and was thus rejected as background at the time [@HooverThesis]. In re-evaluating this event, we realized that the polarity and plane of polarization are consistent with an air shower seen directly, without the reflection phase inversion. However, its steep upward pointing angle poses clear problems for interpretation. In this report, we analyze characteristics of all four of these unusual upward-directed events seen by ANITA, with specific focus on what relation, if any, the previously excluded event may have with $\tau$-lepton-initiated air showers.
![Waveforms for the four events described here. Events are indexed here and in the text by the letters A,B,C,D. \[wfmall\]](fourWfms-crop){width="3.3in"}
Table \[tbl1\] shows characteristics of the three stratospheric events. Angles of arrival relative to the payload horizontal and their standard errors are determined through pulse-phase interferometric mapping [@ARW15]. Distances to various integrated atmospheric column depths $X$, including the approximate depth of shower maximum $X_{max}$, assuming a shower energy of $\sim 10^{18}$ eV, are given along the track, based on a standard atmosphere model for Antarctica, and with uncertainties primarily dominated by the angle-of-arrival uncertainty. The geodetic positions in each case are given according to the estimated location of $X_{max}$.
Figure \[wfmall\] shows the field-strength waveforms for all of the events, derived from coherent beam-forming [@ARW15], with the instrumental response then deconvolved. Both Hpol and Vpol are plotted. The Hpol polarity of each of these events, checked independently by two quantitative methods, is phase-reversed with respect to the other 14 UHECR events which were inverted by reflection from the ice surface [@ANITA_CR]. For CRs, Vpol polarity and magnitude depends on components of the geomagnetic field in the locale of the event, as we will quantify later.
The three events at shallow elevation angles, which correlate closely in pulse shape to our other sample of radio-detected CRs, develop and propagate in the stratosphere, under very rarified densities. Their overall length is greatly magnified compared to showers observed by ground arrays. The lowest of the three events has a likely first interaction point well beyond the geometric horizon, and will have largely dissipated in the vicinity of the geometric horizon at $\sim 650$ km. The higher two events are at least 200 km, and possibly more than 600 km in length, in both cases passing by the ANITA payload before they have dissipated. In the highest event, which develops above 30 km, the shower was near its maximum development when it passed by ANITA. Geometric estimates of ANITA’s expected rate of CRs at these angles, using the acceptance determined by the reflected CRs [@Harm16], indicates that the number of detected events is consistent with the known CR spectrum at EeV energies.
{width="6in"}
To characterize these events more fully, we estimate their Stokes parameters. Fig. \[stokesAbove\] show I,Q,U,V in a spectro-temporal decomposition for these three events. In all cases the linear polarization components associated with Q and U are clearly evident. In addition, in the two stronger events there is up to 25% Stokes V content, indicating circular polarization (CP) present in the signal, well above the $\leq3\%$ residual instrumental polarization effects for our data. For all of the events the total polarized fraction is 100% within statistical errors due to thermal noise. CP in radio signals from CRs at the few percent level has been hypothesized to arise from interference between the primary signal generation from geomagnetic effects [@FalckeGorham; @HF05], and the secondary signal from the Askaryan effect [@SLAC01], but there is no currently accepted model to predict the resulting CP content for our signals.
![Stokes parameters for event 3985267.[]{data-label="stokes3985"}](stokes_fig_upgoing.pdf){width="3.in"}
Hypothesis Latitude Longitude$^{\dag}$ angle $D_{1200}$ $D_{Xmax}$ $H_{Xmax}$ $D_{300}$ $D_{100}$ $D_{Hmin}$ $H_{min}$
--------------------------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ----------- ----------- -------------- -----------
downward CR, reflected 83.16S 18.9E $-27.4\pm0.3^{\circ}$ 84.9 92.2 8.65 105.4 120.3 $73.1\pm0.8$ 2.59
upward, direct from ice surface 82.86S 18.15E $-27.4\pm0.3^{\circ}$ 50.7 62.9 7.0 69.4 72.0 $73.1\pm0.8$ 2.59
upward, start 5km above ice 82.56S 17.4E $-27.4\pm0.3^{\circ}$ \* 30.6 22.2 54 61 $63.1\pm0.8$ 7.59
Latitude and Longitude of the estimated location of shower maximum $X_{max}$.
This shower exits the atmosphere at about 800 gm cm$^{-2}$ column depth.
\[tbl2\]
The waveform in Fig. \[wfmall\] for the remaining event D shows a strong Hpol, and a correlated Vpol signal. The primary pulse correlates well with both the above-horizon signals and the inversion of the 14 reflected CR signals. There is also an excess of noise evident in the trailing part of the signal, similar to what is observed in several of the reflected CRs [@HooverThesis], although in this case it appears more persistent and larger in amplitude. In Fig. \[stokes3985\] we show the spectro-temporal plot of Stokes parameters for this event, with clear detections of Q, U, and V, indicating both a linear and CP component; the CP fraction is $\sim 10\%$ of the total polarization.
Table \[tbl2\] shows parameters for event D under the hypothesis that it is radio emission from a CR air shower, seen either in reflection from the ice surface, or from a direct air shower starting along the track from the surface to the payload, although for the former case the polarity is inconsistent. For the latter case, the only Standard Model (SM) physics origin we know of for up-going air showers is from the interactions or decay of a secondary lepton from a neutrino interaction; however, at these angles, the chord distance through the Earth most likely excludes neutrinos of the energies that ANITA is likely to detect in such a process.
![Geomagnetic correlation of events. The dashed line shows the prediction for pure geomagnetic Lorentz force-induced emission. []{data-label="geomag"}](VmVexpAll.pdf){width="3.5in"}
For a cosmic-ray air shower, the Lorentz force on the relativistic electron-positron pairs yields a plane of acceleration in the local shower frame given by $\sin \Psi = \hat{v} \times \hat{B}$, where $\hat{v}$ is a unit vector giving the shower direction, and $\hat{B}$ the geomagnetic field direction. The resulting radiation Poynting vector, arising primarily from the region near shower $X_{max}$, can then be extrapolated to the payload location for each event to determine the predicted field-strength ratio for Vpol to Hpol. Residual non-vertical components of the Antarctic geomagnetic fields will result in small but correlated Vpol components for CR events; anthropogenic or other backgrounds should have no correlation to geomagnetic reference planes. Fig. \[geomag\] shows results of this analysis for the four events considered here. Errors on the predicted values arise primarily from the combined uncertainties of the Hpol field strength, and the amplitude calibration between Vpol and Hpol. Measurement errors are dominated by the thermal noise floor. The stratospheric events are all consistent within errors with geomagnetic correlation, as is the case for event D, when evaluated for the geomagnetic parameters of an upward-coming direct event. If the observed polarity of event D were inverted compared to what was observed, it could be marginally consistent with a reflected CR (at the 2.5$\sigma$ level). However, the statistical chance of a mis-identification of the polarity is negligible, since the coherently beam-formed signal-to-noise ratio for the field strength of this event is $16:1$ for Hpol, and $4:1$ for Vpol. We thus conclude that a reflected-CR hypothesis is excluded for this event. We note also that the measured Vpol/Hpol ratio of the largest secondary peak in this event, occuring 4 ns after the primary peak, is consistent geomagnetically with the first peak, suggesting a similar physical origin for these two components.
The original blind analysis that selected the ANITA-I CR events [@ANITA_CR] required only that the events show phase coherence not present in thermal noise fluctuations and that their reconstructed position be isolated both temporally and spatially from all other events. None of the original selection involved waveform correlation, correlation to geomagnetic parameters, or estimates of Stokes V content. For each of these independent parameters we can use the measured distributions for the background to estimate the cumulative fraction that equal or exceed our observed values. Assuming they are uncorrelated, the product of these individual probabilities provides an [*a posteriori*]{} estimate of the probability that the background could produce this event [@Suppl1].
The fraction of the 80,000 anthropogenic background events that equal or exceed the magnitude of event D’s shape correlation coefficient with the previously identified CRs is $p_{wfm} = 0.022$. Anthropogenic events are uncorrelated to the Antarctic geomagnetic field, and the fraction of such events that equal or exceed event D’s geomagnetic correlation is $p_{geo} = 0.07$. The fraction of events with instrumental Stokes V magnitude that exceed that of event D is $p_{V} = 0.05$. We estimate a trials factor of $f_{trial} = 3$ for a small number of additional parameters investigated as potential discriminators and rejected. Combining these factors, the estimated probability is $p_{wfm} \times p_{geo} \times p_{V} \times f_{trial} = 2.4 \times 10^{-4}$; Given the estimated surviving background of 1.6 events, we would expect $N \simeq 4 \times 10^{-4}$ possible anthropogenic events with characteristics like event D in our data sample. Anthropogenic origin for this event is thus rather strongly disfavored by the data.
For these three parameters, we also have measured values for our CR sample. This allows us to form a likelihood ratio, using Bayes’ theorem [@Bayes], of the CR hypothesis $CR$ to the anthropogenic hypothesis $A$: $$\frac{P(CR|E)}{P(A|E)} = \frac{P(CR)}{P(A)} \frac{P(E|CR)}{P(E|A)} ~.$$ where $E$ represents the experimental values. Assuming the two hypotheses are [*a priori*]{} equally likely, $P(CR) = P(A)$, then we can estimate the terms on the right directly from the data. For the CR sample, we find $q_{wfm} = 0.13$, $q_{geo} = 0.93$, and $q_{V} = 0.38$, where $q$ here indicates the individual probability for event D given the CR distributions of each of the parameters noted above. The resulting likelihood ratio is $$P(CR|E)/P(A|E) = (q_{wfm} q_{geo} q_{V}) / (p_{wfm} p_{geo} p_{V}) \simeq 550$$ where the trials factor is common to both cases. The data thus strongly favor the CR hypothesis over the anthropogenic hypothesis, although the latter cannot be excluded at high confidence. This conclusion is consistent with the original analysis, which would almost certainly have classified this event as a CR if its polarity had been inverted compared to what was measured.
In Table \[tbl3\] we provide estimates of the energy of each of the air showers considered here, based on the assumption of scaling from simulations of down-going CR [@Harm16]. For event D we consider only the upcoming hypothesis. The uncertainties in each case arise primarily from the lack of precision in the $X_{max}$ location and related systematic effects. More precise estimates will require detailed simulations that are beyond our scope. For event D, a $\tau$ decay origin for the shower still leaves large uncertainty in the location of the decay along the track; indeed, a $\tau$ decay higher than about 6 km above the surface leads to a shower that can exit the atmosphere before it even reaches shower maximum.
------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- -----------------
Event \(A) 5152386 \(B) 7122397 \(C) 21684774 \(D) 3985267
\[2pt\]
Energy, EeV $9.9 \pm 3.0$ $1.1 \pm 0.40$ $1.2\pm 1.0$ $0.60 \pm 0.40$
\[2pt\]
------------- --------------- ---------------- --------------- -----------------
: Estimated energy of observed showers; uncertainties are primarily systematic.
\[tbl3\]
However, the hypothesis of a $\tau$ decay poses difficult problems of interpretation for the parent $\nu_{\tau}$. The minimum emergence angle possible given our angular errors and the uncertainty of where we are on the $\sim 1^{\circ}$ emission cone is $25.4^{\circ}$ [@Suppl1], with a corresponding chord through the Earth of 5450 km, about 20,000 km water equivalent for Earth’s density profile. At 1 EeV, the SM neutrino interaction length is of order $1600$ km water-equivalent, and the implied attenuation coefficient is $\sim 4 \times 10^{-6}$, effectively excluding a neutrino origin for this event [@Suppl1]. Regeneration of $\nu_{\tau}$ [@regenRefs] in the Earth can effectively reduce this coefficient by factors of order 2-5 in some cases, but not enough to change this conclusion. Indeed we find that, for SM cross sections, ANITA’s geometric acceptance to this type of event should lead to more events observed closer to the horizon, which are not seen. However, SM uncertainties can in some scenarios lead to suppression of the $\nu$ cross section at these energies [@suppressionRefs], an important effect since it enters through the exponent of the attenuation. Initial estimates indicate that a cross-section suppression factor of $\sim 3-5$ is required to make this event a plausible $\nu_{\tau}$ candidate. This level of suppression would require revision of many current UHE neutrino limits.
We note that the ice depth at the location of this event is 3-4 km; energy loss of a $\tau$-lepton in ice is $\sim 1/3$ of that in crustal rock, increasing the probability of survival to decay above the ice surface. This effect can lead to an order-of-magnitude more acceptance for such air showers over ice or water compared to surface land [@Weiler]. Also, the $\tau$-lepton may itself initiate a shower in the subsurface ice at these high energies which may emerge with the $\tau$ and induce an early air shower; this shower’s radio emission would be delayed relative to the higher-altitude shower produced by the $\tau$-decay. Such a scenario could lead to the correlated trailing noise observed within $\leq 10$ ns of the primary peak in the waveform of this event, as it is consistent with refractive atmospheric delay if this portion of the signal originated near the surface of the ice.
Current or future data may be able to confirm or falsify whether neutrino interactions are the origin of this event. To optimize detection for in-ice neutrino events, ANITA-II had a trigger design with low efficiency for CR-like events [@ANITA-II]. For ANITA-III’s flight completed last year, the trigger for CR events was reinstated, and data analysis is ongoing. ANITA-IV is scheduled to fly later this year.
We thank NASA for their generous support of ANITA, and the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility for their excellent field support, and the National Science Foundation for their Antarctic operations support. This work was also supported by the US Dept. of Energy, High Energy Physics Division.
[99]{}
S. Hoover *et al*, \[ANITA collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**[105]{}**]{}, (2010).
S. Hoover, unpublished PhD. dissertation, UCLA, 2010.
Gorham, P. W. *et al.*, [*Astropart. Phys.*]{} **32**, 10-41 (2009).
P. Gorham [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D82: 022004, (2010).
See Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\] for details on this analysis.
A. Aab, [*et al.*]{} \[Pierre Auger Collaboration\] Phys. Rev. D 91, 092008 (2015).
D. Fargion, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57: 384, (2006).
J. L. Feng [*et al.*]{}, Phys.Rev.Lett. 88 (2002) 161102
A. Romero-Wolf, S. Hoover, A.G. Vieregg, *et al*, Astropart. Phys. [**60**]{}, 72, (2015).
H. Schoorlemmer, [*et al.*]{}, \[ANITA collaboration\], Astropart. Phys. (2016, in press; also arXiv:1506.05396. Falcke, H. & Gorham, P., [*Astropart. Phys.*]{} **19**, 477-494 (2003). Huege, T. & Falcke, H., [*Astropart.Phys.*]{} **24**, 116-136 (2005).
D. Saltzberg, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2802.
J. Matthews & R.L. Walker, [*Mathematical Methods of Physics, 2nd ed.*]{} (W.A. Benjamin: New York), (1970)
F. Halzen & D. Saltzberg Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4305, (1998); V. Bugaev [*et al.*]{} Astropart. Phys. 21, 491, (2004); O. Blanch Bigas, [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. D 78:063002, (2008).
L. A. Anchordoqui [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D 74, 043008, (2006); N. Armesto, C. Merino, G. Parente, E. Zas, Phys. Rev. D 77, 013001, (2008); A.Y. Illarionov, B. A. Kniehl, & A. V. Kotikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 231802 (2011).
S. Palomares-Ruiz, A. Irimia, T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D73 083003, (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It has recently been suggested that exchange spring media offer a way to increase media density without causing thermal instability (superparamagnetism), by using a hard and a soft layer coupled by exchange. Victora has suggested a figure of merit $\xi = 2 E_b/\mu_0 m_s H_{sw}$, the ratio of the energy barrier to that of a Stoner-Wohlfarth system with the same switching field, which is 1 for a Stoner-Wohlfarth (coherently switching) particle and 2 for an optimal two-layer composite medium. A number of theoretical approaches have been used for this problem (e.g., various numbers of coupled Stoner-Wohlfarth layers and continuum micromagnetics). In this paper we show that many of these approaches can be regarded as special cases or approximations to a variational formulation of the problem, in which the energy is minimized for fixed magnetization. The results can be easily visualized in terms of a plot of the energy $E$ as a function of magnetic moment $m_z$, in which both the switching field \[the maximum slope of $E(m_z)$\] and the stability (determined by the energy barrier $\Delta E$) are geometrically visible. In this formulation we can prove a rigorous limit on the figure of merit $\xi$, which can be no higher than 4. We also show that a quadratic anistropy suggested by Suess *et al* comes very close to this limit.'
author:
-
title: 'Domain wall switching: optimizing the energy landscape'
---
Introduction
============
Recently the concept of an exchange-spring medium[@victora; @wang; @dobbin] whose grains have a soft and a hard layer has been generalized to a system with a continuously-varying anisotropy. Various models of this system have been explored – the purpose of this paper is to show that the relationships between these can be easily visualized by using a variational formulation of the problem.
In an exchange-spring medium, we want to minimize the switching field, but of course we can make this as small as we want by using a very small anisotropy, and the medium will be superparamagnetic (thermally unstable) and useless. To make comparisons between media, we must hold something constant to maintain stability. Often what is held constant is the anisotropy field (the coercivity $2K/M_s$) of the hardest layer. However, this hardest layer might be very thin and have little effect on the overall coercivity. In a practical application the quantity it is most important to hold constant is the overall energy barrier to switching, which we will assume determines the thermal stability of the medium. Victora[@victora] introduced a figure of merit for this purpose, $\xi = 2 E_b/\mu_0 m_s H_{sw}$ (here $E_b$ and $m_s$ are the barrier energy and saturation magnetic moment per unit area) for which we will prove a rigorous bound in Sec. \[rigor\].
To do this, we develop a variational formulation in which we describe the switching behavior in terms of a function $E(m_z)$, the energy per unit area as a function of the magnetic moment per unit area. This turns out to be a very useful way of thinking about switching problems.
Model
=====
We consider a one-dimensional model, in which the magnetization $\mathbf{M}(z)$ is a function only of one variable $z$ (independent of $x$ and $y$). We will allow the anisotropy $K(z)$, exchange constant $A(z)$, and saturation magnetization $M_s(z)$ to vary arbitrarily with $z$. Since we will do computations with a discrete approximation to this continuum model (which approaches the continuum model as the cell size $\rightarrow 0$), we will write the energy in a discrete form. It has cells labeled by $i$, with magnetization vectors $\mathbf{M}_i$. In the quasistatic energy minima we will consider, these vectors will lie in a plane, so they can be described by giving the angle $\theta_i$ of the magnetization relative to the long axis of the grain (the $z$ axis):
The energy (per unit area in the $xy$ plane) $E$ of our system is then given in terms of the values of $K$ and $M$ at each cell (and $A$ between each neighboring pair of cells) by $$\begin{aligned}
E = \sum_{i=1}^N a_i K_i \sin^2 \theta_i + %
\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} a_i \frac{2A_{i,i+1}}{a_{i,i+1}^2}
\cos(\theta_{i+1}-\cos\theta_i) + \nonumber \\
\sum_{i=1}^N a_i \mu_0 M_i H \cos \theta_i \label{energy}\end{aligned}$$where $K_i$ is the (perpendicular) anisotropy at the center of cell $i$, $a_i$ is the length of cell i, $a_{i,i+1}$ is the distance between cells $i$ and $i+1$, $A_{i,i+1}$ is the continuum exchange parameter evaluated between these cells[@aha], and $H$ is the external field (assumed along $z$). For simplicity, we do not consider magnetostatic energy here – in similar systems, micromagnetic simulation has shown that this affects the coercivity by only a few percent.
We consider here quasistatic switching –- we assume that we vary $H$ in such a way that the system is always at a relative minimum (with respect to the $\mathbf{M}_i$’s) of the energy. More precisely, we assume $H$ is very slightly above this value, so that the magnetic moment $$m_z = \sum_i^N a_i M_i \cos \theta_i \label{mz}$$increases slowly, and we consider the limit in which the rate of increase approaches zero. Note that this is never true in a real switching event –- after a domain wall has traversed most of the sample, it would require reversing $H$ to keep the system quasistatic. However, by this time it is irrelevant whether the system remains quasistatic (it will finish switching in either case) and in the initial stages the quasistatic assumption is often reasonable.
It would appear that to find the quasistatic switching trajectory, in which $H$ varies with time, we would need to minimize a function $E(\theta_1, \theta_2, ... \theta_N,H)$ of a large number of variables $\theta_1, \theta_2, ... \theta_N$, for each value of $H$ independently. However, there is a way around this. We can choose some coordinate in the space of $\theta_i$’s (we choose the longitudinal component of the magnetic moment, $m_z$, for reasons apparent below) and first minimize $E(\theta_1, \theta_2, ... \theta_N,H)$ for fixed $m_z$, obtaining a function (the constrained minimum energy) $E(m_z,H)$. Then we can minimize $E(m_z,H)$ with respect to $m_z$, obtaining the same relative minimum $E(H)$ we would have obtained by unconstrained minimization. \[Note that there may be more than one relative minimum, so we should call this $E_j(H)$ where $j$ indexes the minima, but we will omit this index for simplicity.\] The advantage of this apparently-circuitous method of finding the minimum is that the configuration minimizing $E(\theta_1, \theta_2, ... \theta_N,H)$ is actually independent of $H$! This is apparent from Eq. (\[energy\]) above, since the only dependence on $H$ is the Zeeman term $\mu_0 m_z H$, which is a constant when $m_z$ is held fixed. The result is that we need only compute the constrained minimum energy at $H=0$, and it is given at any other field $H$ by $$E(m_z,H) = E(m_z,0) - \mu_0 m_z H \label{EH}$$Furthermore, this energy is minimized at a particular $H$ by setting $\partial E(m_z,H) / \partial m_z = 0$, so the field necessary to hold $m_z$ constant is given by $$\mu_0 H = \frac{\partial E(m_z,0)}{\partial m_z} \label{H}$$ We conclude that everything we need to know about the system (the coercivity and energy barrier) is contained in the function $E(m_z)$, the minimum energy at fixed magnetic moment $m_z$ and zero field. This result is very general. Although we motivated it above by considering domain-wall switching, it describes Stoner-Wohlfarth (S-W) switching as well. This is the limit in which $K$, $A$, and $M_s$ are uniform and $A$ is large so $\textbf{M}(z)$ is uniform. The S-W energy (per unit area, of a grain of length L) is just $E =
KL \sin^2 \theta = KL(1-m_z^2/m_s^2)$ (here the saturation moment per unit area is $m_s=M_s L$) so the $E(m_z)$ plot is a parabola, as shown in Fig. \[SW\].
![Energy landscape $E(m_z)$ for a Stoner-Wohlfarth particle.[]{data-label="SW"}](FIG1.eps){height="2.6"}
Note that the slope (the field necessary to switch, Eq. \[H\]) is exactly the Stoner-Wohlfarth switching field $H_{sw} = 2K/M_s$, as expected. \[In general, the coercivity is the maximum value of the slope.\]
Another virtue of the function $E(m_z)$ is that it has exactly the same interpretation for a particle with a lower exchange constant $A$ as for a S-W (high-$A$) particle. The behavior depends only on the dimensionless parameter $x = A/KL^2$, which is the square of the ratio of the exchange length to the particle length $L$. With low $x$, switching takes place through domain wall motion, and the energy barrier is approximately the domain wall energy. This can be calculated analytically in an infinite system (we will refer to this as the thin-wall approximation, because it is valid when the wall is far from the system boundary and the material properties vary only slightly through the wall) – the thin-wall energy is $4(AK)^\frac{1}{2} = 4 K L x^\frac{1}{2}$. We have developed a numerical minimization program for computing $E(m_z)$ for an arbitrary $K(z)$, and the result for a uniform $K(z)$ is shown in Fig. \[wall\].
![Energy landscape $E(m_z)$ for a particle with small exchange parameter $x=0.0076$.[]{data-label="wall"}](FIG2.eps){height="2.8"}
It can be seen that the energy is indeed constant when $m_z$ is far from its limiting values $\pm m_s \equiv \pm M_s L$, and equal to $4(AK)^\frac{1}{2}$. The slope of $E(m_z)$ at the ends is just the domain wall nucleation field. The behavior of the magnetization profile at various times during switching is shown in Fig. \[theta\].
![Magnetization profiles (angle vs. position z) for the particle whose energy landscape is shown in Fig. \[wall\]. Labels (a), (b), ... correspond to specific values of $m_z$ shown in Fig. \[wall\].[]{data-label="theta"}](FIG3.eps){height="2.6"}
Suess et al[@suess] have noted that in the thin-wall approximation, the pinning field should remain constant if we choose $K(z) \propto z^2$. In our $E(m_z)$ formulation, this means the slope should be nearly constant. This turns out to be remarkably nearly true numerically, except near the hard end, as shown in Fig. \[z2\].
![Energy landscape $E(m_z)$ for the case $K(z)=(K_h/L^2)
z^2$, which would be exactly linear in the thin-wall approximation. We have used $K_h=6\times 10^6 \textrm{J/m}^3$, $L=22.2$ nm, $A=1.0\times 10^{-11}$ J/m, so that the dimensionless exchange parameter $A/K_h L^2 = 0.00338$.[]{data-label="z2"}](FIG4.eps){height="2.8"}
Rigorous bound on coercivity figure of merit {#rigor}
============================================
Our $E(m_z)$ formulation allows us to prove a completely general (within the assumptions: 1D, quasistatic) result, which is clear geometrically from the $E(m_z)$ graph. If we fix the vertical height (the zero-field barrier $E_b$) and the horizontal extent ($2m_s$) the minimum possible coercivity (coercivity = maximum slope) is obtained by a straight line, whose slope must be $\mu_0 H
= E_b / 2m_s$. In terms of the figure of merit, this means $\xi \leq 4$.
Another way of stating this result is that the coercivity of any graded medium cannot be less than 1/4 of the coercivity of a Stoner-Wohlfarth particle (assuming that the latter switches coherently) of the same magnetic moment and energy barrier. \[If $M_s$ is constant, fixing the moment is the same as fixing the length $L$.\] Note that the $K(z) \propto z^2$ case (Fig. \[z2\]) gives $\xi = 3.23$, close to the theoretical limit, which it approaches as $x \rightarrow 0$.
Note that in this paper we consider only fields along the easy axis. Obviously it is worth considering how transverse fields might be useful in switching, since it is known that by using a field at $45
^\circ$ from the axis the Stoner-Wohlfarth switching field is decreased by a factor of 2, so the figure of merit $\xi$ becomes 2. Also, it is likely that the nucleation of a domain wall (which initially requires transverse twisting of the magnetization) can be assisted by a transverse field, so the figure of merit might increase slightly above 4. We should also note that the limit we have established assumes fixed grain length – it may be possible to decrease switching fields beyond the factor of 4 because graded media may make it possible to use longer grains without encountering complicated switching modes such as vortices.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown a general bound on the figure of merit of a graded-anisotropy medium, and that this bound (4) is very nearly achieved by $K(z) \propto z^2$. Because the usefulness of such a medium depends on its thermal stability as well as its coercivity, and because of the complex switching mechanism the zero-field switching rate is not completely determined by the energy barrier, an important remaining problem is the more precise calculation of this rate. Although brute force micromagnetic simulation of such slow switching is not practical, work is under way on accelerated sampling techniques for solving this problem[@bounce].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by NSF MRSEC grant DMR-0213985 and by the DOE Computational Materials Science Network.
[1]{}
R. Victora and X. Shen, “Composite media for perpendicular magnetic recording”, IEEE Trans. Magn. v. 41, p. 537, 2005. J-P. Wang, W. Shen, and J. Bai, “Exchange coupled composite media for perpendicular magnetic recording”, IEEE Trans. Magn. v. 41, p. 3181, 2005.
A. Y. Dobin and H. J. Richter, “Domain wall assisted magnetic recording”, App. Phys. Lett. v. 89, p. 062512, 2006.
D. Suess, “Multilayer exchange spring media for magnetic recording”, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 113105 (2006).
A. Aharoni, “Introduction to the theory of Ferromagnetism”, Oxford University Press, p. 134, 1996.
D. Suess, private communication.
P. B. Visscher and Shuxia Wang, “Rapid simulation of slow switching: a bounce algorithm”, paper BE-4, MMM Meeting, January 2007, Baltimore.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Moritz Kirste,$^{1\ast}$ Xingan Wang,$^{1\ast}$ H. Christian Schewe,$^1$ Gerard Meijer,$^{1}$ Kopin Liu,$^2$\
Ad van der Avoird,$^3$ Liesbeth M.C. Janssen,$^3$ Koos B. Gubbels,$^3$\
Gerrit C. Groenenboom,$^{3\ast\ast}$ Sebastiaan Y.T. van de Meerakker,$^{3,1\ast\ast}$\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
title: 'Quantum-state resolved bimolecular collisions of velocity-controlled OH with NO radicals'
---
Whereas atom-molecule collisions have been studied with complete quantum state resolution, interactions between two state-selected molecules have proven much harder to probe. Here, we report the measurement of state-resolved inelastic scattering cross sections for collisions between two open-shell molecules that are both prepared in a single quantum state. Stark-decelerated OH radicals were scattered with hexapole-focused NO radicals in a crossed beam configuration. Rotationally and spin-orbit inelastic scattering cross sections were measured on an absolute scale for collision energies between 70 and 300 cm$^{-1}$. These cross sections show fair agreement with quantum coupled-channels calculations using a set of coupled model potential energy surfaces based on *ab initio* calculations for the long-range non-adiabatic interactions and a simplistic short-range interaction. This comparison reveals the crucial role of electrostatic forces in complex molecular collision processes.
Rotationally inelastic scattering is one of the key processes underlying the exchange of energy between molecules [@Levine:reaction-dynamics; @Chandler:book]. In bulk systems, rotational energy transfer (RET) is responsible for the thermalization of state populations following a chemical reaction. In the dilute interstellar medium, inelastic collisions contribute to the formation of non-thermal population distributions that result in, for instance, interstellar masers [@Weinreb:Nature200:829]. Accurate state-to-state inelastic scattering cross sections are essential ingredients for reliable models of chemical processes in combustion physics, atmospheric science, and astrochemistry.
In molecular beam collision experiments, the ability to prepare molecules in a single rotational (sub)level prior to the collision using electric, magnetic, or optical fields has been imperative to unravel the underlying mechanisms of molecular energy transfer. This has made scattering experiments possible at the full state-to-state level, and has resulted in the discovery of propensity rules for inelastic scattering [@Schiffman:IRPC14:1995], the stereodynamics of molecular collisions [@Stolte:NAT353:391; @Watanabe:PRL99:043201], and quantum interference effects [@Lorenz:SCIENCE293:2063; @Eyles:NatChem3:597; @Kohguchi:Science294:832]. The latest beam deceleration and acceleration methods [@Meerakker:NatPhys4:595; @Meerakker:ChemRev:inpress] allow for the precise variation of the collision energy, resulting in the observation of quantum threshold effects in the state-to-state cross sections [@Gilijamse:Science313:1617; @Scharfenberg:PCCP12:10660]. This wealth of studies has contributed enormously to our present understanding of how intermolecular potentials govern molecular collision dynamics.
Thus far these methods have mostly been used to study collisions of state-selected molecules with rare gas atoms. Yet, in most natural environments molecule-molecule interactions play a major role. For instance, space telescope observations of cometary water may reveal the possible origin of water on Earth, but a conclusive interpretation requires accurate knowledge of RET in water-water collisions [@Hartogh:Nature478:218]. Whereas atom-molecule scattering cross sections can now be calculated routinely in excellent agreement with experiment [@Scharfenberg:PCCP12:10660; @Paterson:IRPC31:69], much less is known about RET in molecule-molecule collisions [@Clary:ARPC41:61]. As opposed to an atomic target, a molecular scattering partner possesses internal degrees of freedom of its own, adding a level of complexity that can easily render *ab initio* quantum scattering calculations extremely challenging – if not impossible. This is particularly true for collisions involving radical species that are governed by multiple Born-Oppenheimer (BO) potential energy surfaces (PESs) with non-adiabatic couplings between them. Experimental data on bimolecular state-to-state cross sections is generally lacking, and kinetic models often use collision rate coefficients that are expected to be inaccurate [@Smith:ARAA49:29].
The study of molecule-molecule collisions at the ultimate quantum level has been a quest in molecular beam physics since it was established in the 1950s [@Bernstein:Science144:141]. Major obstacles exist that have prevented studies of state-to-state bimolecular scattering [@Sawyer:PCCP13:19059]. The main challenge is the need for reagent beams with sufficient quantum state purity at the densities necessary to observe population transfer in one, or both, reagent beam(s). Thus far, experiments of this kind have only been possible using cryogenically cooled H$_2$ molecules as a target beam [@Berteloite:PRL105:203201; @Schreel:JCP105:4522].
Here, we report the successful measurement of state-resolved inelastic scattering between two state-selected molecular beams. We have chosen the OH ($X\,^2\Pi$) + NO ($X\,^2\Pi$) system [@Note:1] for this purpose, as both open shell radical species are benchmark systems for the scattering of state-selected molecules with rare gas atoms that involve two BO PESs [@Kohguchi:ARPC98:421]. Collisions between OH and NO involve eight interacting PESs, representing the full complexity of bimolecular inelastic collisions [@Vonk:JCP106:1353]. The OH-NO system serves also as a prototypical example of radical-radical reactions of fundamental importance in gas-phase chemical kinetics [@Sharkey:JCSFT90:3609]. We used a Stark-decelerator and a hexapole state selector in a crossed molecular beam configuration to produce reagent beams of OH and NO radicals with an almost perfect quantum state purity. The collision energy was varied between 70 and 300 cm$^{-1}$ by tuning the velocity of the OH radicals prior to the collision using the Stark decelerator, revealing the quantum threshold behavior of the state-to-state inelastic scattering cross sections. The unusually well defined distributions of reagent molecules allowed us to determine absolute scattering cross sections, which can normally be determined only on a relative scale in crossed beam experiments. These cross sections showed fair agreement with a theoretical model for inelastic collisions between two $^2\Pi$ radical species, based solely on an accurate description of the full rotational and open-shell structure of both radical species and their long-range non-adiabatic electrostatic interactions. This study revealed that inelastic scattering predominantly occurs at large intermolecular distances, even for the relatively high collision energies probed here.
The crossed molecular beam apparatus used to study inelastic collisions between OH and NO radicals is schematically shown in Fig. 1 [@Note:SI]. A packet of OH radicals \[$X\,^2\Pi_{3/2}, v=0, j=3/2, f$ [@Note:1], referred to hereafter as $F_1(3/2f)$\] with a tunable velocity in the 200 to 750 m/s range was produced using a 2.6-meter long Stark decelerator [@Scharfenberg:PRA79:023410]. The velocity of the OH radicals was tuned by applying a burst of high voltage pulses to the electric field electrodes at the appropriate times. The state purity of the OH packets was such that less than 0.01 % of the OH radicals populated a lower $\Lambda$-doublet component of any rotational level.
A beam of NO radicals with a fixed velocity was produced by seeding NO in a xenon carrier gas, and was passed through a 30 cm long electrostatic hexapole. NO radicals in the low-field-seeking $F_1(1/2f)$ state were focused into the collision region, while molecules in the high-field-seeking $F_1(1/2e)$ state were deflected from the beam axis. A 2 mm diameter beamstop and diaphragm were installed in the center of the hexapole and 10 mm downstream from the hexapole, respectively, effectively filtering out the Xe atoms from the molecular beam pulse. The resulting state purity of the transmitted NO $F_1(1/2f)$ beam was better than 99.0 %.
The reagent beams of OH and NO were detected state-selectively in the collision region by a laser induced fluorescence (LIF) detection scheme. From calibrated LIF measurements, the peak densities of the reagent packets were determined to be $(2 \pm 0.8) \times$ 10$^{8}$ and $(9 \pm 3) \times$ 10$^{10}$ molecules/cm$^{3}$ for OH and NO, respectively. The collision induced populations in the $F_1(3/2e)$, $F_1(5/2e)$, $F_1(7/2e)$, and the $F_2(1/2e)$ levels of the OH radical were measured at the time when both beams maximally overlapped in the beam crossing area. Depending on the inelastic channel, only a fraction of 10$^{-4}$ to 10$^{-6}$ of the OH radicals were inelastically scattered. Only final states of $e$ symmetry were probed, as the Stark decelerator did not eliminate the initial population in the $f$ states sufficiently. Detection of collision induced population in the $F_1(3/2e)$ level was only possible by spectroscopically separating the magnetic dipole allowed transitions that originated from the $F_1(3/2f)$ state [@Note:SI]. The insufficiently perfect state purity of the NO radical beam prevented the measurement of population transfer in NO.
The collision signals were measured as a function of the collision energy, from which the excitation functions of the state-to-state inelastic scattering cross sections (shown in Fig. 2) were determined [@Note:4]. The extremely well defined spatial distributions of the OH and NO packets allowed us to determine the scattering cross sections on an absolute scale. A cross section of 90 $\pm$ 38 $\textrm{\AA}^2$ was determined for the $F_1(3/2e)$ channel at a collision energy of 220 cm$^{-1}$, from which the absolute cross sections for all scattering channels and all collision energies were derived [@Note:SI]. The experimental uncertainty was limited only by the uncertainty in the measured value for the peak density of the NO packet.
We found that collisions that populate the $F_1(3/2e)$ level are most likely, and the cross section for this transition accounts for about 90 % of the total inelastic scattering cross section. The cross sections to populate the $F_1(5/2e)$, the $F_1(7/2e)$, and the $F_2(1/2e)$ levels show a clear threshold behavior; the collision energies at which these channels become energetically possible are indicated by vertical arrows. These cross sections show large qualitative differences compared to the scattering of OH with atomic targets. The most striking difference is found in the relative contributions of the $F_1(3/2e)$ and $F_1(5/2e)$ channels to the total inelastic scattering cross section. The role of the $F_1(5/2e)$ channel, which dominates RET for OH-He and OH-Ne, gradually diminishes in favor of the $F_1(3/2e)$ channel in the series of targets He, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe [@Scharfenberg:EPJD65:189]. This behavior could be rationalized from the increasing well depth, anisotropy, and head-tail asymmetry of the two BO PESs [@Dagdigian:JCP130:094303; @Scharfenberg:EPJD65:189]. The overwhelming dominance of the $F_1(3/2f) \rightarrow F_1(3/2e)$ quenching channel observed here for OH-NO reflects how a dipolar open-shell molecular scattering partner rather than a spherical atomic partner governs the collision dynamics.
In order to interpret our experimental results, we constructed a model for the scattering of two molecules in an open shell $^2\Pi$ state. In contrast to scattering of OH or NO with rare gas atoms, *ab initio* calculations of multiple anisotropic PESs with their non-adiabatic couplings for OH-NO are beyond the capabilities of current theoretical methods. Coupling of the $S=1/2$ electron spins gives rise to singlet ($S=0$) and triplet ($S=1$) potentials, which describe different short-range exchange interactions. There are four spatially distinct electronic states for each spin state, which are degenerate at long range and for linear geometries and which are coupled by non-adiabatic interactions. Nuclear derivative couplings with respect to all nuclear degrees of freedom exist between these states. *Ab initio* studies of the OH-NO complex [@Nguyen:CP230:1] focused on the region where the chemical reaction OH + NO $\rightarrow$ H + NO$_2$ takes place, but considered only the lowest adiabatic potential for the singlet state. Even if we were able to compute all the relevant adiabatic PESs, there would be no simple recipe to take the non-adiabatic couplings between the PESs into account.
In our model we exploit the hypothesis that the processes with the largest cross sections are governed by couplings that occur at relatively large OH-NO separations, beyond the HONO well region. As opposed to the short range interactions, the long-range parts of the PESs can be calculated accurately by *ab initio* methods. We neglected the complicated short-range behavior of the PESs and replaced it with an isotropic repulsion term. However, we accurately calculated the long-range PESs that are governed by first-order electrostatic interactions between the dipole, quadrupole, and octupole moments of the collision partners [@Note:SI]. Moreover, we included isotropic dispersion and induction terms. The intermolecular Hamiltonian contained the usual radial and centrifugal kinetic energy operators, and the full $4 \times 4$ matrix of diabatic interaction potentials [@Note:SI; @Note:7]. Due to the non-cylindrical symmetry of the $^2\Pi$ ground states of both the OH and NO radical, the off-diagonal elements of this matrix provided by the quadrupole and octupole moments of both radicals contain important couplings between the $^2\Pi_{3/2}$ and $^2\Pi_{1/2}$ states of both species.
The cross sections that were obtained from these model PESs by full coupled-channels calculations are shown as solid lines in Figure 2. Fair agreement between experiment and theory was obtained, in particular considering the simplistic approximations for the short-range PESs that were made. The absolute value for the cross section of the dominating $F_1(3/2e)$ channel, as well as the relative strengths of the inelastic channels, are reproduced well by the model calculations. The cross section for the spin-orbit changing $F_2(1/2e)$ channel, as well as the cross section for the $F_1(3/2e)$ channel at low collision energies, are overestimated by the model.
We tested the sensitivity of the model calculations with respect to changes in the short-range repulsion term [@Note:SI]. We observed that the cross section for the parity-changing $F_1(3/2e)$ channel is governed exclusively by the long-range electrostatic interaction; its value is converged to within a few percent. About half of this large quenching cross section originates from collisions with impact parameters exceeding 12 $a_0$. The $F_1(5/2e)$ channel is also mainly determined by the long-range forces, although its cross section varies by 10 to 25 % upon changes in the short-range model parameters [@Note:SI]. The weak $F_1(7/2e)$ and $F_2(1/2e)$ channels show larger variations, and more realistic short-range PESs are required to accurately predict their cross sections.
Our model also predicts the final states of the NO radical that are populated in coincidence with RET in the OH radical, but that cannot be probed with the present experimental arrangement. The dominant $F_1(3/2e)$ quenching transition in OH is accompanied by the inelastic channels in NO as given in Table 1 for various collision energies. The general scattering behavior can be understood from the terms that lead to inversion parity changing or conserving collisions with respect to both collision partners. The OH-NO dipole-dipole interaction results in transitions that either change or conserve inversion parity in both OH and NO, whereas the dipole-quadrupole and quadrupole-dipole terms also allow for an inversion parity changing transition in OH or NO only. The largest cross sections that accompany the $F_1(3/2e)$ channel in OH are found for the dipole-dipole dominated $F_1(3/2f)$ and $F_1(1/2e)$ channels of NO, and for the dipole-quadrupole dominated $F_1(1/2f)$, $F_1(3/2e)$, and $F_1(5/2f)$ NO channels [@Note:8].
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
final state inversion 10 20 50 100 200 300
(NO) parity cm$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$ cm$^{-1}$
$F_1(1/2e)$ + 152.3 106.6 54.5 33.5 20.0 15.3
$F_1(1/2f)$ - 45.1 37.0 25.8 13.9 6.3 4.2
$F_1(3/2e)$ - 19.1 17.6 21.4 17.5 12.1 10.0
$F_1(3/2f)$ + 18.0 19.5 46.9 54.3 38.8 29.7
$F_1(5/2e)$ + 6.5 8.5 9.0 6.3 5.0
$F_1(5/2f)$ - 6.6 7.1 8.7 11.8 13.4
$F_1(7/2e)$ - 5.3 5.4 4.4 3.8
$F_1(7/2f)$ + 4.7 5.2 5.6 5.6
$F_2(3/2e)$ - 0.5 0.4
$F_2(3/2f)$ + 0.5 0.4
$F_2(5/2e)$ + 0.4 0.3
$F_2(5/2f)$ - 0.4 0.4
$F_2(7/2e)$ - 0.3 0.3
$F_2(7/2f)$ + 0.3 0.3
elastic 409.6 346.3 265.1 209.1 175.8 166.4
------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: Predicted state-to-state cross sections (Å$^2$) for RET in NO (initial state $F_1(1/2f)$) that occurs in coincidence with the $F_1(3/2f) \rightarrow F_1(3/2e)$ transition in the OH radical at collision energies of 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 300 cm$^{-1}$. The inversion parity of the molecular levels is given. For comparison, the elastic cross section corresponding to the OH ($F_1(3/2f) \rightarrow F_1(3/2f)$) – NO ($F_1(1/2f)\rightarrow F_1(1/2f)$) channel is given in the last row of the table.
\[tab:pars\]
Our experiments show that the main mechanisms of RET in the reactive, chemically complex system studied here are captured using a model for the long-range interactions alone, provided that the full monomer Hamiltonians and all relevant long-range non-adiabatic couplings are taken into account. Even at relatively high collision energies, the inelastic scattering events with the largest cross sections predominantly occur at large intermolecular distances where the interaction potentials can be calculated accurately. The success attained here implies that reliable predictions for state-to-state scattering cross sections can now be made more generally for complex molecular systems involving radicals, helping to solve urgent scientific questions in, for instance, astrochemistry. Ultimately, new electronic structure methods that include the chemically reactive short-range potentials and non-adiabatic couplings are required to elucidate the exact mechanisms of radical-radical collisions.
[10]{}
R. D. Levine, R. B. Bernstein, [*Molecular reaction dynamics and chemical reactivity*]{} (Oxford [U]{}niversity [P]{}ress, [N]{}ew [Y]{}ork, 1987).
D. W. Chandler, S. Stolte, Chapter 5 in [*Tutorials in Molecular Reaction Dynamics*]{}, Ed. M. Brouard and C. Vallance, (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2010).
S. Weinreb, A. H. Barrett, M. L. Meeks, J. C. Henry, [*Nature*]{} [**200**]{}, 829 (1963).
A. Schiffman, D. W. Chandler, [*Int. Rev. Phys. Chem.*]{} [**14**]{}, 371 (1995).
S. Stolte, [*Nature*]{} [**353**]{}, 391 (1991).
D. Watanabe, H. Ohoyama, T. Matsumura, T. Kasai, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **99**]{}, 043201 (2007).
K. T. Lorenz, [*et al.*]{}, [*Science*]{} [**293**]{}, 2063 (2001).
C. J. Eyles, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature Chemistry*]{} [**3**]{}, 597 (2011).
H. Kohguchi, T. Suzuki, M. H. Alexander, [*Science*]{} [**294**]{}, 832 (2001).
S. Y. T. van de Meerakker, H. L. Bethlem, G. Meijer, [*Nature Physics*]{} [**4**]{}, 595 (2008).
S. Y. T. van de Meerakker, H. L. Bethlem, N. Vanhaecke, G. Meijer, [ *Chemical Reviews*]{} [**112**]{}, 4828 (2012).
J. J. Gilijamse, S. Hoekstra, S. Y. T. van de Meerakker, G. C. Groenenboom, G. Meijer, [*Science*]{} [**313**]{}, 1617 (2006).
L. Scharfenberg, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**12**]{}, 10660 (2010).
P. Hartogh, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature*]{} [**478**]{}, 218 (2011).
G. Paterson, M. L. Costen, K. G. McKendrick, [*Int. Rev. Phys. Chem.*]{} [ **31**]{}, 69 (2012).
D. C. Clary, [*Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.*]{} [**41**]{}, 61 (1990).
I. W. M. Smith, [*Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.*]{} [**49**]{}, 29 (2011).
R. B. Bernstein, [*Science*]{} [**144**]{}, 141 (1964).
B. C. Sawyer, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{}, 19059 (2011).
C. Berteloite, [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**105**]{}, 203201 (2010).
K. Schreel, J. J. ter Meulen, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**105**]{}, 4522 (1996).
The labels $X^2\Pi_{3/2}, X^2\Pi_{1/2}, v$, and $j$ indicate the electronic states, the vibrational state and rotational state of both the OH and the NO radical, respectively. The spectroscopic symmetry labels $e$ and $f$ refer to the total parity of the electronic wavefunction, exclusive of rotation. The total inversion parity is indicated by the additional labels $+$ and $-$.
H. Kohguchi, T. Suzuki, [*Annu. Rep. Prog. Chem., Sect. C*]{} [**98**]{}, 421 (2002).
M. T. Vonk, J. A. Bacon, C. F. Giese, W. R. Gentry, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [ **106**]{}, 1353 (1997).
K. Sharkey, I. R. Sims, I. W. M. Smith, P. Bocherel, B. R. Rowe, [*J. Chem. Soc. – Faraday Trans.*]{} [**90**]{}, 3609 (1994).
Materials and methods are available as supplementary material on *Science* Online.
L. Scharfenberg, H. Haak, G. Meijer, S. Y. T. van de Meerakker, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**79**]{}, 023410 (2009).
It was verified that all scattered molecules are detected with equal probability, and no density-to-flux correction was needed to relate the measured scattering signals to relative inelastic cross sections. See supplementary material for more information.
L. Scharfenberg, [*et al.*]{}, [*Eur. Phys. J. D*]{} [**65**]{}, 189 (2011).
P. J. Dagdigian, M. H. Alexander, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**130**]{}, 094303 (2009).
M. Nguyen, R. Sumathi, D. Sengupta, J. Peeters, [*Chem. Phys.*]{} [**230**]{}, 1 (1998).
The OH-NO spin states with $S=0$ and $S=1$ are not distinguished in our model; the $4 \times 4$ matrices for each spin state are therefore identical.
Although the quadrupole moment vanishes in the $j=1/2$ state of NO, the quadrupole moment in the molecular frame contributes to the collisions producing NO states with $j=3/2$ and 5/2 that yield important contributions to the measured cross sections.
G. C. Groenenboom, A. V. Fishchuk, A. van der Avoird, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**131**]{}, 124307 (2009).
A. van der Avoird, P. E. S. Wormer, F. Mulder, R. M. Berns, [*Top. Curr. Chem.*]{} [**93**]{}, 1 (1980).
H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**89**]{}, 5803 (1988).
T. H. Dunning, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**90**]{}, 1007 (1989).
OLPRO, a package of [*ab initio programs*]{}, H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, R. Lindh, F. R. Manby, M. Sch[ü]{}tz, and others, see http://www.molpro.net.
J. P. Maillard, J. Chauville, A. W. Mantz, [*J. Mol. Spectrosc.*]{} [**63**]{}, 120 (1976).
J. W. C. Johns, J. Reid, D. W. Lepard, [*J. Mol. Spectrosc.*]{} [**65**]{}, 155 (1977).
D. J. Margoliash, W. J. Meath, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**68**]{}, 1426 (1978).
D. Spelsberg, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**111**]{}, 9625 (1999).
K. T. Tang, J. P. Toennies, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**80**]{}, 3726 (1984).
B. R. Johnson, [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [**69**]{}, 4678 (1978).
B. R. Johnson, [*NRCC Proceedings*]{} [**5**]{}, 86 (1979).
D. M. Sonnenfroh, K. Liu, [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**176**]{}, 183 (1991).
, M. Costes, A. Benseddik, G. Dorthe, [*Laser Chem.*]{} [**8**]{}, 283 (1988).
M. Kirste, [*et al.*]{} *J. Chem. Phys.* [**137**]{}, 101101 (2012).
C. D. Ball, F. C. De Lucia, [*Chem. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**300**]{}, 227 (1999).
S.Y.T.v.d.M. acknowledges support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) via a VIDI grant. G.M. and K.B.G. acknowledge support from the ERC-2009-AdG under grant agreement 247142-MolChip. K.L. and A.v.d.A. acknowledge the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvHF) for a Humboldt Research Award. X.W. acknowledges the AvHF for a research fellowship. We thank Janneke Blokland for her help setting up the narrowband laser system. We thank the referees for valuable and stimulating comments. The authors declare no competing financial interests.\
**Supplementary Materials**\
Supplementary text\
Figs. S1 to S3\
Tables S1 and S2\
References (34-49)\
![Schematic representation of the experimental setup and the energy level schemes of the OH and NO radicals. A state-selected and velocity tunable beam of OH radicals produced using a 2.6-meter-long Stark decelerator was crossed with a hexapole state-selected beam of NO radicals. Both radical species were detected state-selectively using laser induced fluorescence (LIF), with total fluorescence intensity measured using a photomultiplier tube (PMT), and the spatial distribution of both reagent molecular packets imaged onto a charge-coupled device camera. Typical images of the OH and NO packets are shown in the upper and lower insets, respectively. The mean speed of the OH radical packet was precisely known from the settings of the Stark decelerator. The collision energy was calibrated from the NO beam speed measured via a second LIF detection zone located 30 cm downstream from the collision area. The $X\,^2\Pi$ electronic ground states of the OH and NO radicals are split into two rotational manifolds due to the spin-orbit interaction. The manifolds with lowest energy \[$|\Omega|=3/2$ for OH and $|\Omega|=1/2$ for NO\] are labeled $F_1$. The energy splittings shown between the $\Lambda$-doublet components of each rotational level are greatly exaggerated for clarity.](1229549Fig1-small){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Comparison of the collision energy dependence of the measured (data points with error bars) and calculated (solid curves) state-to-state inelastic scattering cross sections of OH $F_1(3/2f)$ radicals in collision with NO $F_1(1/2f)$ radicals. The cross sections were first measured relatively with respect to each other, and the vertical error bars indicate combined estimates of both statistical and systematic errors (2$\sigma$) [@Note:SI]. The vertical axis was then put on an absolute scale by a measurement of the absolute cross section for the $F_1(3/2e)$ channel at a collision energy of 220 cm$^{-1}$. The cross sections were computed on an energy grid of 10, 20, 30, 40,..., 320 cm$^{-1}$. The cross section for the dominant $F_1(3/2e)$ channel converged to within a few percent; the cross sections for the weaker channels vary by 20 to 50 % depending on changes in the short-range part of the theoretical model [@Note:SI].](1229549Fig2){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the results of observations of the PSR B1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 system in X–rays ($2-250$ keV) by the [*Rossi X–ray Timing Explorer*]{}. The spectra of the peak of the pulsed component (radio phase $0.17-0.53$) is fit by a power law of photon index $1.36\pm0.01$, with no evidence of a high energy spectral break seen up to $\sim200$ keV. For the off-pulse spectral component, the spectrum from $2-250$ keV is fit by a power law of photon index $2.215\pm0.005$. An iron emission line at $6.7$ keV with an equivalent width of $129$ eV improves the fit, but only at a marginal significance. Thermal bremsstrahlung and Raymond-Smith models produce much worse fits to the unpulsed data. The lack of a high energy spectral break in the pulsed emission implies an efficiency of $\geq 3\%$ in the conversion of pulsar spindown energy to pulsed X–rays in the system.'
author:
- |
D. Marsden, P. R. Blanco, D. E. Gruber, W. A. Heindl,\
M. R. Pelling, L. E. Peterson, R. E. Rothschild
- 'A. H. Rots, K. Jahoda, D. J. Macomb'
title: |
The X–ray Spectrum of the Plerionic System\
PSR B1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52
---
Introduction
============
PSR 1509$-$58 was discovered in X–rays by the [*Einstein*]{} satellite ($0.2-4$ keV, [@seward82]), and subsequent radio observations ([@manchester82]) confirmed both the $150$ ms period and the highest spin-down rate of any known pulsar of ${\dot P}\sim 1.5\times10^{-12}$, which implies a rotational energy loss rate of $\sim2\times10^{37}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, assuming a neutron star moment of inertia of $10^{45}$ g cm$^{2}$. More recent $0.1-2.4$ keV X–ray observations by the ROSAT satellite ([@greiveldinger95], [@brazier97]) revealed a complex morphology for the pulsar/supernova remnant system, possibly involving interactions via collimated outflows from the pulsar.
In hard X–rays, the PSR 1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 system was observed by [*Ginga*]{} ($2-60$ keV, [@kawai92]), and the pulsed and non-pulsed emission was modeled with power laws of photon indices $1.33\pm0.06$ and $2.15\pm0.02$, respectively. A “weak" iron line was also reported in the phase-averaged [*Ginga*]{} spectrum, at an energy of $6.7$ keV. Observations at higher energies by balloon-borne instruments ($94-240$ keV, [@gunji94]), and by the BATSE instrument aboard the [ *Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory*]{} ($30-800$ keV, [@wilson93]) have suggested a possible steepening of the pulsed spectrum, which is required for consistency with upper limits obtained at $\sim$ MeV ([@fierro95]) and $\sim$ TeV ([@nel93]) energies.
The non-pulsed component of the high energy X–rays, presumably dominated by the nebular emission, has not been studied above $\sim60$ keV. Observations in the energy range $0.1-10.0$ keV by [*ASCA*]{} ([@tamura96]) have revealed a combination of thermal and nonthermal flux from the system, consistent with the picture of a compact pulsar nebula (“plerion”) surrounded by thermal emission from gas associated with the supernova remnant. The imaging spectrometers aboard [*ASCA*]{} showed that the X–ray emission at energies $\geq 2$ keV in the region of the supernova remnant is dominated by the flux from the pulsar and compact nebula.
Recently Rots et al. (1997) presented a X–ray timing analysis of PSR B1509$-$58 which confirmed the pulsed spectral shape and radio/X–ray phase lag seen by [*Ginga*]{}. In addition, the pulsed spectral index was found to be consistent with a constant value throughout the pulse, at odds with the behavior seen in hard X–rays from the Crab, another young, isolated pulsar ([@ulmer94]).
Data And Analysis
=================
The plerionic system PSR 1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 was observed by the High Energy X–ray Timing Experiment (HEXTE) and the Proportional Counter Array (PCA) instruments aboard the [ *Rossi X–ray Timing Explorer*]{} ([*RXTE*]{}) satellite on a number of occasions in 1996 during both in-orbit checkout and the first observing period. The latter data consist of proprietary observations used in Rots et al. (1997). The HEXTE instrument consists of two clusters of collimated NaI/CsI phoswich detectors with a total net area of $\sim1600$ cm$^2$ and an effective energy range of $\sim15-250$ keV ([@gruber96]). HEXTE background estimation utilizes off-source data obtained through re-orientation of the detectors’ viewing directions. The PCA instrument consists of $5$ collimated Xenon proportional counter detectors with a total net area of $7000$ cm$^{2}$ and an effective energy range of $2-60$ keV ([@jah96]). For the PCA instrument, the instrumental background estimate is determined from modeling of both the internal background of the detectors and the background due to cosmic X-ray flux and charged particle events.
The arrival times of the photons were corrected to the solar system barycenter using the JPL DE200 ephemeris and the source coordinates R.A. (J2000)$=15^{hr}13^{m}56.627^{s}$ and Dec(J2000)$=-59^{\circ}8\arcmin 9.54\arcsec$. The absolute pulse phase of each X–ray photon was then determined from the appropriate radio timing ephemeris from the ongoing monitoring campaign using the Parkes Telescope ([@kaspi94]). Description of the radio observations/timing ephemerides used in the analysis are given in Rots et al. (1997). The phase $\phi$ at time $t$ was obtained from the standard formula $\phi(t)={\phi}(t_{0}) + {\nu}(t-t_{0})+{1\over{2}}\dot{\nu}
{(t-t_{0})}^2+{1\over{6}}\ddot{\nu}{(t-t_{0})}^3$, where $t_{0}$ is the barycentric epoch corresponding to the radio timing ephemeris, which is defined as $t_{0geo}$ rounded to two decimal places in MJD. Upon determining the absolute phase of each photon, a folded lightcurve was obtained for each energy channel, relative to the appropriate radio ephemeris. Binning in pulse phase then produced pulsar spectra as a function of the pulse period. Discussion of the absolute timing accuracy of the instruments aboard [*RXTE*]{} is given elsewhere ([@rots97]), but the total uncertainty in the absolute timing is on the order of $\sim10$ $\mu$s, which is an insignificant ($<0.1\%$) fraction of the PSR B1509–58 pulse phase.
Spectral Results
================
The pulse profile of PSR B1509–58 consists of a single asymmetrical peak below $\sim 50$ keV, which possibly develops additional components at higher energies ([@rots97]). For the spectroscopic analysis, the pulsed flux was taken from photons with absolute phase $0.17-0.53$, which encompasses the entire pulse peak, and the off-pulse flux used photons with phases $0.77-1.07$, corresponding to regions of the lightcurve away from the pulse peak ([@rots97]). For the PCA and HEXTE data, the off-pulse spectrum was obtained by subtracting the background model flux (PCA) or the off-source flux (HEXTE) from the off-pulse flux. The PCA background model was obtained using the program PCABACKEST, which models the time-varying detector background, in addition to the constant sky background, as a function of spacecraft position. Because the HEXTE was in the non-rocking mode for most of the observations, only $\sim10\%$ of the $15-250$ keV data was available for the off-pulse spectral analysis. To obtain the pulsed spectrum, the off-pulse flux was subtracted from the pulsed flux.
The PCA data and the HEXTE data were fit simultaneously to various spectral models using XSPEC 10.0. Because of the changing detector gains in the PCA between observations, the PCA data with the same gain were combined, and fit simultaneously to the summed, gain-controlled HEXTE data from each cluster. For the pulsed spectral fits, PCA data in the energy range $2-30$ keV were used, and for the off-pulse analysis PCA data from $2-20$ keV were used, because of uncertainties in the background model above $\sim20$ keV. HEXTE data in the energy range $17-250$ keV were used in both spectral fits, and the data from all the observation days were added (for each cluster). In all fits the relative normalization between the PCA and HEXTE was a free fitted parameter to account for uncertainties in the effective open area of the two instruments. The normalization factor of the HEXTE was found to be $60\%$ of the PCA normalization. For the off-pulse spectral fit, the PCA background model produced large residuals for much of the data in the area of the Xenon L edge ($4-5$ keV). As a result of this, only $50\%$ of the PCA data were used in the spectral analysis.
The pulsed spectrum from PSR B1509$-$58 (Figure 1) is fit equally well by both power law and thermal bremsstrahlung models. We adopt the power law model here, however, because nonthermal models are clearly favored in the extrapolation to higher energies ([@wilson93]). The best-fit parameters for the power law fit to the pulsed spectrum are given in Table 1. The fitting algorithm used by XSPEC is a modified Levenberg-Marquardt routine ([@bev69]), and the errors for each parameter in Table 1 are $1\sigma$, and obtained with all the other parameters fixed at their best-fit values. The unpulsed $2-250$ keV spectrum was fit to power law, bremsstrahlung, and Raymond-Smith plasma models. The latter two models seriously underpredicted the high energy (HEXTE) X–ray flux of the unpulsed component, and the power law model produced the best fit to the data. The addition of a narrow gaussian line at $\sim6.7$ keV improved the fit, with an FTEST significance of $1\%$. Because of systematic uncertainties in the PCA background model at energies below $\sim3$ keV, the intervening column density was set to zero in the unpulsed spectral fits. This had a minimal effect on the results, due to the insensitivity of the PCA to small absorption columns ($N_{H}<10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$). Figure 1 shows the counts spectrum of the unpulsed data, fitted to the model with the gaussian line. The apparent absorption feature at $\sim 5$ keV is due to imperfect modeling of Xenon lines in the instrument response and background model. The best-fit parameters of the power law and gaussian line model and the single power law model for the unpulsed data are given in Table 1.
Discussion
==========
The best-fit value of the low energy neutral hydrogen absorption obtained in fitting the pulsed component is $N_{H}=(1.27\pm0.23)\times
10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$, which is higher than the value of $(0.59\pm0.06)
\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ obtained by [*ASCA*]{} for the thermal cloud only $\sim8'$ from the pulsar position ([@tamura96]). To investigate the possible inconsistency between the pulsed $N_{H}$ and the lower value, the best-fit contours were calculated as a function of $N_{H}$ and the photon index using the “error” routine of XSPEC, which calculates the contours of the fit statistic as a function of two parameters, while holding the other parameters fixed. The results indicate that a value as low as $N_{H}\sim0.6\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ is still allowable at the $99\%$ confidence level. The [*Ginga*]{} value ([@kawai92]) for the photon index and $N_{H}$ may also be consistent with the [*RXTE*]{} best-fit at the $99\%$ level. The [*RXTE*]{} value for $N_{H}$ is also roughly consistent with estimations based on the radio dispersion measure of the pulsar. Assuming $10$ neutral hydrogen atoms per free electron along the line of sight ([@saito97]), we obtain a value of $N_{H}\sim0.8\times10^{22}$, given a distance of $4.2$ kpc ([@clark77]) and a dispersion measure of $253$ cm$^{-3}$ pc ([@kaspi94]). We conclude that the [*RXTE*]{} does not exclude $N_{H}$ values that are consistent with the interstellar absorption and pulsar dispersion measure.
The existence of a spectral break in the hard X–ray spectrum of the pulsed emission from PSR B1509$-$58, while not seen in the [*RXTE*]{} data, is implied by observations taken at higher energies by EGRET ([@fierro95]). Figure 3 shows the best-fit [*RXTE*]{} pulsed spectrum of PSR B1509$-$58 and its extrapolation to the EGRET energy range. Overplotted are the $5$ BATSE data points ([@wilson93]) from $30-800$ keV, and the best-fit spectrum from the $94-240$ keV balloon observations of Gunji et al. (1994). Also shown is the [*RXTE*]{} unpulsed (nebular) spectrum. Aside from a factor of $\sim1.5$ in BATSE/[*RXTE*]{} normalization, the pulsed spectrum roughly maintains its shape out to at least $\sim400$ keV. The extrapolation to the EGRET energy range ($30-100$ MeV), however, exceeds the $2\sigma$ EGRET upper limit ([@fierro95]) by a factor of $10-100$, necessitating a break in the pulsed spectrum somewhere in the energy range $\sim0.4-30$ MeV.
Because the [*RXTE*]{} pulsed photon index is $<2$, the integrated X–ray energy flux of the pulsar is actually increasing with increasing photon energy, putting constraints on the efficiencies of the processes converting the spindown energy of the neutron star into observable radiation. If we assume the pulsar and plerionic flux are due to conversion of spindown energy with efficiencies ${\epsilon}_{p}$ and $\epsilon_{op}$, respectively, this constraint can be expressed as: $$L_{spin}\geq4\pi{d^{2}}\int_{E_{0}}^{E_{b}}(\eta{\epsilon_{p}}^{-1}
F_{p}+{\epsilon_{op}}^{-1}F_{op})dE$$ where $L_{spin}$ and $d$ are the pulsar spindown luminosity ($I\Omega{\dot \Omega}$) and distance, respectively. In Equation (1), $F_{p}$ and $F_{op}$ are the energy fluxes from the best fit pulsed and unpulsed spectral models from the [*RXTE*]{} data, and $\eta$ is the solid angle fraction subtended by the pulsar beam (the unpulsed, plerionic emission is assumed to be isotropic). For the pulsed beaming fraction we adopt the value $\eta=0.3$, which is estimated from calculations by Chiang & Romani (1992). Assuming efficiencies that are independent of energy, and a distance of $4.2$ kpc to the pulsar, and setting the lower energy $E_{0}=2$ keV and $L_{spin}=1.8\times10^{37}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, yields values for the efficiencies as a function of break energy $E_{b}$ given by Figure 4. The calculation in Figure 4 assumes that the entire spindown energy budget of the pulsar is expended between the energies of $E_{0}$ and $E_{b}$. Extension of the [*RXTE*]{} pulsed and unpulsed spectra to the radio point at $1.5$ GHz ([@manchester82]) implies a total contribution to the spindown energy budget from photons below $E_{0}$ of $<3\%$ of the $2-250$ keV flux, given the radio flux density of $2$ mJy.
The break energies in Figure 4 are relatively insensitive to the assumed spectral flattening at energies below $\sim2$ keV, because the photons at these energies carry $<3\%$ of the energy of the photons in the [*RXTE*]{} bandpass. Assuming a plerionic efficiency of ${\epsilon}_{op}=10-20\%$ (see below), a pulsed efficiency of ${\epsilon}_{p}\geq3\%$ is required to explain the lack of a spectral break below $\sim400$ keV implied by the combined [*RXTE*]{} and BATSE observations. A plerion efficiency of ${\epsilon}_{op}<10\%$ would require an even higher pulsed efficiency, but this could be eased if the pulsar has a narrow beam ($\eta<0.3$).
The pulsed efficiency obtained above is slightly higher than the $1-3\%$ efficiency predicted by outer gap models of high energy emission from young pulsars ([@cheng86]). Outer gap models have difficulties explaining the lack of GeV gamma–rays from PSR B1509$-$58 as well, because in these models the emission sites are located in the outer magnetosphere, where attenuation due to magnetic effects should be minimal ([@chang96]). A polar cap model of the PSR B1509$-$58 pulsed emission ([@harding97]) explains the attenuation of the gamma–ray photons in terms of magnetic photon splitting and pair production, but places the spectral break at energies $\geq2$ MeV, which would require a relatively large pulsed efficiency of at least $7\%$ (Figure 4). This model also requires a polar cap for PSR B1509$-$58 much larger than produced by a simple dipole field geometry ([@chang96]), indicating that perhaps a more complicated magnetic field geometry is required to explain the pulsed spectrum.
The spectral fits indicate that a power law form is clearly favored for the unpulsed spectrum, and dominates the total X–ray emission from the PSR B1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 system at energies $\leq10$ keV (Figure 3). The [*ASCA*]{} images ([@tamura96]) indicate that the $\sim2-10$ keV emission from the system is concentrated around the pulsar, and not the surrounding supernova remnant, implying that the unpulsed $2-250$ keV emission seen by [*RXTE*]{} is due to the pulsar plerion, and not supernova emission from MSH 15$-$52. The high energy nonthermal emission from plerions is believed to be synchrotron radiation from a luminous “bubble” confined by the pressure of the surrounding supernova remnant ([@rees74]). The internal pressure of the bubble is provided by a wind of particles and magnetic fields ejected by the pulsar. The $2-250$ keV luminosity of the PSR B1509$-$58 plerion is $L_{x}=(4.7\pm0.9)\times10^{35}$ ergs s$^{-1}$, assuming a distance of $4.2$ kpc to the source.
Detailed models of the Crab Nebula ([@kennel84], [@kennel284]) indicate that an efficiency of $10-20\%$ can be achieved using reasonable values for the pulsar wind speed, plerion size, and ratio of electromagnetic to particle energy in the wind. For the PSR B1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 system, Figure 4 indicates that similar plerionic efficiencies are allowed if the pulsed efficiency is not too high ($\epsilon_{p}\leq3\%$). A higher pulsed efficiency would require a lower plerionic efficiency, as mentioned above. The $2-250$ keV spectral index obtained for the PSR B1509$-$58 plerion is slightly steeper than the $17-180$ keV index obtained for the Crab Nebula ([@jung89]), but the latter index show evidence for gradual steepening throughout the X–ray to gamma–ray energy range, so the two indices may be consistent.
The marginal detection of a line at $\sim6.7$ keV suggests emission from H–like iron. The source of the iron line is most likely either the supernova remnant/plerion or the galactic ridge. The X–ray emission from the latter was mapped out by the Japanese satellite [*Tenma*]{}, which found a mean iron line centroid of $\sim6.7$ keV that varied in both energy and flux as a function of position ([@koyama89]). The [*RXTE*]{} line centroid is consistent with the galactic ridge emission seen by [*Tenma*]{}, but the flux is $\sim3$ times greater than expected from the galactic ridge, suggesting a contribution from iron in MSH 15$-$52.
Conclusions
===========
Observations of the PSR B1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 system by [*RXTE*]{} suggest that the hard X–ray spectrum from the system is dominated by nonthermal emission. The spectral shape of the pulsed and unpulsed radiation are characterized by power laws of photon index $1.358\pm0.014$ and $2.215\pm.005$, respectively. Considerations of the [*RXTE*]{} data in the context of observations of PSR B1509$-$58/MSH 15$-$52 at other wavelengths allow us to constrain the efficiencies of the conversions of pulsar spindown energy to observed radiation in the system. The lack of a significant spectral break in the X–ray emission out to hundreds of keV allows the efficiencies for the conversion of particle energy to X–rays in the pulsar magnetosphere and compact nebula to be constrained. The minimum pulsed efficiency is found to be $3\%$, assuming an efficiency for the unpulsed radiation similar to that of the Crab Nebula.
We acknowledge fruitful discussions with Richard Lingenfelter and a critical reading of the manuscript by Vicky Kaspi. The up-to-date radio timing ephemeris was provided by M. Bailes, V. Kaspi and R. Manchester using data obtained at the Parkes radio telescope in Australia. This work was funded by NASA grant NAS5-30720.
Bevington, P. R. 1969, Data Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill) Brazier, K. T. S. & Becker, W. 1997, , 284, 335 Chang, H. K., Chen, K. & Ho C. 1996, , 120, 81 Cheng, K. S., Ho, C. & Ruderman, M. 1986, , 300, 522 Chiang, J. & Romani, R. W. 1992,, 400, 629 Clark, D. H. & Caswell, J. L. 1977, , 174, 267 Fierro, J. M. 1995, PhD Thesis, Stanford University Greiveldinger, C., Caucino, S., Massaglia, S., [Ö]{}gelman, H. & Trussoni, E. 1995, , 454, 855 Gruber, D. E. et al. 1996, , 120, 641 Gunji, S. et al. 1994, , 428, 284 Harding, A. K., Baring, M. G. & Gonthier, P. L. 1997, , 476, 246 Jahoda, K. et al. 1996, EUV, X–ray, and Gamma–Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, SPIE Proceedings, eds: O. H. V. Sigmund and M. Gumm, 2808, 59 Jung, G. V. 1989, , 338, 972 Kaspi, V. M., Manchester, R. N., Siegman, B., Johnston, S., and Lyne, A. G. 1994, , 422, L83 Kawai, N., Okayasu, R. & Sekimoto, Y. 1992 in Proc. Workshop Compton Observatory, eds. M. Friedlander, N. Gehrels, & D. J. Macomb (New York: AIP), 213 Kennel, C. F. & Coroniti, F. V. 1984a, , 283, 694 ——————————– 1984b, , 283, 710 Koyama, K. 1989, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 41, 665 Manchester, R. N., Tuohy, I. R. & D’Amico, N. 1982, , 262, L31 Nel, H. I. et al. 1993, , 418, 836 Rees, M. J. & Gunn, J. E. 1974, , 167, 1 Rots, A. H. et al. 1997, , submitted Saito, Y. et al. 1997, , 477, L37 Seward, F. D. & Harnden, F. R. 1982, , 256, L45 Tamura, K., Kawai, N., Yoshida, A., & Brinkmann W. 1996, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan, 48, L33 Ulmer, M. E. et al. 1994, , 432, 228 Wilson, R. B. et al. 1993 in Isolated Pulsars, eds. K. A. Van Riper, R. Epstein, & C. Ho (New York: Cambridge USA), 257
[lccc]{} Normalization & $6.07\pm0.21$ & $52.88\pm0.43$ & $53.55\pm0.44$ Photon Index & $1.358\pm0.014$ & $2.200\pm0.005$ & $2.215\pm0.005$ N$_{H}$ & $1.27\pm0.23$ & $0$ (fixed) & $0$ (fixed) E$_{l}$ & $-$ & $-$ & $6.71\pm0.05$ N$_{l}$ & $-$ & $-$ & $1.77\pm0.27$ ${\chi_{\nu}}^{2}$ & $0.99$ & $1.34$ & $1.14$ $\nu$ & $862$ & $763$ & $761$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that the spectral-tile implication in the Fuglede conjecture in dimension 1 is equivalent to a Universal Tiling Conjecture and also to similar forms of the same implication for some simpler sets, such as unions of intervals with rational or integer endpoints.'
address:
- |
\[Dorin Ervin Dutkay\] University of Central Florida\
Department of Mathematics\
4000 Central Florida Blvd.\
P.O. Box 161364\
Orlando, FL 32816-1364\
U.S.A.\
- |
\[Palle E.T. Jorgensen\]University of Iowa\
Department of Mathematics\
14 MacLean Hall\
Iowa City, IA 52242-1419\
author:
- Dorin Ervin Dutkay
- 'Palle E.T. Jorgensen'
bibliography:
- 'eframes.bib'
title: On the universal tiling conjecture in dimension one
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
\[def1.1\] For $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ we denote by $$e_\lambda(x):=e^{2\pi i \lambda x},\quad(x\in{\mathbb{R}})$$ Let $\Omega$ be Lebesgue measurable subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$ with finite Lebesgue measure. We say that $\Omega$ is [*spectral*]{} if there exists a subset $\Lambda$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\{e_\lambda :\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ is an orthogonal basis for $L^2(\Omega)$. In this case $\Lambda$ is called a [*spectrum*]{} for $\Omega$.
We say that $\Omega$ [*tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by translations*]{} if there exists a subset $\mathcal T$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\{\Omega+t : t\in\mathcal T\}$ is a partition of ${\mathbb{R}}$, up to Lebesgue measure zero.
Fuglede’s conjecture was stated for arbitrary finite dimension in [@Fug74]. It asserts that the tiling and the spectral properties are equivalent. Tao [@Tao04] disproved one direction in the Fuglede conjecture in dimensions 5 or higher: there exists a union of cubes which is spectral but does not tile. Later, Tao’s counterexample was improved to disprove both directions in Fuglede’s conjecture for dimensions 3 or higher [@KM06; @FaMaMo06]. In the cases of dimensions 1 and 2, both directions are still open.
We state here Fuglede’s conjecture in dimension 1:
\[co1.2\][@Fug74] A subset $\Omega$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$ of finite Lebesgue measure is spectral if and only if it tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by translations.
We focus on the spectral-tile implication in the Fuglede conjecture and present some equivalent statements. One of the main ingredients that we will use is the fact that any spectrum is [*periodic*]{} (see [@BoMa11; @IoKo12]).
There are good reasons for our focus on the cases of the conjectures in one dimension. One reason is periodicity (see the next definition): it is known, in 1D, that the possible sets $\Lambda$ serving as candidates for spectra, in the sense of Fuglede’s conjecture (Conjecture \[co1.2\]), must be periodic. A second reason lies in the difference, from 1D to 2D, in the possibilities for geometric configurations of translation sets.
The Universal Tiling Conjecture (Conjecture \[con4.8\]) suggests a reduction of the implication from spectrum to tile in Fuglede’s conjecture, to a consideration of finite subsets of ${\mathbb{Z}}$. Hence computations for the problems in 1D are arithmetic in nature, as opposed to geometric; and connections to classical Fourier series may therefore be more direct in 1D.
If $\Omega$ is spectral then any spectrum $\Lambda$ is [*periodic*]{} with some period $p\neq0$, i.e., $\Lambda+p=\Lambda$, and $p$ is an integer multiple of $\frac{1}{|\Omega|}$. We call $p$ a period for $\Lambda$. If $p=\frac{k(p)}{|\Omega|}$ with $k(p)\in{\mathbb{N}}$, then $\Lambda$ has the form
$$\Lambda=\{\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{k(p)-1}\}+p{\mathbb{Z}},
\label{eq3.8.1}$$
with $\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{k(p)-1}\in[0,p)$, see [@BoMa11; @IoKo12]. The reason that there are $k(p)$ elements of $\Lambda$ in the interval $[0,p)$ can be seen also from the fact that the Beurling density of a spectrum $\Lambda$ has to be ${|\Omega|}$, see [@Lan67a].
These assertions follow from [@IoKo12]. According to [@IoKo12], if $\Omega$ has Lebesgue measure 1 and is spectral with spectrum $\Lambda$, with $0\in\Lambda$, then $\Lambda$ is periodic, the period $p$ is an integer and $\Lambda$ has the form $$\Lambda=\{\lambda_0=0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}+p{\mathbb{Z}},
\label{eq4.1}$$ where $\lambda_i$ in $[0,p)$ are some distinct real numbers.
\[def1.5\] Let $A$ be a finite subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$. We say that $A$ is [*spectral*]{} if there exists a finite set $\Lambda$ in ${\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\{e_\lambda : \lambda\in\Lambda\}$ is a Hilbert space for $L^2(\delta_A)$ where $\delta_A$ is the atomic measure $\delta_A:=\sum_{a\in A}\delta_a$ and $\delta_a$ is the Dirac measure at $a$. We call $\Lambda$ a [*spectrum*]{} for $A$.
We formulate the following “Universal Tiling Conjecture” for a fixed number $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$:
\[con4.8\][**\[UTC($p$)\]**]{} Let $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Let $\Gamma:=\{\lambda_0=0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ be a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$ with $p$ elements. Assume $\Gamma$ has a spectrum of the form $\frac1pA$ with $A\subset {\mathbb{Z}}$. Then for every finite family $A_1,A_2,\dots,A_n$ of subsets of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\frac1pA_i$ is a spectrum for $\Gamma$ for all $i$, there exists a common tiling subset $\mathcal T$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ such that the set $A_i$ tiles ${\mathbb{Z}}$ by $\mathcal T$ for all $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$.
One of the main results in this paper shows the equivalence of the spectral-tile implication in Fuglede’s conjecture and the Universal Tiling Conjecture.
\[th4.8\] The following affirmations are equivalent.
1. The Universal Tiling Conjecture is true for all $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
2. Every bounded Lebesgue measurable spectral set tiles by translations.
Moreover, if these statements are true and if $\Omega$, $|\Omega|=1$, is a bounded Lebesgue measurable set which has a spectrum with period $p$, then $\Omega$ tiles by a subset $\mathcal T$ of $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
The term “universal tiling” appears also in [@PeWa01] for a special class of tiles of ${\mathbb{R}}$, namely those that tile ${\mathbb{R}}^+$. On the dual side, the Universal Spectrum Conjecture was introduced in [@LaWa97] where it is proved that some sets $\Omega$ which tile by some special tiling set $\mathcal T$ have a spectrum $\Lambda$ which depends only on $\mathcal T$. In [@FaMaMo06] it is proved that the Universal Spectrum Conjecture is equiv- alent to the tile-spectral implication in Fuglede’s conjecture, in the case of finite abelian groups. The notion of universal tiling complements is also in troduced in [@FaMaMo06], and it is remarked (see Remark 2 in [@FaMaMo06]) that the spectral-tile implication in Fuglede’s conjecture is equivalent to a universal tiling conjecture, again for finite abelian groups. In dimension 1 this means that for cyclic groups the spectral-tile implication is equivalent to all spectral sets possessing a universal tiling complement. In Theorem \[th4.8\] we prove this result in full generality, for any bounded Lebesgue measurable sets $\Omega$ as in the original setting in the Fuglede conjecture.
The second main result in this paper shows that the spectral-tile implication in the Fuglede conjecture is equivalent to some formulations of this implication for some special classes of sets $\Omega$: unions of intervals with rational or integer endpoints.
\[th4.13\] The following affirmations are equivalent:
1. For every finite union of intervals with rational endpoints $\Omega=\cup_{i=1}^n(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$ with $|\Omega|=1$, if $\Omega$ has a spectrum $\Lambda$ with period $p$, then $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by a subset $\mathcal T$ of $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
2. For every finite union of intervals with integer endpoints $\Omega=\cup_{i=1}^n(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$, $|\Omega|=N$, if $\Omega$ has a spectrum $\Lambda$ with minimal period $\frac rN$, $r\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, then $\frac Nr$ is an integer (see Corollary \[cor3.9\]) and $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ with a subset $\mathcal T$ of $\frac Nr{\mathbb{Z}}$.
3. Every bounded Lebesgue measurable spectral set tiles by translations.
Analysis of spectral sets
=========================
We begin with a few lemmas and propositions that exploit the periodicity of the spectrum to give some information about the structure of $\Omega$. We show in Proposition \[pr4.7\] that if a set $\Omega$ with $|\Omega|=1$, has a spectrum $\Lambda$ of period $p$, $\Lambda=\{0=\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}+p{\mathbb{Z}}$, then for a.e. $x\in\Omega$ the set $\Omega_x=\{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}: x+\frac kp\in\Omega\}$ has exactly $p$ elements and the sets $\Omega_x$ have a common spectrum $\frac{1}p\{\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$. This will enable us to use the Universal Tiling Conjecture to show that, in this case, the sets $\Omega_x$ have a common tiling set in ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and therefore $\Omega$ is a tile for ${\mathbb{R}}$ .
\[pr3.9\] If $\Omega=\cup_{i=1}^n(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$, $\alpha_1<\beta_1<\alpha_2<\beta_2<\dots<\alpha_n<\beta_n$ is spectral, $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\alpha_i,\beta_i\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$, then any spectrum $\Lambda$ for $\Omega$ has $p$ as a period.
Let $\Lambda$ be a spectrum for $\Omega$. Take $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and assume $\lambda+p\not\in\Lambda$. We have, for $\lambda'\in\Lambda$: $${\left\langle e_{\lambda+p}\, , \,e_{\lambda'}\right\rangle}_{L^2(\Omega)}=\frac{1}{|\Omega|}\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{2\pi i(\lambda+p-\lambda')}(e^{2\pi i (\lambda+p-\lambda')\beta_i}-e^{2\pi i(\lambda+p-\lambda')\alpha_i})$$$$=\frac{1}{2|\Omega|\pi i(\lambda+p-\lambda')}\sum_{i=1}^n(e^{2\pi i (\lambda-\lambda')\beta_i}-e^{2\pi i(\lambda-\lambda')\alpha_i})=\frac1{|\Omega|}\frac{\lambda-\lambda'}{\lambda+p-\lambda'}{\left\langle e_\lambda\, , \,e_{\lambda'}\right\rangle}_{L^2(\Omega)}=0$$ for both cases $\lambda\neq\lambda'$ and $\lambda=\lambda'$. But this would contradict the completeness of $\{e_\lambda : \lambda\in\Lambda\}$.
\[cor3.9\] If $\Omega=\cup_{i=1}^n(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$, $\alpha_1<\beta_1<\alpha_2<\beta_2<\dots<\alpha_n<\beta_n$ is spectral and $\alpha_i,\beta_i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$ and if a spectrum $\Lambda$ has minimal period $\frac{k}{|\Omega|}$ then $k$ divides $|\Omega|$.
$|\Omega|$ is an integer $N$. Then $\frac{1}{N}\Omega$ has measure 1, endpoints in $\frac1N{\mathbb{Z}}$ and spectrum $N\Lambda$ with period $k$. By Proposition \[pr3.9\], $k$ has to divide $N$.
The next proposition can be found in e.g. [@BoMa11; @LaWa97; @Ped96; @IoKo12]. We include the proof for the benefit of the reader.
\[pr4.15\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lebesgue measurable set of measure 1. Assume that $\Omega$ is spectral with spectrum $\Lambda$, $0\in\Lambda$, which has period $p$. Then $\Omega$ is a $p$-tile of ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\frac{1}{p}{\mathbb{Z}}$-translations, i.e., for almost every $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$, there exist exactly $p$ integers $j_1,\dots, j_{p}$ such that $x$ is in $\Omega+\frac{j_i}{p}$, $i=1,\dots,p$.
Also, for a.e. $x$ in $\Omega$, there are exactly $p$ integers $j_1,\dots,j_{p}$ such that $x+\frac{j_i}{p}$ is in $\Omega$ for all $i=1,\dots,p$.
The statements follow if we prove that $$\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\chi_\Omega\left(x+\frac{j}{p}\right)=1\mbox{ a.e. on $[0,\frac1p]$}.
\label{eq4.15.1}$$ By assumption, $\Lambda$ contains $0$ so $p{\mathbb{Z}}\subset\Lambda$. We compute the Fourier coefficients: for $l\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, $$p\int_0^{\frac1p}\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\chi_{\Omega}\left(x+\frac jp\right)e_{-lp}(x)\,dx=\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\int_{\frac jp}^{\frac{j+1}{p}}\chi_{\Omega}(x)e_{-lp}(x)\,dx=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\chi_{\Omega}(x)e_{-lp}(x)\,dx=\delta_0.$$ This implies .
\[def4.16\] For $\varphi\in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}})$, define the multiplication operator $M(\varphi)$ on $L^2({\mathbb{R}})$ by $M(\varphi)f=\varphi f$, $f\in L^2(\Omega)$.
\[lem4.16\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lebesgue measurable set of measure 1. Assume that $\Omega$ is spectral with spectrum $\Lambda$, $0\in\Lambda$ which has period $p$. Let $P(p{\mathbb{Z}})$ be the orthogonal projection in $L^2(\Omega)$ onto the closed subspace spanned by $\{e_{kp} : k\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$. Then, for $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, $$(P(p{\mathbb{Z}})f)(x)=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}f\left(x+\frac jp\right),\mbox{ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$}.
\label{eq4.16.1}$$ (We define $f$ to be zero outside $\Omega$)
Note first that the function on the right side of has period $\frac1p$ and therefore it is in the $L^2$-span of the functions $e_{pl}$, $l\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. We have, for $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, $l\in{\mathbb{Z}}$: $$\int_{\Omega}\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}f\left(x+\frac jp\right)e_{-lp}(x)\,dx=\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\chi_\Omega\left(x-\frac jp\right)f(x)e_{-lp}(x)\,dx$$$$=\mbox{(with Proposition \ref{pr4.15})}=\int_\Omega f(x)e_{-lp}(x)\,dx={\left\langle f\, , \,e_{lp}\right\rangle}_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
Therefore, since $e_{lp}$ form an orthogonal basis for their span, equation follows.
\[pr4.17\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lebesgue measurable set of measure 1. Assume that $\Omega$ is spectral with spectrum $\Lambda$, which has period $p$ and assume $0\in\Lambda$. Let $\Lambda=\{\lambda_0=0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}+p{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $\lambda_i\in[0,p)$, $i=0,\dots,p-1$. Then the projection $P(\lambda_i+p{\mathbb{Z}})$ onto the span of $\{e_{\lambda_i+kp}: k\in{\mathbb{Z}}\}$ has the following formula: for $f\in L^2(\Omega)$, $$(P(\lambda_i+p{\mathbb{Z}})f)(x)=e_{\lambda_i}(x)\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}}f\left(x+\frac jp\right)e_{-\lambda_i}\left(x+\frac jp\right),\mbox{ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$}.
\label{eq4.17.1}$$
A simple check shows that for $\lambda\in\Lambda$ we have that the rank one projections $P(\lambda)$ onto $e_\lambda$ are related by the following formula: $$P(\lambda)=M(e_\lambda)P(0)M(e_{-\lambda}).
\label{eq4.17.2}$$ Then, we obtain $$P(\lambda_i+p{\mathbb{Z}})=M(e_{\lambda_i})P(p{\mathbb{Z}})M(e_{-\lambda_i}).
\label{eq4.17.3}$$ Equation follows from and .
\[pr4.19\] Let $\Lambda=\{\lambda_0=0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}+p{\mathbb{Z}}$ be as in Proposition \[pr4.17\]. For $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$, let $\Omega_x=\{j\in{\mathbb{Z}}: x+\frac jp\in\Omega\}$. Then $|\Omega_x|=p$ for a.e. $x\in {\mathbb{R}}$ and, for $i,i'=0,\dots,p-1$: $$\frac{1}{p}\sum_{j\in\Omega_x}e^{2\pi i(\lambda_{i'}-\lambda_{i})\frac jp}=\delta_{ii'}\mbox{ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$}.
\label{eq4.19.1}$$ In other words , the set $\{\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ is spectral and, for a.e. $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $\frac1{p}\Omega_x$ is a spectrum for it.
The first statement is contained in Proposition \[pr4.15\]. Equation follows from Proposition \[pr4.17\] and the fact that $P(\lambda_i+p{\mathbb{Z}})e_{\lambda_{i'}}=0$ for $i\neq i'$, because $\Lambda$ is a spectrum.
\[pr4.7\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lebesgue measurable set of measure 1. Assume that $\Omega$ is spectral with spectrum $\Lambda$ as in Proposition \[pr4.17\] and, for $x\in\Omega$ define $\Omega_x\subset{\mathbb{Z}}$, $0\in\Omega_x$ as in Proposition \[pr4.19\]. The sets $\Omega_x$ have a common spectrum $\frac1p\{\lambda_0=0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ for a.e. $x\in\Omega$. Assume in addition that the sets $\Omega_x$ tile ${\mathbb{Z}}$ by a common tiling set $\mathcal T\subset {\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\frac1p\mathcal T$.
The fact that $\frac1p\Omega_x$ have the common spectrum $\{\lambda_i\}$ is contained in Proposition \[pr4.19\]. We focus on the tiling property. We can assume $0\in\mathcal T$. We know from Proposition \[pr4.15\] that $\Omega$ $p$-tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Take $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$. Then there exists $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and $x\in\Omega$ such that $x+\frac kp=y$. Since $\Omega_x$ tiles ${\mathbb{Z}}$ with $\mathcal T$, there exist $j\in\Omega_x$ and $t\in\mathcal T$ such that $k=j+t$. Then $x+\frac jp\in\Omega$ and $x+\frac jp+\frac tp=y$. So $\cup_{t\in\mathcal T}(\Omega+\frac tp)$ covers ${\mathbb{R}}$.
Now assume $y=x_1+\frac{t_1}p=x_2+\frac{t_2}p$ with $x_1,x_2\in\Omega$ and $t_1,t_2\in\mathcal T$. Then $x_1-x_2\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$ and therefore, there exists $j\in\Omega_{x_1}$ such that $x_2=x_1+\frac jp$. Also $0\in\Omega_{x_1}$ since $x_1\in\Omega$. Then $x_1+\frac jp+\frac{t_2}p=x_1+\frac{t_1}p$ so $\frac jp+\frac{t_2}p=0+\frac{t_1}p$. But since $\Omega_{x_1}$ tiles with $\mathcal T$, this implies $j=0$ and $t_1=t_2$, so $x_1=x_2$. Thus the sets $\Omega+t$ are mutually disjoint.
\[pr4.8\] Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lebesgue measurable subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$ with $|\Omega|=1$. Let $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Suppose $\Omega$ $p$-tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then, for a.e. $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the set $$\Omega_x:=\left\{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}: x+\frac kp\in\Omega\right\}
\label{eq4.8.1}$$ has exactly $p$ elements $$\Omega_x=\{k_0(x)<k_1(x)<\dots<k_{p-1}(x)\}.
\label{eq4.8.2}$$ For almost every $x\in\Omega$ there exist unique $y\in [0,\frac1p)$ and $i\in\{0,\dots,p-1\}$ such that $y+\frac{k_i(y)}p=x$.
The functions $k_i$ have the following property $$k_i(x+\frac1p)=k_i(x)-1,\quad(x\in{\mathbb{R}},i=0,\dots,p-1).
\label{eq4.8.2.1}$$
Consider the space of $\frac1p$-periodic vector valued functions $L^2([0,\frac1p),{\mathbb{C}}^p)$. The operator $W:L^2(\Omega)\rightarrow L^2([0,\frac1p),{\mathbb{C}}^p)$ defined by $$(Wf)(x)=\begin{pmatrix}f\left(y+\frac{k_{0}(y)}p\right)\\
\vdots\\
f\left(y+\frac{k_{p-1}(y)}p\right)
\end{pmatrix},\quad(y\in[0,\frac1p),f\in L^2(\Omega)),
\label{eq4.8.3}$$ is an isometric isomorphism with inverse $$W^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}
f_0\\
\vdots\\
f_{p-1}\end{pmatrix}(x)=f_i(y),\mbox{ if }x=y+\frac{k_i(y)}p,\mbox{ with }y\in[0,\frac1p), i\in\{0,\dots,p-1\}.
\label{eq4.8.4}$$
A set $\Lambda$ of the form $\Lambda=\{0=\lambda_0,\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}+p{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a spectrum for $\Omega$ if and only if $\{\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ is a spectrum for $\frac1p\Omega_x$ for a.e. $x\in[0,\frac1p)$.
The exponential functions are mapped by $W$ as follows: $$(We_{\lambda_i+np})(y)=e_{\lambda_i+np}(y)\begin{pmatrix}e_{\lambda_i}(\frac{k_0(y)}p)\\
\vdots\\
e_{\lambda_i}(\frac{k_{p-1}(y)}p)
\end{pmatrix}=:F_{i,n}(y),\quad (i=0,\dots,p-1, n\in{\mathbb{Z}},y\in[0,\frac1p)).
\label{eq4.8.5}$$
The first statement follows from the fact that $\Omega$ $p$-tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. The second statement follows from this and the fact that $[0,\frac1p)$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
To check that $W$ and $W^{-1}$, as defined, are inverse to each other requires just a simple computation. We verify that $W$ is isometric.
For a subset $S$ of ${\mathbb{Z}}$ with $|S|=p$ define $$A_S:=\{x\in[0,\frac1p) : \Omega_x=S\}.$$ To see that $A_S$ is measurable, note first that the maps $k_i:{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{Z}}$ are measurable; this can be proved by induction on $i$, first we have $\{x: k_0(x)=m\}=\{x: x+\frac mp\in\Omega, x+\frac np\not\in\Omega\mbox{ for all }n<m\}$. Then $\{x: k_1(x)=m\}=\{x: k_0(x)<m, x+\frac mp\in\Omega, x+\frac np\not\in\Omega\mbox{ for all } n=k_0(x)+1,\dots, m-1\}$ etc. For a set $S=\{s_0<\dots<s_{p-1}\}$, the set $A_S$ is given by $\{x: k_0(x)=s_0,\dots, k_{p-1}(x)=s_{p-1}\}$ hence it is measurable.
Note that, since $\Omega$ is bounded, $A_S=\ty$ for all but finitely many sets $S$. Also we have the following partition of $\Omega$. $$\bigcup_{|S|=p}(A_S+\frac1p S)=\Omega.$$
Take $f\in L^2(\Omega)$. We have $$\|Wf\|_{L^2([0,\frac1p),{\mathbb{C}}^p)}^2=\int_0^{\frac1p}\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\left|f\left(x+\frac{k_j(x)}p\right)\right|^2\,dx=
\sum_{|S|=p}\int_{A_S}\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\left|f\left(x+\frac{k_j(x)}p\right)\right|^2\,dx$$ $$=\sum_{|S|=p}\int_{A_S}\sum_{s\in S}\left|f\left(x+\frac{s}p\right)\right|^2\,dx=\sum_{|S|=p}\sum_{s\in S}\int_{A_S+\frac sp}|f(x)|^2\,dx=\int_{\Omega}|f(x)|^2\,dx.$$
Equation requires just a simple computation.
If $\Lambda$ is a spectrum for $\Omega$, then we saw in Proposition \[pr4.19\] that $\frac1p\Omega_x$ has spectrum $\{\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ for a.e. $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
For the converse, if $\{\lambda_0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ is a spectrum for $\frac1p\Omega_x$ for a.e. $x\in[0,\frac1p)$, then for a.e. $x\in [0,\frac1p)$,the vectors $v_i(x)=\frac1{\sqrt{p}}(e_{\lambda_i}(\frac{k_0(x)}p),\dots,e_{\lambda_i}(\frac{k_{p-1}(x)}p))^t$, $i=0,\dots,p-1$, form an orthonormal basis for ${\mathbb{C}}^p$. Then the functions $F_{i,n}$ in form an orthonormal system for $L^2([0,\frac1p),{\mathbb{C}}^p)$ as can be seen by a short computation. To see that the functions $F_{i,n}$ span the entire Hilbert space, take $H$ in $L^2([0,\frac1p),{\mathbb{C}}^p)$ such that $H\perp F_{i,n}$ for all $i=0,\dots,p-1$, $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $$0=\int_0^{\frac1p}e_{\lambda_i+np}(x){\left\langle H(x)\, , \,v_i(x)\right\rangle}_{{\mathbb{C}}^p}\,dx.$$ Since the functions $e_{np}$ are complete in $L^2[0,\frac1p)$ it follows that $e_{\lambda_i}(x){\left\langle H(x)\, , \,v_i(x)\right\rangle}_{{\mathbb{C}}^p}=0$ for a.e. $x\in[0,\frac1p)$. So ${\left\langle H(x)\, , \,v_i(x)\right\rangle}=0$ for a.e. $x\in[0,\frac1p)$ and all $i=0,\dots,p-1$. Then $H(x)=0$ for a.e. $x\in[0,\frac1p)$.
We can prove now our main results.
Assume (i). Let $\Omega$ be a bounded Lebesgue measurable spectral set. By scaling we can assume $|\Omega|=1$. Then $\Omega$ has a spectrum of period $p$. The sets $\Omega_x$ in Proposition \[pr4.7\] are obviously bounded by a common number $K$, since $\Omega$ is bounded, so they form a finite family. Then just apply the UTC($p$) conjecture to the sets $\Omega_x$ and use Proposition \[pr4.7\]. We get also that $\Omega$ tiles by a subset of $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
For the converse, assume (ii) holds. Let $p\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Take $\Gamma=\{\lambda_0=0,\dots,\lambda_{p-1}\}$ which has a spectrum of the form $\frac1pA$ with $A\subset{\mathbb{Z}}$. Take a finite family of sets $A_1,\dots,A_n$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\frac1pA_i$ is a spectrum for $\Gamma$.
Now pick $0=r_1<r_2<\dots<r_n<r_{n+1}=\frac1p$ with the property that $r_i-r_j\not\in\mathbb Q$ unless $i=j$ or $\{i,j\}=\{1,n+1\}$. Define the set $\Omega$ as follows: $$\Omega:=\bigcup_{i=1}^n\left([r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac1pA_i\right).$$
For every $x\in[0,\frac1p)$, the sets $\Omega_x$ defined in Proposition \[pr4.19\] are among the sets $A_i$. Using Proposition \[pr4.8\], since $\Gamma$ is a spectrum for all the sets $\frac1p\Omega_x$, we get that $\Omega$ is spectral with spectrum $\Gamma+p{\mathbb{Z}}$. By hypothesis $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ with some set $\mathcal T$. We can assume that $0\in\mathcal T$.
We prove first that $\mathcal T$ is contained in $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Note that $|\Omega|=1$. By [@LaWa96 Theorem 1 and 2], we know that $\mathcal T$ is periodic with some integer period $s$ and $\mathcal T=\{0=t_0,t_1,\dots,t_{J}\}+s{\mathbb{Z}}$ with $t_i$ rational for all $i$.
We claim that, if ${\overline{(\Omega+t)}}\cap{\overline{(\Omega+t')}}\neq \ty$ then $t-t'\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Indeed, if this is the case, from the tiling property, we see that either $t=t'$ or two intervals, one in $\Omega+t$, one in $\Omega+t'$ have a common endpoint. So we have $r_{i+1}+\frac{s_{i}}{p}+t=r_j+\frac{s_j}{p}+t'$ for some $i,j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$, $s_i\in A_i, s_j\in A_j$. But, since $t,t'\in\mathbb Q$, we get that $r_{i+1}-r_j$ is in $\mathbb Q$. So $i+1=j$ or $\{i+1,j\}=\{1,n+1\}$. In both cases $r_{i+1}-r_j\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $t-t'\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
If $J>0$ then $\Omega+s{\mathbb{Z}}$ does not exhaust ${\mathbb{R}}$, so there exists an element $0\neq t_{j_1}\in\{t_0,\dots,t_J\}$ and $s_0,s_1\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that ${\overline{(\Omega+s_0)}}\cap{\overline{(\Omega+s_1+t_{j_1})}}\neq\ty$, and hence we obtain $t_{j_1}\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Making one more step in a similar manner, if $J>1$ then $\Omega+(\{0,t_{j_1}\}+s{\mathbb{Z}})$ does not exhaust ${\mathbb{R}}$, so there exist a $t_{j_2}$ and $s_2$ such that ${\overline{(\Omega+s_2+t_{j_2})}}$ intersects nontrivially either a set of the form ${\overline{(\Omega+s_0')}}$ or a set of the form ${\overline{(\Omega+s_1'+t_{j_1})}}$. In both cases we conclude that $t_{j_2}\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. Continuing this way we conclude that $\{0=t_0,t_1,\dots,t_J\}\subset \frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$, and hence $\mathcal T\subset\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$.
We prove now that $\frac1p A_i$ tiles $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$ by $\mathcal T$, for all $i$, which proves (i).
Let $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ and pick $y\in (r_i,r_{i+1})$ arbitrarily. Then there exists a unique $t\in\mathcal T$ such that $y+\frac kp\in\Omega+t$. So there exists $1\leq j\leq n$, $y'\in[r_j,r_{j+1})$ and $s_j\in A_j$ such that $y+\frac kp=y'+\frac{s_j}p+t$. This implies $y-y'\in\frac1p {\mathbb{Z}}$ which means that $y=y'$ and $i=j$. So $\frac kp=\frac{s_j}p+t$.
Now, assume $\frac ap+t=\frac{a'}p+t'$ for some $a,a'\in A_i$ and $t,t'\in \mathcal T$. Then $$(\Omega+t)\cap (\Omega+t')\supset([r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac ap+t)\cap ([r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac{a'}p+t')=[r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac ap+t.$$ This implies that $t=t'$ and $a=a'$. So $\frac1p A_i$ tiles $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$ by $\mathcal T$.
That (iii) implies (i) follows from Theorem \[th4.8\]. To see that (i) implies (iii), we show that the Universal Tiling Conjecture is true under these assumptions. The proof is similar to the one for Theorem \[th4.8\]. Let $p$, $\Gamma$, $A_1,\dots, A_m$ as in Conjecture \[con4.8\].
Now pick $0=r_1<r_2<\dots<r_{m+1}=\frac1p$ some rational points and define $$\Omega=\bigcup _{i=1}^m\left((r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac1pA_i\right).$$
For every $x\in[0,\frac1p)$, the sets $\Omega_x$ defined in Proposition \[pr4.19\] are among the sets $A_i$. Using Proposition \[pr4.8\], since $\Gamma$ is a spectrum for all the sets $\frac1p\Omega_x$, we get that $\Omega$ is spectral with spectrum $\Gamma+p{\mathbb{Z}}$. By hypothesis $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ with some set $\mathcal T$ contained in $\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$. We can assume $0\in\mathcal T$. We prove that every $A_i$ tiles ${\mathbb{Z}}$ by $p\mathcal T$.
Take $x\in(r_i,r_{i+1})$ and $k\in{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then there exists $t\in\mathcal T$ such that $x+\frac kp\in\Omega+t$, so there exist $j\in\{1,\dots,m\}$, $y\in (r_j,r_{j+1})$ and $s\in A_j$ such that $x+\frac kp=y+\frac sp+t$. This implies that $x-y\in\frac1p{\mathbb{Z}}$ and since $x,y\in[0,\frac1p)$, this means that $x=y$. Hence $i=j$ and $k=s+pt$.
Now assume $s+pt=s'+pt'$ for some $s,s'\in A_i$ and $t,t'\in\mathcal T$. Then $(\Omega+t)\cap (\Omega+t')$ contains $(r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac sp+t=(r_i,r_{i+1})+\frac{s'}p+t'$. So $t=t'$ and $s=s'$. Thus, $A_i$ tiles ${\mathbb{Z}}$ by $p\mathcal T$.
Assume (i) and take $\Omega$ as in (ii). Then $\frac1N\Omega$ has rational endpoints and measure 1. If $\Lambda$ is a spectrum for $\Omega$ with period $\frac rN$, then $N\Lambda$ is a spectrum for $\frac1N\Omega$ with period $r$. By assumption, $\frac1N\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by a subset of $\frac1r{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by a subset $\frac Nr{\mathbb{Z}}$.
Assume (ii) and take $\Omega$ as in (i). Let $N$ be common denominator of all $\alpha_i,\beta_i$. Then $N\Omega$ has integer endpoints and measure $N$. If $\Lambda$ is a spectrum for $\Omega$ of period $r$, then $\frac1N\Lambda$ is a spectrum for $N\Omega$, with period $\frac rN$ (which is a multiple of the minimal period $\frac{r'}N$). By assumption, $N\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by a subset of $\frac N{r'}{\mathbb{Z}}\subset\frac Nr{\mathbb{Z}}$. Then $\Omega$ tiles ${\mathbb{R}}$ by a subset of $\frac1r{\mathbb{Z}}$.
This work was done while the first named author (PJ) was visiting the University of Central Florida. We are grateful to the UCF-Math Department for hospitality and support. The authors are pleased to thank Professors Deguang Han, Steen Pedersen, Qiyu Sun and Feng Tian for helpful conversations. PJ was supported in part by the National Science Foundation, via a Univ of Iowa VIGRE grant. We thank the anonymous referee for the carefully reading the manuscript and for his/her suggestions that improved the paper significantly. This work was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (\#228539 to Dorin Dutkay).
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ABSTRACT is to be in fully-justified italicized text, at the top of the left-hand column, below the author and affiliation information. Use the word “Abstract” as the title, in 12-point Times, boldface type, centered relative to the column, initially capitalized. The abstract is to be in 10-point, single-spaced type. Leave two blank lines after the Abstract, then begin the main text. Look at previous CVPR abstracts to get a feel for style and length.'
author:
- |
First Author\
Institution1\
Institution1 address\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Second Author\
Institution2\
First line of institution2 address\
[[email protected]]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: LaTeX Author Guidelines for CVPR Proceedings
---
Introduction
============
Please follow the steps outlined below when submitting your manuscript to the IEEE Computer Society Press. This style guide now has several important modifications (for example, you are no longer warned against the use of sticky tape to attach your artwork to the paper), so all authors should read this new version.
Language
--------
All manuscripts must be in English.
Dual submission
---------------
Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2018 web page for a discussion of the policy on dual submissions.
Paper length
------------
Papers, excluding the references section, must be no longer than eight pages in length. The references section will not be included in the page count, and there is no limit on the length of the references section. For example, a paper of eight pages with two pages of references would have a total length of 10 pages. [**There will be no extra page charges for CVPR 2018.**]{}
Overlength papers will simply not be reviewed. This includes papers where the margins and formatting are deemed to have been significantly altered from those laid down by this style guide. Note that this LaTeX guide already sets figure captions and references in a smaller font. The reason such papers will not be reviewed is that there is no provision for supervised revisions of manuscripts. The reviewing process cannot determine the suitability of the paper for presentation in eight pages if it is reviewed in eleven.
The ruler
---------
The LaTeX style defines a printed ruler which should be present in the version submitted for review. The ruler is provided in order that reviewers may comment on particular lines in the paper without circumlocution. If you are preparing a document using a non-LaTeXdocument preparation system, please arrange for an equivalent ruler to appear on the final output pages. The presence or absence of the ruler should not change the appearance of any other content on the page. The camera ready copy should not contain a ruler. (LaTeX users may uncomment the `\cvprfinalcopy` command in the document preamble.) Reviewers: note that the ruler measurements do not align well with lines in the paper — this turns out to be very difficult to do well when the paper contains many figures and equations, and, when done, looks ugly. Just use fractional references (e.g. this line is $095.5$), although in most cases one would expect that the approximate location will be adequate.
Mathematics
-----------
Please number all of your sections and displayed equations. It is important for readers to be able to refer to any particular equation. Just because you didn’t refer to it in the text doesn’t mean some future reader might not need to refer to it. It is cumbersome to have to use circumlocutions like “the equation second from the top of page 3 column 1”. (Note that the ruler will not be present in the final copy, so is not an alternative to equation numbers). All authors will benefit from reading Mermin’s description of how to write mathematics: <http://www.pamitc.org/documents/mermin.pdf>.
Blind review
------------
Many authors misunderstand the concept of anonymizing for blind review. Blind review does not mean that one must remove citations to one’s own work—in fact it is often impossible to review a paper unless the previous citations are known and available.
Blind review means that you do not use the words “my” or “our” when citing previous work. That is all. (But see below for techreports.)
Saying “this builds on the work of Lucy Smith \[1\]” does not say that you are Lucy Smith; it says that you are building on her work. If you are Smith and Jones, do not say “as we show in \[7\]”, say “as Smith and Jones show in \[7\]” and at the end of the paper, include reference 7 as you would any other cited work.
An example of a bad paper just asking to be rejected:
> An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
>
> In this paper we present a performance analysis of our previous paper \[1\], and show it to be inferior to all previously known methods. Why the previous paper was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
>
> \[1\] Removed for blind review
An example of an acceptable paper:
> An analysis of the frobnicatable foo filter.
>
> In this paper we present a performance analysis of the paper of Smith , and show it to be inferior to all previously known methods. Why the previous paper was accepted without this analysis is beyond me.
>
> \[1\] Smith, L and Jones, C. “The frobnicatable foo filter, a fundamental contribution to human knowledge”. Nature 381(12), 1-213.
If you are making a submission to another conference at the same time, which covers similar or overlapping material, you may need to refer to that submission in order to explain the differences, just as you would if you had previously published related work. In such cases, include the anonymized parallel submission [@Authors14] as additional material and cite it as
> \[1\] Authors. “The frobnicatable foo filter”, F&G 2014 Submission ID 324, Supplied as additional material [fg324.pdf]{}.
Finally, you may feel you need to tell the reader that more details can be found elsewhere, and refer them to a technical report. For conference submissions, the paper must stand on its own, and not [*require*]{} the reviewer to go to a techreport for further details. Thus, you may say in the body of the paper “further details may be found in [@Authors14b]”. Then submit the techreport as additional material. Again, you may not assume the reviewers will read this material.
Sometimes your paper is about a problem which you tested using a tool which is widely known to be restricted to a single institution. For example, let’s say it’s 1969, you have solved a key problem on the Apollo lander, and you believe that the CVPR70 audience would like to hear about your solution. The work is a development of your celebrated 1968 paper entitled “Zero-g frobnication: How being the only people in the world with access to the Apollo lander source code makes us a wow at parties”, by Zeus .
You can handle this paper like any other. Don’t write “We show how to improve our previous work \[Anonymous, 1968\]. This time we tested the algorithm on a lunar lander \[name of lander removed for blind review\]”. That would be silly, and would immediately identify the authors. Instead write the following:
> We describe a system for zero-g frobnication. This system is new because it handles the following cases: A, B. Previous systems \[Zeus et al. 1968\] didn’t handle case B properly. Ours handles it by including a foo term in the bar integral.
>
> ...
>
> The proposed system was integrated with the Apollo lunar lander, and went all the way to the moon, don’t you know. It displayed the following behaviours which show how well we solved cases A and B: ...
As you can see, the above text follows standard scientific convention, reads better than the first version, and does not explicitly name you as the authors. A reviewer might think it likely that the new paper was written by Zeus , but cannot make any decision based on that guess. He or she would have to be sure that no other authors could have been contracted to solve problem B.
FAQ: Are acknowledgements OK? No. Leave them for the final copy.
\[fig:onecol\]
Miscellaneous
-------------
Compare the following:\
--------------------- -------------------
`$conf_a$` $conf_a$
`$\mathit{conf}_a$` $\mathit{conf}_a$
--------------------- -------------------
\
See The TeXbook, p165.
The space after , meaning “for example”, should not be a sentence-ending space. So is correct, [*e.g.*]{} is not. The provided `\eg` macro takes care of this.
When citing a multi-author paper, you may save space by using “et alia”, shortened to “” (not “[*et. al.*]{}” as “[*et*]{}” is a complete word.) However, use it only when there are three or more authors. Thus, the following is correct: “ Frobnication has been trendy lately. It was introduced by Alpher [@Alpher02], and subsequently developed by Alpher and Fotheringham-Smythe [@Alpher03], and Alpher [@Alpher04].”
This is incorrect: “... subsequently developed by Alpher [@Alpher03] ...” because reference [@Alpher03] has just two authors. If you use the `\etal` macro provided, then you need not worry about double periods when used at the end of a sentence as in Alpher .
For this citation style, keep multiple citations in numerical (not chronological) order, so prefer [@Alpher03; @Alpher02; @Authors14] to [@Alpher02; @Alpher03; @Authors14].
Formatting your paper
=====================
All text must be in a two-column format. The total allowable width of the text area is $6\frac78$ inches (17.5 cm) wide by $8\frac78$ inches (22.54 cm) high. Columns are to be $3\frac14$ inches (8.25 cm) wide, with a $\frac{5}{16}$ inch (0.8 cm) space between them. The main title (on the first page) should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge of the page. The second and following pages should begin 1.0 inch (2.54 cm) from the top edge. On all pages, the bottom margin should be 1-1/8 inches (2.86 cm) from the bottom edge of the page for $8.5 \times 11$-inch paper; for A4 paper, approximately 1-5/8 inches (4.13 cm) from the bottom edge of the page.
Margins and page numbering
--------------------------
All printed material, including text, illustrations, and charts, must be kept within a print area 6-7/8 inches (17.5 cm) wide by 8-7/8 inches (22.54 cm) high. Page numbers should be in footer with page numbers, centered and .75 inches from the bottom of the page and make it start at the correct page number rather than the 4321 in the example. To do this fine the line (around line 23)
%\ifcvprfinal\pagestyle{empty}\fi
\setcounter{page}{4321}
where the number 4321 is your assigned starting page.
Make sure the first page is numbered by commenting out the first page being empty on line 46
%\thispagestyle{empty}
Type-style and fonts
--------------------
Wherever Times is specified, Times Roman may also be used. If neither is available on your word processor, please use the font closest in appearance to Times to which you have access.
MAIN TITLE. Center the title 1-3/8 inches (3.49 cm) from the top edge of the first page. The title should be in Times 14-point, boldface type. Capitalize the first letter of nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs; do not capitalize articles, coordinate conjunctions, or prepositions (unless the title begins with such a word). Leave two blank lines after the title.
AUTHOR NAME(s) and AFFILIATION(s) are to be centered beneath the title and printed in Times 12-point, non-boldface type. This information is to be followed by two blank lines.
The ABSTRACT and MAIN TEXT are to be in a two-column format.
MAIN TEXT. Type main text in 10-point Times, single-spaced. Do NOT use double-spacing. All paragraphs should be indented 1 pica (approx. 1/6 inch or 0.422 cm). Make sure your text is fully justified—that is, flush left and flush right. Please do not place any additional blank lines between paragraphs.
Figure and table captions should be 9-point Roman type as in Figures \[fig:onecol\] and \[fig:short\]. Short captions should be centred.
Callouts should be 9-point Helvetica, non-boldface type. Initially capitalize only the first word of section titles and first-, second-, and third-order headings.
FIRST-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, [**1. Introduction**]{}) should be Times 12-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left, with one blank line before, and one blank line after.
SECOND-ORDER HEADINGS. (For example, [ **1.1. Database elements**]{}) should be Times 11-point boldface, initially capitalized, flush left, with one blank line before, and one after. If you require a third-order heading (we discourage it), use 10-point Times, boldface, initially capitalized, flush left, preceded by one blank line, followed by a period and your text on the same line.
Footnotes
---------
Please use footnotes[^1] sparingly. Indeed, try to avoid footnotes altogether and include necessary peripheral observations in the text (within parentheses, if you prefer, as in this sentence). If you wish to use a footnote, place it at the bottom of the column on the page on which it is referenced. Use Times 8-point type, single-spaced.
References
----------
List and number all bibliographical references in 9-point Times, single-spaced, at the end of your paper. When referenced in the text, enclose the citation number in square brackets, for example [@Authors14]. Where appropriate, include the name(s) of editors of referenced books.
Method Frobnability
-------- ------------------------
Theirs Frumpy
Yours Frobbly
Ours Makes one’s heart Frob
: Results. Ours is better.
Illustrations, graphs, and photographs
--------------------------------------
All graphics should be centered. Please ensure that any point you wish to make is resolvable in a printed copy of the paper. Resize fonts in figures to match the font in the body text, and choose line widths which render effectively in print. Many readers (and reviewers), even of an electronic copy, will choose to print your paper in order to read it. You cannot insist that they do otherwise, and therefore must not assume that they can zoom in to see tiny details on a graphic.
When placing figures in LaTeX, it’s almost always best to use `\includegraphics`, and to specify the figure width as a multiple of the line width as in the example below
\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} ...
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]
{myfile.eps}
Color
-----
Please refer to the author guidelines on the CVPR 2018 web page for a discussion of the use of color in your document.
Final copy
==========
You must include your signed IEEE copyright release form when you submit your finished paper. We MUST have this form before your paper can be published in the proceedings.
[^1]: This is what a footnote looks like. It often distracts the reader from the main flow of the argument.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It is assumed that the quantum state that may describe a macroscopic system at a given instant of time is one of the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix calculated from the wave function of the system plus its environment. This implies that the above quantum state is a member of a special orthonormed set of states. Using a suitable Monte-Carlo simulation, this property is shown to be consistent with the extremely small standard deviation for the coordinates and the momenta of macroscopic systems. Consequences for statistical mechanics and possible observable effects are discussed.'
address: 'Institute for Solid State Physics, Eötvös University, Múzeum krt. 6-8, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary'
author:
- Gyula Bene
title: On the nature of the quantum states of macroscopic systems
---
epsf
Despite of the well known conceptual difficulties[@cat], [@EPR], [@Bell], there is no compelling reason to believe that quantum mechanics fails when applied to macroscopic systems. It is then reasonable to ask what are the properties of quantum states of macroscopic systems. In order to fit experience, such a quantum state should yield extremely small standard deviation for both the position and the momentum of the center of mass. On the other hand, due to the large number of particles contained in macroscopic bodies, they possess an extremely high energy level density, or an extremely small average level spacing. Correspondingly, a macroscopic system $M$ cannot be isolated from its environment $E$[^1], hence, according to orthodox quantum mechanics, it cannot be characterized by a wave function, only by a suitable reduced density matrix $\rho$, resulting from the wave function $\Psi$ of the composite system $M+E$ by taking the partial trace of $|\Psi><\Psi|$ over the Hilbert space of the environment.[@Wigner]
Nevertheless, it is still possible to assign a wave function to the system $M$. To show this, let us consider a simplified description of a spin measurement on a spin-half particle. Suppose that the $S_z$ spin component is measured, and initially the particle is in the state $|\uparrow>$, which is the eigenstate of the $\hat S_z$ operator corresponding to the eigenvalue $+\frac{\hbar}{2}$. Then the measurement process may be symbolically written as $
|\uparrow>|m_0>\, \rightarrow \, |\uparrow>|m_\uparrow>$, where $|m_0>$ stands for the initial state of the measuring device, and $|m_\uparrow>$ stands for the state of the measuring device when it shows the result $+\frac{\hbar}{2}$. The horizontal arrow denotes the (unitary) time evolution, satisfying the Schrödinger equation.
Similarly, if the initial state of the particle is $|\downarrow>$, corresponding to the eigenvalue $-\frac{\hbar}{2}$, the measurement process can be written as $
|\downarrow>|m_0> \,\rightarrow \, |\downarrow>|m_\downarrow>$.
If the initial state of the particle is the superposition $\alpha |\uparrow> +\beta |\downarrow>$ (with $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1$), then, owing to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation we may write $
\left(\alpha |\uparrow> +\beta |\downarrow>\right) |m_0> \rightarrow
\alpha |\uparrow>|m_\uparrow> +\beta |\downarrow>|m_\downarrow>$.
Looking at the final state of the system, one can see that the measuring device has no own wave function, instead, it can be characterized by the density matrix $
\hat \rho=|m_\uparrow>|\alpha|^2 <m_\uparrow|
+|m_\downarrow>|\beta|^2 <m_\downarrow|$.
Certainly, in such a situation the result of the measurement is either $+\frac{\hbar}{2}$, corresponding to the state $ |m_\uparrow>$, or $-\frac{\hbar}{2}$, corresponding to the state $|m_\downarrow>$. As the states $ |m_\uparrow>$ and $|m_\downarrow>$ are orthogonal, they are just the eigenstates of $\hat \rho$. Extrapolating the conclusion of this simple example, it is reasonable to assume that a macroscopic system is described by one of the eigenstates of its reduced density matrix $\hat \rho$, calculated from the wave function of the Universe, and the probability that this particular eigenstate occurs is given by the corresponding eigenvalue. This has already been proposed by several authors[@Zeh], [@Albrecht], [@Dieks]. A consistent theory involving this idea can be found in Ref.[@Bene]. It is of worth mentioning that this latter theory is an explicit counterexample to Bell’s theorem[@Bell].
The next question is how the reduced density matrix of a macroscopic system looks like if the interaction with the environment is taken into account. This is the central problem of the phenomenon ’environment induced decoherence’[@Zeh], [@Zurek], and as such, has been much studied in model systems. A typical model[@Caldeira-Leggett] contains a number of harmonic oscillators playing the role of a heat bath (this is the environment) and a macroscopic object coupled to it. As a result of the interaction, the reduced density matrix of the macroscopic object becomes nearly diagonal in both coordinate and momentum representation, so that the width across the diagonal is microscopically small, while the distribution along the diagonal (this is the probability distribution of the coordinate in coordinate representation and the probability distribution of the momentum in momentum representation) extends to a macroscopic regime. Note that (up to the present author’s best knowledge) none of the decoherence models studied so far possesses the property that the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix are generically localized. The reason may well be that these models are oversimplified.
Considering now the mathematical consequences of the above idea, one finds that the quantum state of a macroscopic system is a member of an orthonormed set of states[^2]. The relevant eigenstates of the reduced density matrix (i.e., those which occur with non-negligible probability) must correspond to a macroscopic region of the classical phase space, therefore, their number is given by this phase space volume divided by Planck’s constant $h$ (in one dimension, in $f$ dimension one must use $h^f$ instead). All the relevant eigenstates must possess the classical property that the standard deviation for both the coordinates and the momenta ($\delta x$ and $\delta p$, respectively) is microscopically small. The aim of the present paper is to answer the question whether it is possible mathematically at all.
It is natural to ask whether there exists such a complete, orthonormed basis that the standard deviations $\delta x$, $\delta p$ for [*all*]{} the basis functions lie below a common bound. The answer is known in the one-dimensional case when the basis functions are generated from the same function by translations along the $x$ and $p$ directions[@Balian]. It turns out that completeness, orthonormality and boundedness of $\delta x$ and $\delta p$ cannot be simultaneously fulfilled.
We made a numerical study to decide whether it is also true if the basis functions are not generated by translations. The method was the following. Initially one dimensional oscillator eigenstates $|n>$ below a given energy $E_0=(N-1/2)\hbar \omega$ were considered. Certainly, in this case $\delta x_n \propto \delta p_n \propto \sqrt{n}$. Then new basis functions $|\tilde n>$ were constructed by a unitary transformation $
|\tilde n> =\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} U_{n j} |j>$.
The transformation matrix was chosen so as to minimize the sum of $\delta x^2 + \delta p^2$ for all the $N$ basis functions. (The units were chosen so that $\hbar=1$, $\omega=1$, $m=1$.) As $
\delta x^2=<\tilde n|\hat x^2|\tilde n>-<\tilde n|\hat x|\tilde n>^2$, and $\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} <\tilde n|\hat x^2|\tilde n>$ (similarly for $\hat p$), it was enough to maximize the quantity $
S=\sum_{n=0}^{N-1} <\tilde n|\hat x|\tilde n>^2$ .
The transformation matrix was built up as a product of unitary matrices, each having only one nontrivial 2 by 2 block. The corresponding indices were randomly chosen. For the other indices the matrix was just the unit matrix. The most general 2 by 2 unitary transformation is the transformation matrix of the basic spinors which may be parametrized by three angles. For each matrix, these angles were chosen at random, and it was subsequently considered whether the result of this transformation gave rise to a larger sum $S$ or not. If yes, then the transformation was kept, if not, it was discarded. The method was therefore a simple Monte-Carlo simulation. The procedure was continued until the quantity $S$ saturated. The resulting average deviations (i.e., the sum of $\delta x^2 + \delta p^2$ for all the $N$ states divided by $N$) as a function of various $N$ values is plotted in Fig.1. The error of the data is less than $10^{-2}$. The measured values are surprisingly well fitted by the logarithmic function $1.0+0.6\,\ln\left(N\right)$. This result supports the generalization of the statement of Ref.[@Balian], i.e., it shows that no complete, orthonormed basis with bounded standard deviations $\delta x$, $\delta p$ exists.
Returning to the original question, we show that the logarithmic dependence on $N$ is consistent with the requirement that the relevant eigenstates (i.e., those with significant probability to occur) of the reduced density matrix must have small $\delta x$, $\delta p$ values[^3]. Indeed, the relevant eigenstates of $\hat \rho$ are associated with a large but finite portion of the classical phase space. We choose the number $N$ to be the ratio of this phase space volume and Planck’s constant $h$.[^4] The widths $\delta x$, $\delta p$ of the relevant eigenstates are proportional to $\sqrt{0.5+0.3 \ln\left(N\right)}$. This quantity remains moderate even for an astronomically large $N$ value. As an example, consider the motion of the Earth. The linear size in coordinate space is $3\times 10^{11}$ m, and that in momentum space is $3.6\times 10^{29} \rm kg\frac{m}{s}$. Therefore, $N=1.6\times 10^{74}$ and $\sqrt{0.5+0.3\ln\left(N\right)}=7.2$. Thus the widths $\delta x$, $\delta p$ are only one order of magnitude larger than those of the minimal wave packet $|0>$. As we see, the logarithmic dependence makes the above assumption about the wave functions of macroscopic systems physically acceptable. Nevertheless, the problem is left open whether these states actually occur in Nature and if so, what the origin of their ’localization’ property is. Certainly, it should be due to the interaction between the macroscopic system and its environment (as this produces the mixed state described by $\hat \rho$), but that feature of the dynamics which is responsible for classical behavior is unknown. It should be emphasized that the ’nearly diagonal’ shape of $\hat \rho$ in coordinate and in momentum representation is insufficient. E.g., if $\rho(x,x')\propto
\exp\left(-\frac{(x-x')^2}{2\sigma_1^2}-\frac{(x+x')^2}{2\sigma_2^2}\right)$ with $\sigma_1<<\sigma_2$, the density matrix is nearly diagonal in both coordinate and momentum representation, but its eigenstates are oscillator eigenstates with $\delta x_n\propto \delta p_n \propto \sqrt{n}$.
Here we consider only some consequences if the above ’logarithmic localization’ of the macroscopic quantum states actually occurs.
Let us consider first a harmonic oscillator of unit mass and frequency (certainly, these units may be as large as 1 kg and 1 s$^{-1}$), and calculate the mean deviation of the energy in the above localized states. Certainly, the average of this quantity depends on the number of the states ($N$), as for larger $N$ the states are broader. The dependence of the average square deviation of the energy on the number of states is plotted in Fig.2.
Somewhat surprisingly, this dependence is not logarithmic, but power-like, with the exponent $\approx 1.25$. This means that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta E \propto N^{0.63}\label{exx}\end{aligned}$$ The mean energy is proportional to $N$ (as $N$ is chosen according to the relevant classical phase space volume), therefore, the relative uncertainty of the energy, i.e., $\delta E/E$ goes to zero as $N^{-0.39}\propto \left(\frac{E}{\hbar \omega}\right)^{-0.39}$. Certainly, in case of a macroscopic oscillator this is unobservable, although $\delta E$ itself can be quite large at the microscopic scale $\hbar \omega$.
In order to understand the behavior (\[exx\]), let us consider the asymptotic behavior of the above localized states in coordinate representation. Beyond $\sqrt{N}$ they fall off as $\exp\left(-x^2/2\right)$, due to their construction. For smaller distances (down to some $x_0$) they decay like a power. The exponent is $\nu\approx -1.5$. This readily implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta^2 x=\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx |\psi(x)|^2 x^2
\approx {\rm const.}\times \int_{x_0}^{\sqrt{N}} dx\; x^{-1}\nonumber\\
={\rm a_1} + {\rm b_1} \ln\left(N\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where ${\rm a_1}$ and ${\rm b_1}$ are constants. The behavior in momentum space is the same. As for the square deviation of the energy, we have to consider the expectation value of $\hat x^4+\hat p^4+\hat x^2\hat p^2
+\hat p^2\hat x^2$. We may write e.g. $$\begin{aligned}
<\hat x^4>=\int_{-\infty}^\infty dx |\psi(x)|^2 x^4
\approx {\rm const.}\times \int_{x_0}^{\sqrt{N}} dx\; x\nonumber\\
={\rm a_2} + {\rm b_2} N\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ One can derive the same linear estimate for $<\hat p^4>$ as well. This implies that $\delta^2 E$ grows at least linearly with $N$, which is consistent with the numerically obtained $N^{1.25}$.
In order to get further consequences, let us consider a macroscopic system being in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath at temperature $T$. What is the density matrix of that system at a given instant of time? One would guess that it is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{Z}\exp\left(-\beta \hat H\right)\,,\label{e9}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=\frac{1}{k_B T}$ and $Z$ stands for the canonical partition function. This expression, however, substitutes a long time average, therefore, one cannot expect that it is strictly valid at a given instant of time. According to the previous considerations, it is more realistic to assume that (\[e9\]) gives only the long time average of the density matrix, which is actually given by $
\hat \rho = \sum_n |\varphi_n>p_n <\varphi_n|\,,\label{e10}
$ where $|\varphi_n>$ is narrow in both coordinate and in momentum space if $p_n$ is not negligibly small. As energy eigenstates are generically not localized, the $|\varphi_n>$-s are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $\hat H$, therefore, $\hat \rho$ will have nondiagonal matrix elements in energy representation. Explicitly, these matrix elements are $
\rho_{j k}=<\xi_j|\hat \rho|\xi_k>
=\sum_n p_n <\xi_j|\varphi_n><\varphi_n|\xi_k>$, where $|\xi_k>$-s stand for the energy eigenstates. The states $|\varphi_n>$ are also localized in energy representation (i.e., for a given $n$ $<\xi_j|\varphi_n>$ takes on significant values only for a narrow range of the energy eigenvalues $E_j$), thus $\rho_{j,k}$ is a narrow band matrix.
The existence of nondiagonal matrix elements in energy representation can in principle lead to experimentally observable effects. Suppose one isolates the macroscopic system in question so that the interaction energy $\Delta E_I$ with the environment becomes much less than the effective width $\delta E$ of the density matrix in energy representation. Under such circumstances consider the linear response of the system. For a time $t$ which is much less than $\hbar/\Delta E_I$ but much larger than $\hbar/\delta E$ the deviation in the expectation value of an operator $\hat A$ is $$\delta<\hat A>(t)=-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_0^t dt'
{\rm Tr}\left(\left[\hat A(t),\hat H_1(t')\right]
\hat \rho(0)\right)\,,$$ where $\hat H_1$ is the perturbation, and the operators are Heisenberg operators calculated with the unperturbed Hamiltonian $\hat H_0$. Choosing $\hat A=\hat H_0$, the response can be cast to the form $$\begin{aligned}
\delta<\hat H_0>(t)=\sum_{j,k} \left(\rho_{j,k}(t)-\rho_{j,k}(0)\right)
<\xi_k|\hat H_1(0)|\xi_j>\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{j,k}(t)=\exp\left(-\frac{i}{\hbar}(E_k-E_j)t\right)\rho_{j,k}(0)$. If the density matrix were strictly diagonal in energy representation, the response $\delta<\hat H_0>(t)$ would vanish. Actually, as noted above, $\rho_{j,k}(0)$ is a narrow band matrix, hence the Fourier transform of the response vanishes at high frequences but becomes significant at low frequences. Therefore, the localization property of the eigenstates shows up in a suitable linear response which increases at low frequencies. It is a challenging question whether this behavior may be related to the celebrated $1/f$ noise[@1pf]. It is also of worth noting that the deviation of the density matrix from the canonical expression (\[e9\]) implies the breakdown of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.
In conclusion, we have seen that i, in one dimension there is no localized basis in the strict sense ii, the numerically found ’logarithmically localized’ basis demonstrates that the idea that macroscopic systems are described by the eigenstates of their reduced density matrix is consistent with experienceiii, this idea implies that the density matrix of a macroscopic system being in thermal equilibrium is not diagonal in energy representation, that may be observed in the spectrum of a suitable linear response function as an enhancement at low frequences.
Acknowledgements
================
The author is obliged to Prof.A.Voros for an enlightening discussion and also for reference [@Balian].
This work has been partially supported by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences under Grant Nos. OTKA T 017493, OTKA F 17166 and OTKA F 019266, by the Hungarian Ministry of Culture and Education under Grant No. FKFP 0159/1997 and by the German-Hungarian Scientific and Technological Cooperation Project No. D 125.
The author wants to thank for the hospitality of the [*Institut für Festkörperphysik, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH*]{} and of the [*Lehrstuhl für Theoretische Physik, Universität zu Köln*]{} (at the latter department the author stayed as a DAAD fellow) where important parts of the work have been done.
[99]{} E.Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften [**23**]{} No.48, (1935) 52. A.Einstein, B.Podolsky, and N.Rosen, Phys.Rev. [**47**]{} (1935) 777. J.S.Bell, Physics [**1**]{} (1964) 195, reprinted in [*Proc. of Int. School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, Course 49* ]{} ed.: B.d’Espagnat, (Academic Press, New York, 1974). E.Wigner, in [*Quantum optics, experimental gravity, and measurement theory*]{}, ed. by P.Meystre, and M.O.Scully, New York, Plenum Press, 1983, p. 43. H.D.Zeh, Found.Phys. [**1**]{} (1970) 69, E.Joos and H.D.Zeh Z.Phys.[B **59**]{} (1985) 223, D.Giuliani, E.Joos, C.Kiefer, J.Kupsch, I.-O.Stamatescu and H.D.Zeh, [*Decoherence and the Appearence of a Classical World*]{}, (Springer, 1995). A.Albrecht, Phys.Rev. [**D 48**]{} (1993) 3768. D.Dieks, Found.Phys. [**19**]{} (1989) 1395, Phys.Rev.A [**49**]{} (1994) 2290 and references therein, Phys.Lett. A [**197**]{} (1995) 367. Gy.Bene, Physica [**A 242**]{} (1997) 529. W.H.Zurek, Phys.Rev. [**D 24**]{} (1981) 1516, [**D 26**]{} (1982) 1862, A.O.Caldeira and A.J.Leggett, Phys.Rev [**A 31**]{} (1985) 1059, W.G.Unruh and W.H.Zurek, Phys.Rev. [**D 40**]{} (1989) 1071, W.H.Zurek, Prog.Theor.Phys. [**89**]{} (1993) 281, W.H.Zurek and J.P.Paz, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**72**]{} (1994) 2508. A.O.Caldeira, A.J.Leggett, Physica [**A 121**]{} (1983) 587. Erratum: A.O.Caldeira, A.J.Leggett, Physica [**A 130**]{} (1985) 374. R.Balian, C.R.Acad.Sc. Paris, [**292**]{} (1981) 1357. P.Dutta, and P.M.Horn, Rev.Mod.Phys. [**53**]{} (1981) 497.
[^1]: The environment itself is a physical system, consisting of air molecules, radiation field, other macroscopic systems etc.
[^2]: The latter property is due to the hermiticity of the reduced density matrix $\hat \rho$.
[^3]: The irrelevant eigenstates may be identified with the original oscillator eigenstates $|n>$ with $n\ge N$.
[^4]: This is valid in one dimension. In dimension $d$ we divide by $h^d$, and the number $N$ is chosen to be the $d$-th root of the ratio, as the basis functions will be constructed as a $d$-fold direct product of the one-dimensional basis. For simplicity we shall consider only the one-dimensional case.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We derive a normal form for a near-integrable, four-dimensional symplectic map with a fold or cusp singularity in its frequency mapping. The normal form is obtained for when the frequency is near a resonance and the mapping is approximately given by the time-$T$ mapping of a two-degree-of freedom Hamiltonian flow. Consequently there is an energy-like invariant. The fold Hamiltonian is similar to the well-studied, one-degree-of freedom case but is essentially nonintegrable when the direction of the singular curve in action does not coincide with curves of the resonance module. We show that many familiar features, such as multiple island chains and reconnecting invariant manifolds, are retained even in this case. The cusp Hamiltonian has an essential coupling between its two degrees of freedom even when the singular set is aligned with the resonance module. Using averaging, we approximately reduced this case to one degree of freedom as well. The resulting Hamiltonian and its perturbation with small cusp-angle is analyzed in detail.'
author:
- |
H. R. Dullin and A .V. Ivanov\
Department of Mathematical Sciences,\
Loughborough University\
Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK\
- |
J. D. Meiss\
Department of Applied Mathematics\
University of Colorado\
Boulder, CO 80309-0526\
bibliography:
- 'BibFile.bib'
title: Normal Forms for Symplectic Maps with Twist Singularities
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In a Liouville integrable Hamiltonian flow with $d$ degrees of freedom almost all motion takes place on invariant $d$-dimensional tori. The motion on these tori is conjugate to a linear flow with frequencies $\omega \in {{\mathbb{ R}}}^d$. The linear flow is $(\theta_0, t) \mapsto \theta = \omega t + \theta_0$ where $\theta \in {{\mathbb{ T}}}^d$ is an angle. The map that assigns to each torus its frequency $\omega$ is called the frequency map. For a Hamiltonian flow there are two natural frequency maps. In addition to the one just defined, the frequency-ratio map is obtained by fixing the energy and by turning the flow into a Poincaré first return map. The resulting map has $n = d-1$ degrees of freedom, and its frequencies are the $n$ frequency ratios $\omega_1 : \omega_2 : \dots : \omega_d$ of the original flow. In this way the frequency map of an integrable map can always be interpreted as the frequency-ratio map of some flow. Typically these are anharmonic—the oscillation frequency changes with the amplitude of oscillation. In Hamiltonian dynamics this property is called “twist." When this twist property breaks down, we say the frequency map has a singularity. Twist singularities are are not unusual; for example, the frequency is not a monotone function of action in any system that has a pair of nested separatrices [@Morozov99; @Morozov02]. This “fold" singularity also generically occurs in any system near tripling resonances [@Moeckel90; @Dullin99; @Dullin03]. In this paper we will discuss both the fold and cusp singularities and some of the dynamical consequences of the breakdown of twist. The cusp singularity corresponds to the collision of a pair of fold curves; it is another stable singularity when $n \ge 2$.
Consider the integrable symplectic map $ (\theta, J) \rightarrow (\theta + \Omega(J), J)$ with $\theta \in {{\mathbb{ T}}}^n$ and $J \in {{\mathbb{ R}}}^n$. Because the map is symplectic, the frequency map is [*Lagrangian*]{}, which means that $\Omega$ is the gradient of a scalar generating function $S(J)$. The twist corresponds to the Jacobian matrix $\tau = D\Omega$, or equivalently to the Hessian $D^2S$. There is a singularity in the frequency map when $\det(\tau) =0$ for some set of action values. Such a set is called the singular set and the corresponding tori are said to have [*vanishing twist*]{}. The image of the singular set is the [*caustic*]{}. A fold is one such singularity and it is stable for Lagrangian mappings; consequently, a one parameter family of such maps will not destroy the fold, but move it around in the frequency space. In particular, the caustic will cross rational frequencies. When the map is perturbed by a small periodic perturbation interesting dynamics is expected when the fold is near a resonant frequency such that the resonance is in the image of the frequency map. This situation is well studied for the case $n=1$ where the map is area-preserving and leads to a simple one-degree-of freedom Hamiltonian model [@Howard95; @Simo98]. The canonical example is called the “standard nontwist map," for reviews see [@Apte03; @Wurm04; @Wurm05]. In our study we will derive a generalization of this map for the four dimensional case.
The transformation of the map to a normal form is inspired by singularity theory of Lagrangian mappings [@Arnold85; @Arnold88; @Arnold95]. The class of transformations is, however, more restricted. The canonical variables of an integrable map are the angle-action coordinates so the transformations should respect the periodicity of the angles. Moreover, since we are in a near-integrable situation there is a natural distinction between momenta and coordinates which we would like to maintain as much as possible. These restrictions are quite severe, for example they restrict the choice of coordinate transformations to cotangent lifts of linear maps $A \in SL(n,{{\mathbb{ Z}}})$. In singularity theory, linear transformations are used to normalize the quadratic terms, while nonlinear transformations are used to remove most of the cubic terms. The latter is impossible in our setting, since we are restricted to linear transformations, but we can use scaling to bring out the singular behavior. Moreover, we cannot diagonalize the quadratic part using orthogonal transformations, since these are in general not in $SL(n,{{\mathbb{ Z}}})$.
This will affect the normal form that we derive when the singular curve is not aligned with the resonance: we find it better to use noncanonical variables to decouple the required angle and action transformations. The resulting normal form is a Hamiltonian system, but one whose Poisson bracket is not in standard form.
After a brief review of the fold and cusp singularities in the context of integrable symplectic maps in [§\[sec:singularities\]]{}, we will derive the normal form for a weakly nonintegrable mapping in [§\[sec:normalForm\]]{}. The resulting normal form has a two degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian, shown in [§\[sec:hamiltonian\]]{}. The dynamical behavior for the fold case and the cusp case are studied in the last two sections, [§\[sec:fold\]]{} and [§\[sec:cusp\]]{}.
Fold and Cusp Singularities for Integrable Symplectic Maps {#sec:singularities}
==========================================================
An integrable, four-dimensional, symplectic map in angle-action coordinates has the form [ $$\label{eq:integrableMap}
F_{0} : \left( \begin{array}{cc} {\varphi}\\ I \end{array} \right) \mapsto
\left( \begin{array}{cc} {\varphi}' \\ I' \end{array} \right) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc} {\varphi}+ \Omega(I) \\ I \end{array} \right) ,$$ ]{} where $({\varphi}, I) \in \mathbb{T}^{2}\times \mathbb{R}^{2}$.
The dynamics of this system are completely encoded in the frequency map $\Omega: \mathbb{R}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}^{2}$, that defines the rotation vector on each invariant torus, $I = c$. This map is symplectic with the standard form $\varpi = d I_{1} \wedge d {\varphi}_{1} + d I_{2} \wedge d {\varphi}_{2}$ providing that the Jacobian matrix $D\Omega$ is symmetric.
The map [(\[eq:integrableMap\])]{} is determined by a mixed-variable generating function $$\label{eq:unperturbedGen}
S_{0}({\varphi},I') = \langle {\varphi}, I' \rangle + T(I') \,,$$ through the implicit equations ${\varphi}' = \partial S /\partial I'$ and $I = \partial S / \partial {\varphi}$. Therefore, the gradient of the “kinetic energy” $T: \mathbb{R}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}$ gives the the frequency map, $$\Omega(I) = DT(I)\,.$$ Note that this implies that the Jacobian of $\Omega$ is symmetric since it is the Hessian of $T$.
In this paper we will study perturbations of [(\[eq:integrableMap\])]{} for the case that the frequency map $\Omega$ is singular.
Singularities of Lagrangian Maps
--------------------------------
In this section we briefly recall a few facts about the singularities of smooth maps [@Arnold85], ignoring the topology of the angle space.
A map $f:{{\mathbb{ R}}}^{m}\rightarrow{{\mathbb{ R}}}^{n}$ has a critical point at $x$ if its Jacobian, $Df(x)$, has less than maximal rank, i.e., if ${\mbox{rank}(Df)} < \min(m,n)$. The image, $f(x)$, of a critical point is a critical value. A map is said to be ($C^{k}$) stable at $x$ if every map that is sufficiently close to $f$ (in the sense that the first $k$ derivatives are close) is locally diffeomorphic to $f$. The equivalence class of maps that are locally diffeomorphic to $f$ is the “germ” of $f$. If the dimension is low enough, the germ can be represented by a fixed polynomial map, more generally “moduli,” which are either parameters or arbitrary functions, are needed to represent the germ. The equivalence class of maps represented by the germ at a critical point is called a “singularity.”
A Lagrangian map is defined by the projection of a Lagrangian manifold onto a Lagrangian plane. A prime example is geometrical optics where the Lagrangian manifold corresponds to a wave front together with its unit normals—the velocity vectors, and the projection is to physical space. Correspondingly, the set of critical values of a Lagrangian map is called a “caustic.” A Lagrangian manifold can be represented by a single, generating function [@Weinstein77]; if, as in our case, the Lagrangian manifold is a graph over the action space, $({\varphi},J) = (DT(J),J)$, the generating function is $T(J)$. The Lagrangian map is the projection of the manifold onto the action space, i.e. $\Omega: {{\mathbb{ R}}}^{d} \rightarrow {{\mathbb{ R}}}^{d}$ defined by $J \mapsto
DT(J)$. The map has a critical point at $J$ if $D^{2}T(J)$ is singular.
The standard theory of the singularities of Lagrangian maps has been formalized by Thom and generalized by Arnold [@Arnold85]. When $d=1$ there is only one stable singularity, the “fold.” For $d = 2$ the “cusp” singularity is also stable. For $d=3$, three new singularities are stable, the “swallowtail” and two forms of point singularities (pyramids and purses).
Fold Singularity
----------------
Suppose that $d=2$ and that the generating function has the formal power series expansion $$\label{eq:polyGen}
T = \langle \omega^* , J\rangle + \sum_{i+j>1} t_{i,j} J_1^i J_2^{j}$$ with the standard Euclidean scalar product $\langle, \rangle$.
The frequency map generated by $T$ is denoted $$\Omega(J) = DT = (T_1,T_2) = \omega^* + O(J) \;,$$ where we denote the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial}{\partial J_i}$ with subscripts $i$. Thus $
\omega^*$ denotes the image of the origin $J=0$. The critical set is defined by the equation $$\tau(J_{1}, J_{2}) \equiv \det(D^2 T) = T_{11}T_{22} - T_{12}^{2} = 0 \;.$$ The set of critical points is a smooth codimension-one submanifold in $J$-space, i.e. a curve, wherever the derivative $D\tau = (\tau_1, \tau_2) \neq 0$ on the critical set. In this case, coordinates can be chosen so that the critical set goes through origin, and is tangent to the $J_1$ axis, that is, so that $T_{12}(0) = T_{22}(0) = 0$. Under the nondegeneracy assumption that the Hessian $D^2 T$ has rank one, $$T_{11}(0) = 2t_{2,0} \neq 0 \;.$$ In this case, the coordinates can be scaled so that $t_{2,0}= \frac12$, and the generating function [(\[eq:polyGen\])]{} becomes $$\label{eq:polyGen2}
T = \langle \omega^* , J\rangle + \frac12 J_1^2 + \sum_{i+j>2} t_{i,j} J_1^i J_2^{j} \;.$$
The singularity is locally a fold when the caustic is smooth—this occurs whenever the image of the tangent vector of the critical set is nonzero. A vector $v$ is tangent to the critical set when $$\label{eq:tangent}
D\tau \cdot v = \tau_1 v_1 + \tau_2 v_2 = 0 \;,$$ and its image, $D^2T \cdot v$, is nonzero if $v$ is not in the kernel of $D^2T$, $$\ker(D^2T) = \{ w : T_{11} w_1 + T_{12} w_2 = 0 \;,\; \tau = 0 \} \;.$$ Therefore the function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:foldcriterion}
\kappa (J_1,J_2) & \equiv T_{11}\tau_2 - T_{12}\tau_1 \nonumber\\
& = T_{11}(3T_{12}T_{122} - T_{11} T_{222}) +
T_{12}(T_{22}T_{111} - 3T_{12}T_{112})\;,\end{aligned}$$ is zero only when the tangent is in the kernel, and the caustic is locally smooth when $$\left. \kappa(J) \right|_{\tau(J) = 0} \neq 0 \;.$$ This is the nondegeneracy condition for the fold.
If we choose coordinates as in [(\[eq:polyGen2\])]{}, so that the singularity crosses the origin parallel to the $J_1$ axis, then $\kappa(0) = -24 t_{0,3}$. Thus there is a fold at the origin if the coefficient of $J_2^3$ is nonzero. After suitable coordinate transformations, all other cubic terms can be eliminated, and the coefficients can be scaled to give the generating function $$\label{eq:foldgen}
T_{fold} = \langle \omega^* , J\rangle + \frac12(J_1^2 + J_2^3) + O(4).$$ Indeed, all higher order terms can be locally transformed away; hence, the generator [(\[eq:foldgen\])]{} represents the germ of the fold [@Arnold85]. The fold singularity is denoted $A_{2}$.
The frequency map of [(\[eq:foldgen\])]{} is $\Omega(J) = \omega^* + (J_1, \frac32 J_2^2)$, and its critical set is the curve $J^*(s) = (s,0)$, determined by $\det(D^{2}T) = 3 J_{2} = 0$, which is the horizontal axis. The caustic is the image of the critical set, $ \Omega^* = \Omega(J^*(s))$, which a horizontal line. The action of the frequency map is to fold the $J$-plane into the upper-half $\Omega$-plane.
Cusp Singularity {#sec:integrableCusp}
----------------
If $\kappa = 0$ at some point on the critical set, then it is tangent to $\ker(D^2 T)$. The tangency is of first order if, for any tangent vector $v$, [(\[eq:tangent\])]{}, $$\label{eq:cuspcriterion}
\mu(J) \equiv D\kappa \cdot v \neq 0\;.$$ This is the nondegeneracy condition for the cusp singularity.
In the coordinate system of [(\[eq:polyGen2\])]{}, a cusp occurs at the origin when $\kappa(0) = -24 t_{0,3}= 0$. In this case, the cusp nondegeneracy condition [(\[eq:cuspcriterion\])]{} reduces to $$\mu(0) = 96t_{1,2}(4t_{0,4}- t_{1,2}^2) \neq 0 \;.$$ Consequently, the nondegeneracy conditions for a cusp are $$4t_{0,4} \neq t_{1,2}^2 \neq 0$$ Coordinates for [(\[eq:polyGen2\])]{} can then be chosen so that all of the cubic and quartic terms apart from $J_1J_2^2$ and $J_2^4$ can be transformed away; collecting terms gives rise to the form $$T = \langle \omega^* , J\rangle+ \left(J_1 + \frac{1}{2} t_{1,2}J_2^2 \right)^2 +
\frac14 \left(4 t_{0,4}- t_{1,2}^2 \right)J_2^4 + O(5)$$ After scaling, the cubic coefficient can be eliminated and the quartic one can be scaled to ${\varepsilon}= \pm 1$, giving $$\label{eq:cuspgen}
T_{cusp} = \langle \omega^* , J\rangle + \frac12 (J_{1}+J_{2}^{2})^{2} + \epsilon J_{2}^{4} +O(5)\;.$$ As for the fold case, the higher order terms are irrelevant. There are two cusp singularities, depending upon the sign ${\varepsilon}$ [@Arnold85]; they are denoted $A_{3}^{\epsilon}$. For [(\[eq:cuspgen\])]{}, the critical set is the parabola $J^*(s) = (-(1+3\epsilon)s^2, s)$, and the caustic is the semi-cubical parabola, or cusp: $$\Omega^* = \omega^* -2\epsilon \begin{pmatrix} 3 s^2 \\ 4 s^3
\end{pmatrix} \;.$$ In the exterior of the cusp, the map is one-to-one, while in the interior it is three-to-one, see [Fig. \[fig:cuspplus\]]{} and [Fig. \[fig:cuspminus\]]{}. The preimage of the caustic consists of both the critical set (shown in green in the figures) and the parabola $J_{1} =
-(1+\frac34 \epsilon)J_{2}^{2}$ (shown in red). The tangent to the critical set is vertical at the origin, and it is mapped to zero at the cusp point.
When $\epsilon = 1$ the critical set is mapped to the caustic by being, in effect, “rotated” about the negative $\Omega_{1}$ axis by $180^{\circ}$, while the other preimage of the critical set is simply squeezed, without rotation.
For $\epsilon = -1$, however, the critical set is simply “squeezed” towards the positive $\Omega_{1}$ axis, while the second preimage, a parabola opening to the left, is rotated by $180^{\circ}$ and swept around to the positive caustic curve.
![[The frequency map for the cusp $A_{3}^{+}$ given by [(\[eq:cuspgen\])]{} with $\omega^*=0$. The left figure shows the $J$-plane; the green parabola is the critical set, and the red is the second preimage of the caustic. The right figure shows the $\Omega$-plane; the caustic is the green cusped curve. The dashed lines show how a grid in $J$ is mapped to $\Omega$.]{} \[fig:cuspplus\]](./figures/cuspplus){width="5.0in"}
![[The frequency map for the cusp $A_{3}^{-}$. The designation of the curves is the same as [Fig. \[fig:cuspplus\]]{}.]{} \[fig:cuspminus\]](./figures/cuspminus){width="5.0in"}
Normal Form {#sec:normalForm}
===========
In this section we will show how to unfold the fold and cusp singularities—that is, obtain families of symplectic maps, $$({\varphi}',I') = F_{{\varepsilon},\delta}({\varphi},I) \;,$$ on ${{\mathbb{ T}}}^2 \times {{\mathbb{ R}}}^2$ that are perturbations of [(\[eq:integrableMap\])]{} when $\Omega$ has a fold or cusp singularity. To do this requires (at least) two parameters that we will call $\delta$ and ${\varepsilon}$. The first parameter will represent the unfolding of the singular set; it is the bifurcation parameter. We will assume that $\delta = 0$ corresponds to the case that the singularity is at a distinct location, namely when the fold or cusp passes through a “resonance." The parameter ${\varepsilon}$ represents the strength of the perturbation that destroys integrability. When the dependence on the parameters is not essential we shall suppress it in the notation.
The family $F_{{\varepsilon},\delta}$ is generated by $$\label{eq:genFuncI}
S({\varphi},I') = \langle {\varphi}, I' \rangle + T_\delta(I') +
{\varepsilon}S_1({\varphi}, I', {\varepsilon}, \delta)\;.$$ Here we will assume that the perturbation $S_1$ is a smooth function of its arguments, and that $\Omega_\delta = DT_\delta$, has a fold or cusp singularity; thus, it has corank 1 on a critical set $I_\delta^*(s)$ with curve parameter $s$. The caustic is denoted $$\Omega^*_\delta(s) = \Omega_\delta( I_\delta^*(s))$$
The perturbed map will in general also have a perturbed frequency map, determined by the ${\varphi}$-independent portion of $S_1$. However, for simplicity we may assume that all of the changes in the frequency map are encoded by the parameter $\delta$; specifically, we assume $$\int_{{{\mathbb{ T}}}^2} d{\varphi}S_1({\varphi},I',{\varepsilon},\delta) = 0 \;.$$
Without loss of generality, the actions can be translated so that $I=0$ lies on the singular set, and in particular so that the origin corresponds to the point with the label $s=0$; thus we can assume that $I_\delta^*(0) = 0$, for any $\delta$, see [Fig. \[fig:foldSketch\]]{}. The origin maps to the point $\omega^*_\delta = \Omega^*_\delta(0)$ on the caustic.
![[Sketch of the $\delta$-dependent frequency map $\Omega_\delta$ for the case of a fold singularity. Here the origin in action space has been chosen so that $I=0$ is on the singular set and has constant slope.]{} \[fig:foldSketch\]](./figures/foldSketch){width="4in"}
Unfolding from Resonance {#sec:resonance}
------------------------
A frequency $\omega^*$ is resonant if it is a rational vector: $$\label{eq:resonance}
\omega^* = \left( \frac{n_1}{N}, \frac{n_2}{N}\right), \quad n_1, n_2 \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}, \quad N \in {{\mathbb{ N}}},
\quad {\rm gcd}(|n_1|,| n_2|, N) = 1 \,.$$ More generally, for a given $\omega^*$, define the sublattice $${{\cal L}}= \left\{ m \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2 : \langle m , \omega^* \rangle \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}\right\} \;.$$ When $\dim{{{\cal L}}} = 0$, then we say $\omega^*$ is [*incommensurate*]{}, when $\dim{{{\cal L}}} = 1$, $\omega^*$ is [*commensurate*]{}, and when $\dim{{{\cal L}}} = 2$, $\omega^*$ is resonant. The sublattice for a resonant example is shown in [Fig. \[fig:sublattice\]]{}.
![[Sublattice ${{\cal L}}= A {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2$ for $\omega = (\frac37,\frac27)$ with $k_1=(1,2)$ and $k_2 = (-2,3)$. These basis vectors were chosen so that $k_1 \cdot \omega^* = {\rm gcd} (|n_1|, |n_2|) = 1$ and $k_2 \cdot \omega^* = 0$. $(k_1, k_2)$ is a minimal basis for the resonance module]{} \[fig:sublattice\]](./figures/sublattice){width="3in"}
We now argue that the parameters $(s,\delta)$ can be selected so that $\omega^* = \omega^*_0$ is resonant. This is particularly important to construct a near identity approximation to the mapping, see [§\[sec:iteration\]]{}. First consider the fold case. The parameter $\delta$ unfolds the singularity if it causes the caustic $\Omega^*$ to “move." For the fold this means that the map $\Omega^* :(s,\delta) \rightarrow \omega$ from a neighborhood of zero in $(s, \delta)$ to the neighborhood of $\omega^*$ in frequency plane is a local diffeomorphism. This ensures that the fold actually crosses $\omega^*$ as $\delta$ varies, recall [Fig. \[fig:foldSketch\]]{}. Since rational points are dense in the frequency plane, we can then define the labels $s$ and $\delta$, so that $s=\delta = 0$ corresponds to a resonant $$\label{eq:omegaStar}
\omega^* = DT_0(0) = \Omega_0(0) \;.$$ Note that we are still free to define the point $s=0$ on the singular sets for $\delta \neq 0$, and we will do so in the next section.
We next select coordinates to align the angle variables with the “principle" resonance lines of $\omega^*$. Let $\{ k_1, k_2 \}$ be a basis of the resonant module ${{\cal L}}$, recall [Fig. \[fig:sublattice\]]{}. Thus if we define the matrix $$\label{eq:kdefine}
A = (k_1, k_2) \;,$$ then the sublattice is given by $$\label{eq:sublattice}
{{\cal L}}= \{ A k : k \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2 \} \;.$$ There are a number of possible choices for these vectors; for example, they could correspond to the “minimal" basis—that with shortest length. They could also be chosen to correspond to the largest resonant Fourier coefficients in the perturbation, i.e., the directions of the “main" resonance lines that pass through $\omega^*$. In the next section we will argue that they might be selected to approximately align with the slope of the singular set.
The matrix $A$ defines a transformation to new angle variables $\tilde {\varphi}= A^t{\varphi}$. A function $U$ on the original torus ${{\mathbb{ T}}}^2$, i.e. a function that obeys the periodicity condition $U({\varphi}+ m) = U({\varphi}), \forall m \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2$, is transformed into a function $$\tilde U(\tilde {\varphi}) = U(A^{-1}\tilde {\varphi})$$ on the new torus $$\label{eq:newTorus}
\tilde {{\mathbb{ T}}}^2 = {{\mathbb{ R}}}^2 /
A^{t}{{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2 \;,$$ that is, a function with the periodicity condition $\tilde U( \tilde {\varphi}+ A^t m) = \tilde U(\tilde {\varphi}), \forall m \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2$, see [Fig. \[fig:newTorus\]]{}. In [§\[sec:iteration\]]{}, we will use this periodicity to average the angle dependence and eliminate nonresonant Fourier terms in $\tilde{S}_1$. Generally the transformation $A$ is not unimodular [@Cassels71]; instead it has degree $
N = \det A \;,
$ meaning that $N$ copies of the new fundamental cell in $\tilde {\varphi}$ are covering the original torus in ${\varphi}$. Equivalently, the unit cell in $\tilde{\varphi}$ has area $\frac{1}{N}$.
![[Transformed angle coordinates in the resonance module for $\omega^* = (\frac37, \frac27)$ and $k_1 = (1,2)$, $k_2 = (-2,3)$ so that $\psi_1 = {\varphi}_1 + 2 {\varphi}_2$ and $\psi_2 = -2{\varphi}_1 + 3{\varphi}_2$. The black grid lines represent fundamental domains in ${\varphi}$, and the red, fundamental domains in $\psi$.]{} \[fig:newTorus\]](./figures/newTorus){width="3"}
The angle transformation can be extended to a symplectic transformation, defining $(\tilde {\varphi}, \tilde I) = (A^t {\varphi}, A^{-1} I)$. As recalled in [Appendix \[sec:nonsymplectic\]]{}, the generating function for the map in the new coordinates under this “point" symplectic transformation is simply $\tilde S(\tilde {\varphi}, \tilde I) = S(A^{-t}\tilde{\varphi}, A \tilde I)$, or $$\label{eq:genFuncII}
\tilde S(\tilde {\varphi},\tilde I') = \langle \tilde {\varphi}, \tilde I' \rangle +
\tilde T_\delta(\tilde I') + {\varepsilon}\tilde S_1(\tilde {\varphi},\tilde I', {\varepsilon}, \delta)$$ where $\tilde T_\delta(\tilde I) = T_\delta(A \tilde I)$ and $\tilde S_1(\tilde {\varphi}, \tilde I, {\varepsilon}, \delta) = S_1(A^{-t}\tilde {\varphi}, A \tilde I, {\varepsilon}, \delta)$. Thus the new frequency is $$\tilde \omega^* = D\tilde T_0(0) = A^t \omega^* \;.$$
Suppose that $\tilde\chi$ is the first order change in the caustic with $\delta$, so that $$\label{eq:chidef}
\tilde\omega_\delta^* = \tilde\Omega_\delta(0) = \tilde\omega^* + \tilde\chi \delta + O(\delta^2) \;.$$ The nondegeneracy condition ensures that $\tilde\chi \delta$ is not parallel to the fold—and freedom of choice of the point $s=0$ on the fold curves as $\delta$ varies implies that only the component of $\tilde\chi$ that is normal to the fold $\Omega^*(s)$ at $s=0$ is uniquely defined. Below we will select the unfolding parameter to be this component of $\tilde\chi$. For the moment, we retain the parameter $\delta$ in the exposition for scaling purposes.
For the cusp case, it is natural to shift the actions so that the origin of action space maps to the cusp point, at least for the special values $s =0$, $\delta = 0$. Upon varying a single parameter $\delta$, the cusp moves along a curve in frequency space that generically does not go through any rational point, thus the cusp frequency is not generally resonant. If however, $\delta \in {{\mathbb{ R}}}^2$ and the map $\Omega^*_\delta(0)$ is a local diffeomorphism from a neighborhood of $\delta = 0$ to a neighborhood of $\omega^*$, then the origin $s = \delta =0$ can be selected so that the cusp frequency $\omega^*$ is resonant. For this case both components of $\tilde\chi \delta$ in [(\[eq:chidef\])]{} are relevant. In the final normal form, we will use these components as the unfolding parameters.
Diagonalization of the Kinetic Energy {#sec:diagonalization}
-------------------------------------
The second order terms in the kinetic energy correspond to a quadratic form $\tilde T_\delta^{(2)}(\tilde I) = \langle I, \tilde M_\delta I\rangle$, with “mass matrix" $\tilde M_\delta$. By assumption $\tilde M_\delta$ has rank one, because the origin maps to the caustic. Let $v_\delta$ denote the unit vector along the kernel of $\tilde M$, $$\tilde M_\delta v_\delta = 0 \;,$$ and $u_\delta$ the unit vector orthogonal to $v_\delta $, i.e., the vector tangent to the singular set, recall [Fig. \[fig:foldSketch\]]{}. Since $\tilde M_\delta $ is symmetric, this implies $\tilde M_\delta = \lambda_\delta u_\delta u_\delta^t$ where $\lambda_\delta$ is its nonzero eigenvalue. Thus the quadratic term in the kinetic energy can be written $$\tilde T_\delta^{(2)}(\tilde I) = \lambda_\delta \langle u_\delta, \tilde I \rangle^2 \;.$$
The vector $u_\delta$, tangent to the singular curve at the origin, will rotate with $\delta$. However, if the curvature of the singular set is nonzero at $s=0$, the label $s=0$ along the singular curve can be selected so that $u_\delta = u_0$. To see this, suppose that $u_\delta(s)$ is the tangent vector to the singular set at $s$. Then, according to the implicit function theorem, there is a local solution $s(\delta)$ to the equation $u_\delta(s) \times u_0 = 0$ precisely when $\frac{\partial }{\partial s} u_\delta(s)$ is nonzero at the origin in $(s,\delta)$. Relabeling the point $s=0$ on the singular sets for varying $\delta$ makes $u$ independent of $\delta$. We call this the [*constant slope*]{} normalization. Note that this normalization also applies to the cusp case, where $\delta \in {{\mathbb{ R}}}^2$; however with this choice, the cusp is not necessarily the image of $I=0$ when $\delta \neq 0$.
Using the constant slope normalization, we can choose coordinates that are aligned with the kernel of $\tilde T_\delta^{(2)}$ once and for all. Letting $u^t = (\cos\alpha, \sin\alpha)$ be the unit vector tangent to the singular set, we define $$\label{eq:actionRotation}
\tilde I = R \hat{I} \;, \quad R = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\alpha & -\sin\alpha \\ \sin\alpha & \cos\alpha \end{pmatrix}\;.$$ With this transformation the new kinetic energy becomes $$\hat T_\delta (\hat{I}) \equiv \tilde T_\delta(R \hat{I}) = \langle \tilde\omega_\delta^* , R \hat{I} \rangle +
\lambda_\delta \hat{I}_1^2 + \tilde T_\delta ^{(3)}(R\hat{I}) + \ldots \;,$$ so that the singular set is explicitly tangent to the $\hat{I}_1$ axis at the origin.
To make the transformation [(\[eq:actionRotation\])]{} symplectic, it would be necessary also to transform the angle variables using $\hat{{\varphi}} = R^t \tilde {\varphi}$ (recall [Appendix \[sec:nonsymplectic\]]{}); however, this is not a map on the torus. To get around this problem, we transform the map with the nonsymplectic transformation $({\varphi}, I) = (\hat{{\varphi}},R\hat{I})$, leaving the angle variables unchanged. Under this linear transformation the generating function [(\[eq:genFuncII\])]{} becomes $\hat{S}(\hat{{\varphi}}, \hat{I'}) = \tilde{S}(\hat{{\varphi}}, R \hat{I'})$, or explicitly $$\label{eq:rotatedGen}
\hat {S}(\hat{{\varphi}}, \hat{I'}) = \langle \hat{{\varphi}}, R \hat{I'} \rangle +
\hat T_\delta (\hat{I'}) + {\varepsilon}\hat S_1(\hat{{\varphi}}, \hat{I'}, {\varepsilon}, \delta)$$
Since the coordinates are not symplectic, the generating function cannot be simply differentiated to get the map. Instead, the map is now defined using (recall [Appendix \[sec:nonsymplectic\]]{}) $$\hat{{\varphi}}' = R^{-t} \frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{I'}} \hat{S} \;, \quad
\hat{I} = R^{-1} \frac{\partial}{\partial \hat{{\varphi}}} \hat{S} \;,$$ which yields the implicit mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nonsymplecticMap}
\hat{{\varphi}}' &= \hat{{\varphi}} + \tilde\omega^* + 2\lambda \hat{I}_1 R^{-t} \hat{e}_1 +
R^{-t}\nabla_{ \hat I '}(\hat{T}^{(3)} + \ldots + {\varepsilon}\hat{S}_1) \;,\nonumber\\
\hat{I} & = \hat{I'} + {\varepsilon}R^{-1} \nabla_{\hat{{\varphi}}} \hat{S}_1 \;.\end{aligned}$$ Here the unit vector in the $\hat{I}_1$ direction is denoted by $\hat{e}_1$. This is a symplectic map written in non-symplectic coordinates.
If the slope $\tan\alpha$ were rational, then we could replace $R$ by a unimodular matrix whose second column is parallel to $v$ to accomplish the effect that we desire. In this case we could also transform the angle variables without destroying periodicity. Note that if the null vector $v$ is in the resonance module, then the same outcome could have been accomplished using the freedom in the selection of the matrix $A$, [(\[eq:kdefine\])]{}, thereby avoiding the transformation [(\[eq:actionRotation\])]{} altogether.[^1]
Even when the slope is not rational, we can select the module basis to nearly align with the null vector of $\tilde M$. In this case, the diagonalization can be accomplished with a rotation matrix $R$ with $\alpha$ small. Thus the general case can be considered to be that of small $\alpha$. Note however that the selection of the basis $\{ k_1, k_2\}$ of the resonance module with very large integer coefficients will mean that the Fourier terms with small integer coefficients in the new basis may correspond very large coefficients in the original basis. For “typical" functions, these coefficients will have small values and thus be less important dynamically.
Scaling near Resonance {#sec:scaling}
----------------------
To make explicit that we will study the neighborhood of the singularity at $\hat I=0$, we now choose a scaling so that $\hat I$ is small. The goal is to scale the action so that the terms in the kinetic energy that give rise to the singularity are of order ${\varepsilon}$, the same as the perturbation. Naively, this would be attained by assuming that $\hat I = {{\cal O}}(\sqrt{{\varepsilon}})$, i.e., using the transformation $(\hat {\varphi}, \hat I) = (\psi, \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} J)$. Since this transformation is symplectic with multiplier (recall [Appendix \[sec:nonsymplectic\]]{}), the new generating function is obtained by the transformation ${S}(\psi, J) = {\varepsilon}^{-\frac12}\hat S(\psi, \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} J)$ or, from [(\[eq:rotatedGen\])]{}, $${S}(\psi, J') = \langle \psi + \tilde\omega^*_\delta, R J' \rangle +
\sqrt{{\varepsilon}} \left[\lambda_\delta J'^{2}_1 + \hat S_1(\psi, 0,0, \delta)\right] + {{\cal O}}({\varepsilon}) \;,$$ showing that the quadratic term in the kinetic energy is now formally the same order as the perturbation.
At this point the terms in $T^{(3)}$ that give rise to the fold normal form [(\[eq:foldgen\])]{} are formally of higher order. Thus to “see" the fold, we modify the transformation by differentially scaling the actions in the directions tangent and normal to the singular set. Using the scaling transformation $$\label{eq:Bdefine}
B = {\rm diag}( 1, \nu^{-1}) \;,$$ we redefine $$\label{eq:scalingtrans}
(\hat {\varphi}, \hat I) = (\psi, \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} B J )\;.$$ As before, the overall factor of $\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$ gives a transformation that is symplectic with multiplier, so that the new generating function is ${S}(\psi, J) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}} \hat S(\psi, \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} BJ)$, or $${S}(\psi, J') =
\langle \psi + \tilde\omega^*_\delta, R BJ' \rangle +
\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}\left[ \lambda_\delta {J'_1}^2 + \hat S_1(\psi, 0,0, \delta)\right]+
{\varepsilon}\nu^{-3} \kappa_\delta {J'_2}^3 + {\varepsilon}{{\cal O}}(1,\nu^{-1},\nu^{-2})$$ When the coefficient $\kappa$ of $J_2^3$ is nonzero, the choice $\nu = {\varepsilon}^{1/6}$ makes the cubic kinetic term ${{\cal O}}(\sqrt{{\varepsilon}})$ have the same order as the perturbation, and the neglected terms have higher order. Note that the nondegeneracy condition $\kappa \neq 0$ is precisely that for the fold [(\[eq:foldcriterion\])]{}.
To enforce the near resonance condition not only the action, but also the bifurcation parameter $\tilde\chi \delta$, must be small. We can set $\delta = \sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$ to make this explicit, leaving $\tilde\chi$ to represent the unfolding parameter. It is also convenient at this point to introduce $\tilde\chi$ using [(\[eq:chidef\])]{}, using the new representation $$\chi \equiv (RB)^t \tilde\chi$$ so that the components of $\chi$ correspond to the frequency shifts along and transverse to the fold, and the transverse component, $\chi_2$ is scaled with $J_2$. After this transformation we obtain $$\label{eq:scaledGenerator}
{S}(\psi, J') = \langle \psi + \tilde\omega^*, R BJ' \rangle +
\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}\left[ \langle \chi , J' \rangle +{T}_{fold}(J)
+ U(\psi)\right] + {{\cal O}}({\varepsilon}^{2/3})$$ where $U(\psi) \equiv \hat S_1(\psi,0,0,0)$, and $ {T}_{fold}(J) = \lambda_0 {J}_1^2 +\kappa_0 {J}_2^3$. Without loss of generality, we can scale the coefficients so that $$\label{eq:scaledFold}
{T}_{fold}(J) = \frac12 ( {J}_1^2 +\kappa_0 {J}_2^3) \;$$ by an overall choice of units for the action. The sign of the quadratic term can be changed by multiplying $S$ and $C$ by $-1$.
As was discussed in [§\[sec:integrableCusp\]]{}, when $\kappa = 0$, the singularity is generically a cusp. In this case, the same scaling transformation [(\[eq:Bdefine\])]{} to select the leading order terms in the kinetic energy can be used, though with the choice $\nu = {\varepsilon}^{1/4}$. There are now two additional terms that are of order $\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$, one cubic and one quartic. The generating function again has the form [(\[eq:scaledGenerator\])]{}, though the kinetic energy becomes $$\label{eq:scaledCusp}
{T}_{cusp}(J) = \frac12( {J}_1 + \rho_0 {J}_2^2)^2 + \mu_0 {J}_2^4 \;,$$ and the first corrections are now ${{\cal O}}({\varepsilon}^{3/4})$.
Since the additional transformation [(\[eq:scalingtrans\])]{} is also nonsymplectic, the map generated by $S$ is obtained from the relations $$\label{eq:nonsymplecticGenerator}
\psi' = C^t \frac{\partial}{\partial J'} {S} \;, \quad
J = C \frac{\partial}{\partial \psi} {S} \;,$$ where $$\label{eq:cDefine}
C \equiv (RB)^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\alpha & \sin\alpha \\ -\nu\sin\alpha & \nu \cos\alpha \end{pmatrix}\;.$$ One clear advantage of the scaling is that the resulting map is now easily written explicitly or in the more compact leap-frog form [ $$\label{eq:perturbedMap}
F_{{\varepsilon},\chi} : \left( \begin{array}{cc} J \\ \psi \end{array} \right) \mapsto
\left( \begin{array}{cc} J' \\ \psi' \end{array} \right) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc} J -\sqrt{{\varepsilon}} C\nabla U(\psi) \\ \psi + \tilde\omega^* + \sqrt{{\varepsilon}}C^t \left( \chi + \nabla T(J')\right) \end{array} \right) .$$ ]{}
The complete set of transformations from the original variables $({\varphi}, I)$ of [(\[eq:genFuncI\])]{} to the variables $(\psi,J)$ of [(\[eq:perturbedMap\])]{} is $$\begin{aligned}
\psi &= A^{t}{\varphi}\;,\nonumber \\
J &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}} C A^{-1} I \;.\end{aligned}$$
Iterating near Resonance {#sec:iteration}
------------------------
The map $F_{{\varepsilon},\chi}$ [(\[eq:perturbedMap\])]{} becomes a near-identity map after it is iterated $N$ times, where $N$ corresponds to the denominator of the resonant frequency $\omega^*$, recall [(\[eq:resonance\])]{}. The point is that, all of the change in [(\[eq:perturbedMap\])]{} is ${{\cal O}}(\sqrt{{\varepsilon}})$, except for the term $\tilde \omega^*$. However, after $N$ iterations, this term becomes $N \tilde\omega^* = A^{t} N\omega^* \in A^{t}{{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2$; therefore, this term is “integral" on the transformed torus and consequently disappears from the phase map after iteration.Since $\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$ is assumed to be small, a near-identity map is obtained.
More precisely, using [(\[eq:perturbedMap\])]{}, the evolution is $$\begin{aligned}
J_j &= J_0 - \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} C \sum_{t=0}^{j-1} \nabla U( \psi_t ) \,, \\
\psi_j &= \psi_0 + j \tilde\omega^* +
\sqrt{{\varepsilon}}C^t \left( j \chi + \sum_{t=1}^j \nabla T(J_t) \right) \;.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\psi_j =\psi_0+ j\omega^* + {{\cal O}}(\sqrt{{\varepsilon}})$, and the action after $N$ steps can be simplified to $$J_N = J_0 - \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} C \sum_{t=0}^{N-1} \nabla U( \psi_0 + t\tilde\omega^* ) + O({\varepsilon}) \,.$$ This can be simplified by expanding the potential in a Fourier series. By assumption the perturbation is smooth, and thus so is the perturbing potential $U(\psi) = S_1(A^{-t} \psi, 0,0,0)$. This function is periodic on the transformed torus $\tilde {{\mathbb{ T}}}^2$, [(\[eq:newTorus\])]{}; therefore it has the expansion $$U(\psi) = \sum_{m \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2} c_m e^{2\pi i \langle A^{-1}m , \psi\rangle} \;.$$ Using the identity $$\sum_{l=0}^N e^{2\pi i l p/N} = \left \{ \begin{aligned}
& 0 \text{ if } p/N \not \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}\\
& N \text{ else }
\end{aligned} \right. \;,$$ it is easy to see that only the resonant Fourier terms, those with $m \in {{\cal L}}$, [(\[eq:sublattice\])]{}, contribute to the Fourier series of $J_N$, so that $$J_N = J_0 - \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} N C\nabla \bar U( \psi_0 ) + O({\varepsilon}) \,.$$ Here $\bar U$ denotes the Fourier series of $U$ with all the nonresonant terms removed: $$\bar U(\psi) \equiv \sum_{ n \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2} c_{(An)} e^{i \langle n, \psi \rangle } \;.$$ Note that since all of the lower frequency terms have been removed from the Fourier series, $\bar U$ is now a function on the ordinary torus: $$\bar U(\psi + k) = \bar U(\psi) \;, \quad \forall k \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2$$ Thus, as far as the $N^{th}$ iterate is concerned, we can take $\psi \mod 1$. Consequently, the term $N \tilde \omega^*$ in the $N^{th}$ iterate of the angle is equivalent to $0$, and since $J_j$ changes only at ${{\cal O}}(\sqrt{{\varepsilon}})$, we obtain $$\psi_N = \psi_0 + \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} N C^t \left( \chi + \nabla T(J_N) \right)
+ O({\varepsilon}) \,.$$ We can conclude by noting that the near identity map for the $N^{th}$ iterate has the generating function $$\label{eq:finalGenerator}
S_{{\varepsilon},\chi}(\psi,J') = \langle \psi, C^{-1}J'\rangle + \sqrt{{\varepsilon}} N \left(
\langle \chi, J' \rangle + T(J') + \bar U(\psi) \right) + O({\varepsilon}) \;.$$ The map is generated from [(\[eq:finalGenerator\])]{} using the nonsymplectic form [(\[eq:cDefine\])]{}.
Hamiltonian Normal Form {#sec:hamiltonian}
=======================
The main advantage of the near-resonance condition is that the $N$-step map generated by [(\[eq:finalGenerator\])]{} is a near identity map; consequently, it is—to order ${\varepsilon}$—the time $N \sqrt{{\varepsilon}}$ map of a flow. This flow is generated by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:Hamiltonian}
H(\psi, J) = \langle \chi, J \rangle + T(J) + \bar U(\psi) \,.$$ Here $T$ is either the fold, $T_{fold}$ [(\[eq:scaledFold\])]{}, or the cusp, $T_{cusp}$ [(\[eq:scaledCusp\])]{}, normal form. For the Hamiltonian, the nonsymplectic-form [(\[eq:nonsymplecticGenerator\])]{} becomes a noncanonical Poisson bracket in $z = (\psi, J)$, and the equations of motion are given by $$\label{eq:nonsymplecticForm}
\dot{z} = {{\cal J}}\nabla H \;, \quad
{{\cal J}}= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & C^{t} \\ -C & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ where ${{\cal J}}$ is the Poisson matrix. The Hamiltonian flow preserves the energy, consequently the original map has an approximate conserved quantity when ${\varepsilon}$ is sufficiently small. The existence of a conserved quantity for a 4D symplectic map is nontrivial.
The equations of motion for [(\[eq:Hamiltonian\])]{} are $$\begin{aligned}
\dot \psi & = C^t( \chi + \nabla T(J) ) \\
\dot J & = -C\nabla \bar U(\psi) \end{aligned}$$ Using the form [(\[eq:cDefine\])]{} for $C$, these equations can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flow}
\dot \psi_1 & = \cos \alpha (\chi_1+ \partial_{J_1} T) - \nu \sin\alpha ( \chi_2 + \partial_{J_2} T) \nonumber\\
\dot \psi_2 & = \sin \alpha (\chi_1+ \partial_{J_1} T) + \nu \cos\alpha ( \chi_2 + \partial_{J_2} T) \nonumber \\
\dot J_1 & = -\cos\alpha \partial_{\psi_1} \bar U - \sin\alpha \partial_{\psi_2} \bar U \nonumber \\
\dot J_2 & = \nu \left( \sin\alpha \partial_{\psi_1} \bar U - \cos\alpha \partial_{\psi_2} \bar U \right)\end{aligned}$$ It is tempting to introduce new angles $\tilde \psi = R^t \psi$, but since the slope $\tan \alpha$ is generically not rational this transformation does not respect the periodicity of $\bar U$, with the result that $\bar U$ would be quasiperiodic function of the new angles.
The model [(\[eq:flow\])]{} has several important parameters: the frequency mismatch vector $\chi$, the direction of the fold $\alpha$, and the perturbation size $\nu$. In addition, the kinetic energy for the fold model depends upon the relative size of the fold term, $\kappa_0$ and cusp model has the coefficients $\rho_0$ and $\mu_0$. In addition there is of course the freedom of choice of the periodic potential $\bar U$. Note that $\nu$ is either ${\varepsilon}^{1/6}$, or ${\varepsilon}^{1/4}$ and is assumed small. If we take this to the extreme $\nu = 0$ then [(\[eq:flow\])]{} implies that $J_2$ is a second constant of motion. Thus in some sense our system reduces to one degree of freedom. However, the angle dependence is quasiperiodic. We will discuss this case in [§\[sec:quasiperiodic\]]{}.
Fold Model {#sec:fold}
==========
The system [(\[eq:flow\])]{} can be further simplified for the fold model where $T = T_{fold}$ is given by [(\[eq:scaledFold\])]{}. In this case $\chi_1$ is irrelevant and can be set to zero without loss of generality by, for example, a shift along the $J_1$ axis. The point is that $\chi_1$ corresponds to a frequency shift along the fold, but in the normal form the fold is a straight line. The parameter $\chi_2$ is the essential detuning parameter.
If we assume that the original potential has strong Fourier components in the direction of the fundamental resonances, then the dominant terms in the potential will be $\bar U = -a \cos(\psi_1) - b \cos(\psi_2)$.[^2] In this case the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:Hamiltonian\])]{} becomes explicitly $$\label{eq:foldHam}
H_{fold}(\psi, J) = \chi_2 J_2 + \frac12 (J_1^2 + \kappa_0 J_2^3) - a \cos(\psi_1) - b \cos(\psi_2) \,.$$ Though this Hamiltonian appears to be separable into two individual one-degree-of-freedom systems, this is not the case when $\alpha \neq 0$ because of the nonsymplectic form [(\[eq:nonsymplecticForm\])]{}.
It may be the case that additional terms in the resonance module will have amplitudes comparable to the ones included in [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{}. In this case, these terms should be included in $\bar U$ and the dynamics of the two degrees of freedom are coupled even when $\alpha = 0$.
The dynamics of the two-degree-of-freedom system [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} can be visualized using an appropriate Poincaré section. Though the standard sections are not complete, they can still give insights into the dynamics. For our purposes, it seems that the most useful section is the surface $\Sigma = \{ \psi_1 = 0, H = E\}$. This section can be projected onto the coordinates $(\psi_2, J_2)$ with a choice of sign for $J_1$, since the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} depends quadratically on $J_1$. Two example phase portraits are shown in [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{}.
![[Poincaré section for the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} with $(\psi_2,J_2) \in \left[-\pi,\pi \right] \times \left[-3,2.5 \right]$ and $J_1 > 0$. The parameters are set to $a = b = \kappa_0 = 1$, $E = 2$, $\alpha = 0.01\pi$, and $\nu = 0.05$. For the left panel $\chi_2 = -2.5$, and for the right $\chi_2 = -1.7$]{} \[fig:foldsection1\]](./figures/foldsection1 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 0.5in ![[Poincaré section for the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} with $(\psi_2,J_2) \in \left[-\pi,\pi \right] \times \left[-3,2.5 \right]$ and $J_1 > 0$. The parameters are set to $a = b = \kappa_0 = 1$, $E = 2$, $\alpha = 0.01\pi$, and $\nu = 0.05$. For the left panel $\chi_2 = -2.5$, and for the right $\chi_2 = -1.7$]{} \[fig:foldsection1\]](./figures/foldsection2 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
In these sections there are two visible elliptic fixed points; they correspond to periodic orbits of the flow. For example in the right panel the orbit at $(\psi_2,J_2) = (0, -0.016)$ has motion in which $J_1$ is oscillating in narrow region about $2.5$ while $\psi_1$ rapidly rotates. The orbit at $(\psi_2,J_2) = (\pi, -1)$ has its first degree of freedom on an oscillatory trajectory about the origin, with $J_1$ oscillating between $\pm 1.4$. For both of these orbits $\psi_2$ and $J_2$ remain nearly fixed.
Our goal is to explain the main features of these phase portraits.
Aligned Fold: $\alpha = 0$
--------------------------
The model [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} reduces to the one-dimensional case if the fold happens to be aligned with the resonant module, so that $\alpha = 0$, for then the equations [(\[eq:flow\])]{} decouple. The dynamics in $(\psi_1,J_1)$ then correspond to a simple pendulum. In the decoupled $(\psi_2,J_2)$ dynamics, the parameter $\nu$ (if it is nonzero) can now be eliminated by rescaling time. The resulting canonical one-degree-of-freedom model, $$\label{eq:1doffoldmodel}
H_{2}(\psi_2,J_2) = \chi_2 J_2 + \frac{\kappa_0}{2} J_2^3 - b \cos (\psi_2) \;,$$ is the same as that originally studied by Howard [@Howard95] and derived as a normal form by Simo [@Simo98]. This system has equilibria at the points $$\psi_2 = 0, \pi \;, \; J_2^{(\pm)} = \pm \sqrt{ - \frac{2\chi_2}{3\kappa_0}} \;.$$ For definiteness, suppose that $\kappa_0, b > 0$. When $\chi_2 < 0$ there are four equilibria as shown in [Fig. \[fig:foldphasespace\]]{}–two are centers ($(0, J_2^{(+)})$ and $(\pi,J_2^{(-)}))$, and two are saddles ($(0, J_2^{(-)})$ and $(\pi,J_2^{(+)})$). These orbits correspond to the two families of resonant islands with rotation number $\omega^*$ in the original coordinate system that are caused by the fold. These resonant islands are destroyed in saddle-center bifurcations at $\chi_2 =0$. The separatrices of the saddles undergo a reconnection as $\chi_2$ passes through $$\label{eq:chistar}
\chi^* = -\frac32 (b^2\kappa_0)^\frac13 \;.$$ When $ \chi^* < \chi_2 < 0$, there are “meandering" invariant circles, i.e., invariant circles that go above the upper island chain and below the lower one.
![[Phase space of the one-degree-of-freedom fold model, [(\[eq:1doffoldmodel\])]{} for $\kappa_0 = b = 1$ and $\chi_2 =$. The top line shows generic phase portraits for $\chi_2 = \chi^*(1/2)^{2/3}, \chi^*(3/2)^{2/3}, -\chi^*(1/6)^{2/3}$. The center phase portrait shows a meandering curve. The bottom line shows critical phase portraits for $\chi_2 = \chi^*, 0$. Contourlines shown are $H_2 = i/2$ for $i = -5, -4, \dots, 5$.]{} \[fig:foldphasespace\]](./figures/FoldGen){height="25.00000%"}
![[Phase space of the one-degree-of-freedom fold model, [(\[eq:1doffoldmodel\])]{} for $\kappa_0 = b = 1$ and $\chi_2 =$. The top line shows generic phase portraits for $\chi_2 = \chi^*(1/2)^{2/3}, \chi^*(3/2)^{2/3}, -\chi^*(1/6)^{2/3}$. The center phase portrait shows a meandering curve. The bottom line shows critical phase portraits for $\chi_2 = \chi^*, 0$. Contourlines shown are $H_2 = i/2$ for $i = -5, -4, \dots, 5$.]{} \[fig:foldphasespace\]](./figures/FoldCrit){height="25.00000%"}
The Poincaré sections for the full Hamiltonian [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} in [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} are similar to the phase portraits in [Fig. \[fig:foldphasespace\]]{}, though since $\alpha \neq 0$ in the former figure the two degrees of freedom are coupled and some orbits are chaotic. Since $\nu \ll 1$ the dynamics of $J_2$ is much slower than that of $J_1$, and since $\alpha$ is also small, the coupling between the two is weak. It is interesting to note that the chaotic orbits in [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} (in the regime of the meandering tori) correspond to values of $(\psi_1, J_1)$ that are near the pendulum separatrix for this degree of freedom. Conversely near the center of the islands on the section the corresponding values of $J_1$ are either large, so that the pendulum is in a rotating regime, or near zero so that the pendulum is deeply trapped. The island near $\psi_2=0$ is created in saddle-center bifurcation that occurs $\chi_2 \approx -1.47$ for the value $\alpha = 0.01\pi$ shown. By contrast, the saddle-center bifurcation for the island near $\psi_2 = \pi$ still occurs near $\chi_2 = 0$, as it does for $\alpha = 0$. The reconnection bifurcation no longer occurs at a single parameter value as it does for the integrable model [(\[eq:1doffoldmodel\])]{} nevertheless, as can be seen in the left panel of [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{}, a topological change in the the dynamics occurs just above $\chi_2 = -2.5$ where the unstable manifolds of the saddle periodic points undergo a reconnection in their intersections.
Nearly Aligned Fold: $\alpha$ small
-----------------------------------
When $\nu$ is nonzero but small, the dynamics of the the two degrees of freedom are coupled but $J_2$ evolves slowly compared to $J_1$. In such a situation it is appropriate to apply an averaging method. This averaging is valid when the dynamics of the first degree of freedom are far from separatrices which would cause this motion to slow.
A particularly simple situation occurs when $\alpha$ is small—indeed, as we argued in [§\[sec:diagonalization\]]{} this is the general case. If formally $\alpha \ll \nu$, then to lowest order [(\[eq:flow\])]{} decouples into a pendulum and the nontwist one-degree-of-freedom system [(\[eq:1doffoldmodel\])]{}. The phase portraits then will look similar to those of [Fig. \[fig:foldphasespace\]]{}, just as we saw in [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{}
We can formally treat this case by treating $\alpha$ as a small parameter of the same order as $\nu$. Up to terms of first order in $\alpha$, [(\[eq:flow\])]{} reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alphasmallflow}
\dot \psi_1 & = J_1 \;, \nonumber\\
\dot \psi_2 & = \alpha J_1 + \nu ( \chi_2 + \frac32 J_2^2) \;,\nonumber \\
\dot J_1 & = - a\sin\psi_1 - \alpha b \sin\psi_2 \;, \nonumber \\
\dot J_2 & = - \nu b \sin\psi_2 \;.\end{aligned}$$
To lowest order we may neglect the small $\psi_2$ term in the equation for $\dot J_1$, and the $(\psi_1,J_1)$ dynamics become a simple pendulum on the fast, $O(1)$, time scale. Thus this system has periodic orbits and has true angle-action coordinates. Denoting this true angle variable by $\vartheta$ then an average over $\vartheta$ can be performed whenever its rotation frequency is large compared to $\nu$. The standard averaging theorem [@Lochak88] implies that for time scales $t \sim O(\nu^{-1})$ the slow averaged dynamics are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot \psi_2 & = \alpha \langle J_1\rangle_\vartheta + \nu ( \chi_2 + \frac32 J_2^2) \;,\nonumber \\
\dot J_2 & = - \nu b \sin\psi_2 \;.\end{aligned}$$ where the average $ \langle \rangle_\vartheta$ is performed over $\vartheta$. This is valid providing the first degree of freedom is not near the pendulum separatrix where the time scale separation breaks down. Barring this event, the effect on the dynamics of $(\psi_2, J_2)$ is a simple shift: instead of at $\chi_2 = 0$, the resonant saddle-center bifurcation now occurs for $$\chi_2 = - \frac{\alpha}{\nu} \langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta$$ The critical value $\chi^*$ for reconnection will shift down from [(\[eq:chistar\])]{} by the same amount. However, it is important to realize that the value of $J_1$ on the Poincaré section is determined by $H(0,\psi_2,J_1,J_2) = E$ and so will vary with position, thus the bifurcation values corresponding to different orbits on the section will shift by different amounts. The simple prediction of a shift in the bifurcation values is verified by our numerical computations. In the example of [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{}, the elliptic island around $(0,J_2^{(+)})$ corresponds to $\psi_1$ in a rotating regime with $J_1$ oscillating slightly about $2.4$. Thus the predicted bifurcation point is $\chi_2 \approx -1.5$, close to the observed value of $-1.47$. By contrast the orbit around the elliptic island on the section at $(\pi,J_2^{(-)})$ has $J_1 = 1.4$ which is in the oscillating regime for the first degree of freedom so that $\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta = 0$. Thus the predicted bifurcation value is zero, just as observed.
The averaging theory fails when the pendulum motion in the first degree of freedom is near its separatrix. In this case the coupling between the degrees of freedom drives $J_1$ to jump across the separatrix on the slow time scale. This causes slow chaos in the second degree of freedom and will be discussed more below.
Quasiperiodic Pendulum: $\nu = 0$ {#sec:quasiperiodic}
----------------------------------
When $\alpha = O(1)$ the two degrees of freedom of the flow [(\[eq:flow\])]{} are coupled in an essential way; however, since $\nu \ll 1$ there is still a fast/slow spitting of the dynamics. In the extreme case that $\nu = 0$, $J_2$ is constant and is a second invariant for the flow. Be that as it may, this is a singular limit: as we have seen earlier in this section, the dynamics with $\nu$ nonzero can result in $O(1)$ changes in $J_2$ on the time scale $\nu^{-1}$ even when $\nu$ is arbitrarily small.
When $\nu = 0$, [(\[eq:flow\])]{} reduces to a Poisson system, $\dot{z} = {{\cal J}}_P \nabla H_P(z)$, with the variables $z = (\psi_1, \psi_2, J_1)$, the Hamiltonian $$H_P(\psi_1, \psi_2, J_1 ) = \frac12 J_1^2 -a \cos \psi_1 -b \cos \psi_2 \;,$$ and the Poisson matrix $${{\cal J}}_P = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \cos\alpha \\0 & 0 & \sin\alpha \\-\cos\alpha & -\sin\alpha & 0\end{pmatrix} \;,$$ which is the upper left $3\times 3$ block of the matrix ${{\cal J}}$ in [(\[eq:nonsymplecticForm\])]{}. This Poisson matrix has the Casimir invariant $\psi_v$ given by $$\begin{pmatrix} \psi_u \\ \psi_v \end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\alpha & \sin\alpha \\
-\sin\alpha & \cos\alpha
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} \psi_1 \\ \psi_2 \end{pmatrix} =$$ consequently, the motion is along lines of slope $\tan\alpha$ in the angle space. When the slope is irrational, these lines are dense on the torus so the Casimir is only a local invariant. Along a line of constant $\psi_v$ the system has infinitely many center and saddle equilibria at the points where $J_1 = 0$ and $$\sin \psi_1 = -\frac{b\tan \alpha}{a} \; \sin \psi_2\;.$$ These occur for a set of values of the energy $E_P = H_P$ that is dense in one or more intervals in the range $|E_P| \le |a|+|b|$. For example if $a=b>0$, then there are centers for energy values in a dense subset of $[-2a,0]$ and saddles in a dense subset of $[0,2a]$. When $E_P$ is above this range, there are no saddles, and the motion is “untrapped."
If we define a coordinate $\psi_u$ along the line of the Casimir by $\psi_u = \cos\alpha\; \psi_1 + \sin\alpha \;\psi_2$, this system can be obtained from the one degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:qpHam}
H_{QP} (\psi_u,J_1) = \frac12 J_1^2 - a \cos( \cos\alpha\; \psi_u - \sin\alpha\; \psi_v) - b \cos(\sin\alpha\; \psi_u + \cos\alpha \; \psi_v)$$ with canonical equations of motion in $(\psi_u, J_1)$. However, it is important to note that $H_{QP}$ depends quasiperiodically on $\psi_u$ unless $\tan \alpha$ is rational. We show typical contours of $H_{QP}$ in [Fig. \[fig:quasiperiodicPlot\]]{}.
[Contours of the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:qpHam\])]{} for $a=b=1$, $\psi_v = 0$ and $\tan\alpha = \gamma$, the golden mean. Shown are the energy levels of the seven critical points of $H_{QP}$ for $\psi_u$ in the interval $[0,8\pi].$]{}[fig:quasiperiodicPlot]{}[4 in]{}
Unaligned Fold: $\alpha > O(\nu)$
---------------------------------
The dynamics of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} can be quite complex when $\alpha > O(\nu)$. In this regime, application of averaging is problematic since the unperturbed system ($\nu = 0)$ is the quasiperiodic pendulum [(\[eq:qpHam\])]{} instead of the simple periodic pendulum. Multi-frequency averaging is valid only when the frequencies satisfy a Diophantine condition [@Lochak88]. Moreover, averaging fails for our system in the regime where the orbit passes near any of the infinitely many saddles of the quasiperiodic pendulum. Here we describe only some of the qualitative features of these dynamics.
In [Fig. \[fig:foldsection3\]]{} we show the effect of increasing $\alpha$ on the dynamics of [(\[eq:flow\])]{}. In these phase portraits, $\alpha \sim 3 \nu$. The chaotic orbits in the central part of the section (near $\psi_2 = 0$) have dynamics that corresponds to multiple separatrix encounters of the quasiperiodic pendulum. There are also a number of island chains visible in this region that correspond to trapping in the potential wells of $H_{QP}$. For these islands the quasiperiodic phase $\psi_u(t)$ is bounded but ranges over intervals larger than $2\pi$. The large island near $\psi_2 = \pi$ corresponds to $(\psi_1,J_1)$ trapped near the origin, and its dynamics are relatively simple because the $\nu=0$ motion of the first degree of freedom is then periodic. Similarly the tori for $J_2 < -1.7$ correspond to values of $J_1> 2$ where averaging over the fast quasiperiodic pendulum motion is apparently still approximately valid.
![[Poincaré section of the flow of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} except that $\alpha = 0.05\pi$ and $E = 0.5$. For the left panel $\chi_2 = -1$ and for the right $\chi_2 = -0.5$ The vertical range corresponds to $J_2 \in \left[ -2.2, 1.8\right]$.]{} \[fig:foldsection3\]](./figures/foldsection3 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 0.5in ![[Poincaré section of the flow of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} except that $\alpha = 0.05\pi$ and $E = 0.5$. For the left panel $\chi_2 = -1$ and for the right $\chi_2 = -0.5$ The vertical range corresponds to $J_2 \in \left[ -2.2, 1.8\right]$.]{} \[fig:foldsection3\]](./figures/foldsection4 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
When $E < 0$ the island near $\psi_2 = \pi$ is no longer on the section—it is energetically inaccessible, see [Fig. \[fig:foldsection6\]]{}. In this case the invariant, meandering torus on the section boundary corresponds to the first degree of freedom undergoing small oscillations about the origin. For negative energy, the orbits near the two fixed points $(0, J_2^{(\pm)})$ correspond to trapped motion in the first degree of freedom, and the chaotic portion of the section has moved to smaller values of $J_2$. It is also clear from this figure that the saddle-center bifurcation of these two fixed points at $\psi_2 =0$ occurs at $\chi_2=0$, just as in the model [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{}—a result consistent with averaging since $\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta = 0$ for trapped orbits.
As $E$ decreases, the energy surface intersects the section $\psi_2 = 0$ in two disconnected pieces. One corresponds to the elliptic island around $(0,J_2^{(+)})$, and the other to the nonresonant tori for $J_2 < J_2^{(-)}$. Since [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} is cubic in $J_2$, the energy can be arbitrarily small, but then the fold is not accessible.
![[Poincaré section of the flow of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} except that $\alpha = 0.05\pi$, $E = -0.5$. For the left panel $\chi_2 = -1$ and for the right $\chi_2 = 0$ The vertical range corresponds to $J_2 \in \left[ -2.2, 1.8\right]$.]{} \[fig:foldsection6\]](./figures/foldsection6 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 0.5in ![[Poincaré section of the flow of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} except that $\alpha = 0.05\pi$, $E = -0.5$. For the left panel $\chi_2 = -1$ and for the right $\chi_2 = 0$ The vertical range corresponds to $J_2 \in \left[ -2.2, 1.8\right]$.]{} \[fig:foldsection6\]](./figures/foldsection7 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
When $\tan \alpha$ is rational, the phase portrait exhibits resonances that correspond to this coupling. An example with $\tan \alpha = \frac13$ is shown in [Fig. \[fig:foldsection8\]]{}. Here a period-three island chain replaces the resonance near $J_2^{(+)}$. The large degree of chaos in this section reflects orbits that repeatedly cross the separatrix of the $(\psi_1, J_1)$ pendulum. As can be seen in the right panel of this figure, as $\chi_2$ approaches $0$, there are bifurcations creating a period-two island chain as well as reconnection bifurcations of the period-three islands, which finally are destroyed in a saddle-center bifurcation at $\chi_2 = 0$.
![[Poincaré section of the flow of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} except that $\alpha = \arctan(1/3)$, $E = 1$ and $\nu = 0.01$. For the left panel $\chi_2=-1$ and the vertical range corresponds to $J_2 \in \left[ -1.6, 2.0\right]$, while for the right panel $\chi_2 = -0.15$ and $J_2 \in \left[-1.4,1.8\right]$]{} \[fig:foldsection8\]](./figures/foldsection8 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 0.5in ![[Poincaré section of the flow of [(\[eq:foldHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:foldsection1\]]{} except that $\alpha = \arctan(1/3)$, $E = 1$ and $\nu = 0.01$. For the left panel $\chi_2=-1$ and the vertical range corresponds to $J_2 \in \left[ -1.6, 2.0\right]$, while for the right panel $\chi_2 = -0.15$ and $J_2 \in \left[-1.4,1.8\right]$]{} \[fig:foldsection8\]](./figures/foldsection9 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Cusp Model {#sec:cusp}
==========
When the kinetic energy has a cusp singularity, $T = T_{cusp}$, [(\[eq:scaledCusp\])]{} and we choose the simplest potential $\bar U$ as before, the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:Hamiltonian\])]{} becomes $$\label{eq:cuspHam}
H_{cusp}(\psi, J) = \chi_1 J_1 + \chi_2 J_2 +\frac12 ( J_1 + \rho_0 {J}_2^2)^2 + \mu_0 {J}_2^4
- a \cos \psi_1 - b \cos \psi_2 \,.$$ In this case, both components of $\chi$ are important.
Aligned Cusp: $\alpha = 0$
--------------------------
When $\alpha = 0$ the differential equations [(\[eq:flow\])]{} become $$\label{eq:CUSPalpha0flow}
\begin{aligned}
\dot \psi_1 & = \chi_1 + J_1 + \rho_0 J_2^2 \,, \\
\dot \psi_2 & = \nu ( \chi_2 + 2\rho_0J_2( J_1 + \rho_0 J_2^2) + 4 \mu_0 J_2^3) \,, \\
\dot J_1 & = - a\sin\psi_1 \,, \\
\dot J_2 & = - \nu b \sin\psi_2 \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The essential difference to the fold case is that for the cusp the equations do not separate even when $\alpha = 0$; both derivatives of $T_{cusp}$ depend on each of the $J_i$. Thus, even for the case $\alpha = 0$ and small $\nu$, we must use averaging in order to reduce to one degree of freedom.
On the fast timescale $J_2$ is constant and the equations for $(\psi_1, J_1)$ are that of the simple pendulum with a shifted $J_1$. As for the case of the fold we can introduce the angle $\vartheta$ conjugate to the true pendulum action and average over it to obtain a slow system in $(\psi_2, J_2)$ where $J_1$ is simply replaced by its average $\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta$. A necessary condition for $J_1$ to be rotating is that the energy be sufficiently large.
After scaling time to eliminate $\nu$, the slow, averaged, one-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian is $$\label{eq:H1dofCusp}
H_{\epsilon,\beta,\chi_2}(\psi_2, J_2) = \chi_2 J_2 + \frac12 \beta J_2^2 + \epsilon J_2^4 - b \cos\psi_2$$ where $\beta = 2\rho_0 \langle J_1\rangle_\vartheta$ and $\epsilon = \mu_0 + \rho_0^2/2$. Recall from [(\[eq:cuspgen\])]{} that the two symplectically nonequivalent forms of the cusp are represented by the sign of $\epsilon$. Notice that negative $\epsilon$ is only possible for $\mu_0 < 0$. By a scaling of $J_2$, $\epsilon$ can be reduced to $\pm 1$. The system has the discrete symmetry $$H_{\epsilon,\beta,\chi_2}(\psi_2, J_2) = -H_{-\epsilon,-\beta, \chi_2}(\psi_2+\pi, -J_2)$$ so that for the bifurcation analysis it is enough to consider, e.g., $\epsilon = +1$. The bifurcation diagram as a function of the two unfolding parameters $\chi_2$ and $\beta$ for this case is shown in [Fig. \[fig:bifdiag\]]{}. For $\epsilon = -1$ the picture is reflected through the vertical axis so that the critical values for $\beta$ all become non-negative. There are four bifurcation curves shown in [Fig. \[fig:bifdiag\]]{}. The curve $ \beta^3 + 27 \chi_2^2 = 0$ with a cusp at the origin corresponds to a saddle-center bifurcation. The three remaining curves mark reconnection bifurcations.[^3] The lower line of phase portraits all correspond to $\chi_2 = 0$; they are symmetric under $J_2 \to -J_2$. The shown part of the bifurcation diagram with $\chi_2 \ge 0$ has four disjoint regions separated by curves of critical values. The lower half of the bifurcation diagram with $\chi_2 < 0$ is related to the upper half shown in [Fig. \[fig:bifdiag\]]{} by the discrete symmetry $$H_{\beta,\chi_2}(\psi_2, J_2) = H_{\beta, -\chi_2}(\psi_2, -J_2) \,.$$
[fig:bifdiag]{}[0.8]{} Moving counter clockwise on a large circle around the origin starting in the 4th quadrant near $\beta = 0$ reproduces the twistless bifurcation associated to a fold: first the creation of two island chains in a saddle-center bifurcation and next the reconnection. The characteristic feature of the cusp appears close to the origin in parameter space where the lines corresponding to folds are close to each other. The three reconnections lines differ in which of the three different lines of equilibria is reconnecting. A qualitatively new phase portrait appears in the triangular region attached to the origin, which has a localized invariant twistless curve. The main feature of this new region is that there are twistless tori which are not rotational invariant circles between the figure-eight separatrix and the rotational separatrix. Unlike the meandering curves (which are also present in the same phase portrait) these are, however, localized in $\psi_2$.
Each of these regimes is easily visible in numerical phase portraits if one chooses parameter values so that the motion of the first degree of freedom gives rise, through ${\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}$, to an appropriate value for $\beta$. In Figs. \[fig:cuspsection1\]-\[fig:cuspsection2\] we choose $\mu_0 > 0$ and $\rho_0 < 0$ so that $\epsilon = +1$, and fix all of the other parameters of [(\[eq:cuspHam\])]{}. The dynamics of the first degree of freedom is then determined by the value of the energy: when $E$ is large, points on the Poincaré section have large positive ${\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}$, which makes $\beta$ large and negative. As $E$ decreases, so does ${\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}$, moving the phase portrait horizontally in the bifurcation diagram [Fig. \[fig:bifdiag\]]{}. Each of the four regimes of [Fig. \[fig:bifdiag\]]{} are shown in Figs. \[fig:cuspsection1\]-\[fig:cuspsection2\]. The degree of chaos in these panels also increases, to the final case where the dynamics of $J_1$ undergoes separatrix crossings over a significant portion of the phase space.
![[Poincaré sections of the cusp Hamiltonian [(\[eq:cuspHam\])]{} with parameters $\rho_0 = -0.5$, $\mu_0 = 0.875$, $a = b = 1$, $\nu = 0.05$, $\alpha =0$, $\chi_1 = 0$ and $\chi_2 = 0.5$. For the left panel $E = 35.75$, and for the right $E = 18.11$. The vertical range is $J_2 \in \left[ -0.2, 1.0\right]$. The energy determines the value of ${\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}$.]{} \[fig:cuspsection1\]](./figures/cuspRgn1 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 0.5in ![[Poincaré sections of the cusp Hamiltonian [(\[eq:cuspHam\])]{} with parameters $\rho_0 = -0.5$, $\mu_0 = 0.875$, $a = b = 1$, $\nu = 0.05$, $\alpha =0$, $\chi_1 = 0$ and $\chi_2 = 0.5$. For the left panel $E = 35.75$, and for the right $E = 18.11$. The vertical range is $J_2 \in \left[ -0.2, 1.0\right]$. The energy determines the value of ${\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}$.]{} \[fig:cuspsection1\]](./figures/cuspRgn2 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
![[Poincaré sections of the cusp Hamiltonian [(\[eq:cuspHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:cuspsection1\]]{}. For the left panel $E = 3.75$, and for the right $E = 0.75$. The vertical range is $J_2 \in \left[ -1.7, 1.6\right]$.]{} \[fig:cuspsection2\]](./figures/cuspRgn3 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} 0.5in ![[Poincaré sections of the cusp Hamiltonian [(\[eq:cuspHam\])]{} for the same parameters as [Fig. \[fig:cuspsection1\]]{}. For the left panel $E = 3.75$, and for the right $E = 0.75$. The vertical range is $J_2 \in \left[ -1.7, 1.6\right]$.]{} \[fig:cuspsection2\]](./figures/cuspRgn4 "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Nearly Aligned Cusp: Small $\alpha$
-----------------------------------
Treating $\alpha$ to be of the same order as the small parameter $\nu$, the first order approximation is $$\label{eq:CUSPalphasmallflow}
\begin{aligned}
\dot \psi_1 & = \chi_1 + J_1 + \rho_0 J_2^2 \,, \\
\dot \psi_2 & = \nu ( \chi_2 + 2\rho_0J_2( J_1 + \rho_0 J_2^2) + 4 \mu_0 J_2^3) +
\alpha(\chi_1 + J_1 + \rho_0 J_2^2) \,, \\
\dot J_1 & = - a\sin\psi_1 - \alpha b \sin \psi_2 \,, \\
\dot J_2 & = - \nu b \sin\psi_2 \,.
\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian for these equations again is [(\[eq:cuspHam\])]{}, but the equations of motion are different from the $\alpha = 0$ case because of the non-diagonal non-standard symplectic form. Averaging works as before after neglecting the small $\psi_2$ term in the equation for $\dot J_1$. After averaging the equations of motion, we see they are generated by the one-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian in $(\psi_2, J_2)$: $$H = \left(\chi_2 + \frac{\alpha}{\nu}( \chi_1 + {\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta})\right) J_2 + \rho_0 {\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}J_2^2 +
\frac{\alpha}{3\nu} \rho_0 J_2^3 +(\mu_0 + \rho_0^2/2) J_2^4 - b \sin\psi_2 \,.$$ Finally this Hamiltonian can be recast in the form [(\[eq:H1dofCusp\])]{} by completing the quartic, scaling, and collecting terms so that new effective parameters $\beta$ and $\chi_2$ are found. Denote the change of scale of $J_2$ necessary in order to make the quartic coefficient equal to $\epsilon = \pm 1$ by $s$, $s^4 = \epsilon/(\mu_0 + \rho_0^2/2)$. Then the shift in $J_2$ is $\lambda = -s^3 \epsilon \alpha \rho_0/(12\nu)$. The shift in $\beta = 2 {\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}\rho_0 s^2$ is given by $ - 6\epsilon \lambda^2$. Finally $\chi_2$ is shifted by $$s \left( \chi_1 + {\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}\frac{\alpha}{\nu}\right)
+ 2 \lambda s^2 \rho_0 {\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}- 8 \epsilon \lambda^3
\,.$$ Since when $\alpha/\nu = {\cal O}(1)$, the shift $\lambda$ is small, the dominant term in these shifts is typically the one involving ${\langle J_1 \rangle_\vartheta}$. Thus in particular making $\alpha$ non-zero breaks the discrete symmetry present when $\chi_2 = 0$.
Quasiperiodic case: $\nu = 0$
-----------------------------
Setting $\nu = 0$ causes $J_2$ to be a constant, and thus again we obtain a quasiperiodic system with one degree of freedom. The essential difference to the fold case [(\[eq:qpHam\])]{} is that here there is a linear term in $J_1$ in the Hamiltonian. Thus up to a shift of $\chi_1 + \rho J_2^2$ in $J_1$ again the quasiperiodic pendulum is found.
Because the critical values are dense in an interval the quasiperiodic pendulum also has an abundance of twistless curves. In any region of non-critical points in phase space bounded by the separatrices of two distinct hyperbolic points there is a twistless curve.
Conclusion
==========
We have derived two normal forms for a nearly integrable, four-dimensional symplectic map with a singularity in its frequency ratio map, $J \mapsto \Omega(J)$. A singularity corresponds to the vanishing of the twist $\tau = \det(D\Omega)$. For a four-dimensional mapping there are two stable singularities: the fold and cusp. In each case we focus upon a point $\Omega = \omega^*$ where the caustic crosses a resonance curve $\langle m, \Omega(J) \rangle \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}$ for $m \in {{\mathbb{ Z}}}^2$. We defined coordinates $(J_1, J_2)$ so that the $J_1$-axis is tangent and the $J_2$-axis is normal to the singular set. Consequently, $J_2$ represents the degenerate action and a singularity in the frequency map then corresponds to the vanishing of quadratic terms in the kinetic energy for $J_2$. Using $\epsilon$ to denote the size of the perturbation, the dominant balance along the singular set gives $J_1^2 \sim O(\epsilon)$. If the singularity is a fold, then dominant balance transverse to the singular set gives $J_2^3 \sim O(\epsilon)$, while if it is a cusp then $J_2^4 \sim O(\epsilon)$. The differential scaling gives rise to the small parameter $\nu = \epsilon^{1/6}$ or $\epsilon^{1/4}$, respectively in our normal form.
Because it is nearly resonant, the normal form has an approximate invariant—an energy—that restricts the motion to three-dimensional surfaces. The corresponding dynamics is given by the flow of a two-degree-of-freedom Hamiltonian system of the form $H = \langle \chi, J \rangle + T(J) + U(\psi)$. As can be expected, this system is generally nonintegrable. One source of nonintegrability is standard: the potential $U$ contains terms that couple the degrees of freedom. Indeed this occurs even in the case of nondegenerate frequency maps, where $T(J) = \frac12 (J_1^2 + J_2^2)$, [@Poschel93].
In our model, however, there are two additional sources of complexity. First, the cusp model has an intrinsic coupling between the longitudinal ($J_1$) and transverse ($J_2$) actions because the kinetic energy $T$ in [(\[eq:scaledCusp\])]{} is not separable. The second source corresponds to the fact that the singular set is not generally aligned with the resonance module, and indeed will generically have an irrational slope. This gives rise to the misalignment angle $\alpha$ in [(\[eq:cDefine\])]{}, and the corresponding nonsymplectic structure of our equations of motion [(\[eq:flow\])]{}. Though it is common for issues of rationality to be important in Hamiltonian dynamics for rotation numbers, as far as we know, the rationality of a slope in action space has not been important in any other situation.
Because of the disparate scaling in the action variables, the time scale for evolution of the degenerate action $J_2$ and its conjugate angle are slower by the factor $\nu$ than those for the nondegenerate ones. If we simply set $\nu$ to zero, then $J_2$ is constant. The dynamics for this case reduced to a system with one degree of freedom with a quasiperiodic potential. An equivalent description of this quasiperiodic pendulum uses a rank one Poisson-structure on ${{\mathbb{ R}}}\times {{\mathbb{ T}}}^2$.
The simplest dynamics occurs for the fold when $\alpha = 0$, when the fold curve is parallel to a vector in the resonance module, and when the coupling harmonics in $U$ are negligible. For this case the multi-dimensional fold behaves as the well-known one-degree-of-freedom case derived by Simo [@Simo98]. However, even the fold has complex behavior when $\alpha \neq 0$. We have seen that the coupling of the nonsingular action $J_1$ to the degenerate degree of freedom $J_2$ leads to slow chaos when the first degree of freedom is near a separatrix. It also causes the shift in the reconnection bifurcation values when $J_1$ is in a rotating regime.
The cusp dynamics corresponds to the collision of two fold curves. Consequently, near a cusp there can be three sets of island chains with the same rotation number. As the cusp is approached there are several “reconnection" scenarios. The intrinsic coupling of the two degrees of freedom in this case make the study of this system more complex. Even when $\alpha = 0$ the two degree-of-freedom normal form flow is non-integrable. When $\nu$ is small averaging allows for reduction to one degree of freedom. This simple system has been completely analyzed, and good agreement is found with the full equations for appropriate choice of parameters. A new type of twistless torus which is not a graph over the unperturbed torus appears near the cusp. Similar to the case of the fold the case of small $\alpha$ can again be reduced to the same one degree of freedom model, with shifted parameters, however.
It would be interesting to study the non-integrable dynamics of the normal form flow with two degrees of freedom. It seems possible to still use averaging theory to partially reduce the dynamics, but the crossing of separatrices and the corresponding jumps in action would need to be taken into account. Another interesting case is the perturbation away from the quasiperiodic case $\nu = 0$ for arbitrary $\alpha$ using some kind of quasiperiodic averaging theory.
Appendix: Nonsymplectic Coordinates {#sec:nonsymplectic}
===================================
A canonical generating function $S({\varphi}, I')$ implicitly defines a symplectic map by the equations $${\varphi}' = \frac{\partial}{\partial I'} S \;, \quad
I = \frac{\partial}{\partial {\varphi}} S \;.$$ This map preserves the symplectic form $$\varpi = d I \wedge d {\varphi}\;,$$ since $\varpi - \varpi' = d(I d {\varphi}- I' d {\varphi}' ) = d(I d {\varphi}+ {\varphi}' d I' ) = d^2 S = 0$. The symplectic form has the equivalent matrix representation $$\varpi = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -id \\ id & 0 \end{pmatrix} \;,$$ in $({\varphi},I)$ coordinates.
Under a general, linear point transformation $(\psi,J) = (B{\varphi}, C I)$, we can define a new generating function $$\hat{S}(\psi,J') = S(B^{-1} \psi, C^{-1} J') \;.$$ The dynamically equivalent map in the new, nonsymplectic coordinates is
$$\psi' = BC^t \frac{\partial}{\partial J'} \hat{S} \;, \quad
J = CB^t § \frac{\partial}{\partial \psi} \hat{S} \;.$$ Thus the transformation is symplectic if $B=C^{-t}$. Symplectic transformations with multiplier are a special case of the above where $BC^t$ is a multiple of the identity.
[^1]: If the null vector of the mass matrix in the original coordinate system $I$ is $v \in {{\cal L}}$, we would choose $k_2 = v$, for then the transformed mass matrix $\tilde M = A^t M A$ has only one nonzero component.
[^2]: It is also possible that the original potential has no terms in the resonance module so that $\bar{U} = 0$. In this case a higher order normal form must be used. This is the situation for some resonances (those with even period) in the standard nontwist mapping [@Petrisor01; @Wurm04; @Wurm05].
[^3]: The reconnection curves are given by $
-4194304 + 8192 \beta^4 - 4\beta^8 - 1769472\beta\chi_2^2
+ 1728\beta^5\chi_2^2 - \beta^9\chi_2^2 - 186624\beta^2\chi_2^4
- 81\beta^6\chi_2^4 - 2187\beta^3\chi_2^6 - 19683\chi_2^8 = 0
$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The ATLAS experiment at the LHC has measured the centrality dependence of charged particle pseudorapidity distributions over $|\eta| < 2$ in collisions at a nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy of ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}=2.76$ TeV. In order to include particles with transverse momentum as low as 30 MeV, the data were recorded with the central solenoid magnet off. Charged particles were reconstructed with two algorithms (2-point “tracklets” and full tracks) using information from the pixel detector only. The lead-lead collision centrality was characterized by the total transverse energy in the forward calorimeter in the range $3.2 < |\eta| < 4.9$. Measurements are presented of the per-event charged particle pseudorapidity distribution, , and the average charged particle multiplicity in the pseudorapidity interval $|\eta|<0.5$ in several intervals of collision centrality. The results are compared to previous mid-rapidity measurements at the LHC and RHIC. The variation of the mid-rapidity charged particle yield per colliding nucleon pair with the number of participants is consistent with lower results. The shape of the distribution is found to be independent of centrality within the systematic uncertainties of the measurement.'
author:
- The ATLAS Collaboration
title: '\'
---
Introduction
============
Collisions of lead (Pb) ions at the Large Hadron Collider provide an opportunity to study strongly interacting matter at the highest temperatures ever created in the laboratory [@LHCHI]. Measurements of the centrality dependence of charged particle multiplicities and of charged particle pseudorapidity densities in such ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus () collisions provide essential information on the initial particle or entropy production and subsequent evolution in the created hot, dense matter. Results from the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) over the centre-of-mass energy range from 19.6 to 200 GeV indicate that the multiplicity of charged particles per colliding nucleon pair has a mild dependence on the collision centrality and that the pseudorapidity dependence of the charged particle yield near mid-rapidity is essentially centrality independent [@Alver:2010ck]. The weak variation of the multiplicity per colliding nucleon pair with centrality at RHIC was initially found to be inconsistent with models such as HIJING [@Wang:1991hta] which includes a mixture of soft and hard scattering processes with a $p_T$ cutoff on the hard scattering contribution at 2 GeV, or with a beam-energy-dependent cutoff in a more recent version [@Deng:2010mv]. In contrast, calculations based on parton saturation invoking factorization were able to reproduce both the shape and centrality dependence of the RHIC charged particle pseudorapidity distributions [@ALbacete:2010ad; @Levin:2010dw]. However, more recent theoretical studies indicate that factorization may not be applicable to nucleus-nucleus collisions, and improved soft$+$hard models may be able to describe RHIC multiplicity measurements. At the same time, older hydrodynamical models (e.g. Ref [@Carruthers:1973ws]) have had some success describing the energy dependence of the total multiplicity as well as rapidity distributions of identified hadrons, although their domain of applicability is still not fully established.
Detailed measurements of the centrality dependence of charged particle multiplicities and pseudorapidity distributions at the LHC together with the earlier RHIC measurements could provide essential insight on the physics responsible for bulk particle production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions. Because hard scattering rates increase rapidly with centrality and ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}$, the combined RHIC and LHC measurements should provide a strong constraint on the contribution of hard scattering processes to inclusive hadron production subject to uncertainties regarding the shadowing of nuclear parton distributions at low $x$. Measurements at the LHC can also provide a valuable test of recent parton saturation calculations that still claim to be able to describe inclusive particle production in ultra-relativistic nuclear collisions [@ALbacete:2010ad; @Levin:2010dw]. Previous measurements at the LHC [@Collaboration:2010cz; @CMS:2011mult] have already started addressing some of the physics raised above. In particular, those earlier measurements found a rapid rise in the particle multiplicity at the LHC compared to naive extrapolations of RHIC measurements and a variation of mid-rapidity charged particle multiplicity with centrality similar to that observed at RHIC.
This paper presents the results of ATLAS [@AtlasDetector] measurements of the per-event charged particle pseudorapidity distribution, , in ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}= 2.76$ TeV collisions over $|\eta| < 2$ and as a function of collision centrality with the goal of testing and extending the results of the previous LHC measurements. In this paper, ${\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}$ denotes the per-event number of charged primary particles measured in an interval of $\eta$, which is the particle pseudorapidity [^1]. The measurement was performed with the solenoid off, thereby allowing detection of charged particles down to very low transverse momenta ($\pt \sim 30$ MeV).
Experimental setup and event selection
======================================
The measurements presented here were obtained using the ATLAS inner detector [@atlasdetector] which contains both silicon pixel and silicon strip detectors and the ATLAS forward calorimeters. The charged particle multiplicity is measured using the pixel detector [@pixel] which consists of three layers of pixel staves in the barrel region, inclined at an angle of $20^\circ$, at radii of 50.5, 88.5, and 122.5 mm from the nominal beam axis. The typical pixel size is $50~{\rm \mu m} \times
400~{\rm \mu m} $ in $\phi-z$, and an average occupancy of about $
0.5$% is observed for the innermost pixel layer in central collisions. To limit low- multiple scattering losses in detector material, the measurement has been restricted to the barrel portion of the pixel detector, corresponding to pseudorapidity values in the range $|\eta|<2$. Collision vertex positions were obtained by full reconstruction of nominally straight charged particle trajectories in the pixel and silicon strip detectors followed by reconstruction of a single collision vertex from the full set of particle trajectories. To maintain uniform acceptance of the pixel detector for the multiplicity measurement the vertex was required to lie within 50 mm of the nominal centre of the ATLAS detector in the longitudinal direction.
The data for the measurements presented here were collected with a minimum-bias trigger. This required a coincidence in either the two minimum-bias trigger scintillator (MBTS) detectors, located at $\pm
3.56~$m from the interaction centre and covering $2.1 < |\eta| < 3.9$, or two zero-degree calorimeters (ZDCs), located at $\pm 140~$m from the interaction centre and covering $|\eta|>8.3$. The threshold on the analog energy sum in each ZDC was set below the single neutron peak. The offline analysis required the time difference between the two MBTS detectors to be $|\Delta t|<3$ ns to eliminate upstream beam-gas interactions, a ZDC coincidence to efficiently reject photo-nuclear events [@Djuvsland:2010qs], and a reconstructed vertex satisfying the selection described above. The measurements presented in this paper were obtained from a 10 hour data-taking run corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately $480~{\rm
mb^{-1}}$. A total of 1631525 events passed the trigger, vertex, and offline selections.
Centrality
==========
In heavy ion collisions, “centrality” reflects the overlap volume of the two colliding nuclei, controlled by the classical impact parameter. That overlap volume is closely related to the number of “participants”, the nucleons which scatter inelastically in each nuclear collision. While the number of participants, $N_{\mathrm{part}}$, cannot be measured for a single collision, previous studies at RHIC and the SPS have demonstrated that the multiplicity and transverse energy of the produced particles are strongly correlated with $N_{\mathrm{part}}$. Because of this, the average number of participants can be accurately estimated from a selected fraction of the multiplicity or transverse energy distribution [@Miller:2007ri]. In ATLAS, the collision centrality is measured using the summed transverse energy () in the forward calorimeter (FCal) over the pseudorapidity range $3.2 <
|\eta| < 4.9$, calibrated at the electromagnetic energy scale. An analysis of the FCal distribution after application of all trigger and selection requirements gives an estimate of the fraction of the sampled non-Coulomb inelastic cross section of $f = 98 \pm 2\%$. This estimate was derived from comparisons of the measured FCal distribution with a simulated distribution. The simulated distribution was obtained from a convolution of $\sqrt{s}=2.76$ TeV proton-proton data with a Monte Carlo (MC) Glauber calculation [@Miller:2007ri; @Alver:2008aq] of the number of effective nucleon-nucleon collisions. This quantity was calculated as a linear combination of the number of participants and the number of binary collisions, similar to what was done in a previous analysis [@:2010px]. The value of $f$ and its uncertainty was estimated by systematically varying the effect of trigger and event selection inefficiencies as well as backgrounds in the most peripheral ${\mbox{$\Sigma E_{\mathrm{T}}$}}$ interval. This was done by artificially injecting and removing counts in that interval in order to achieve the best agreement between the measured and simulated distributions. The estimate of $f$ was made after removal of a 1% background contamination in the most peripheral events that was evaluated using comparisons of solenoid magnet-on and solenoid magnet-off data and which was attributed to photo-nuclear events.
For the results presented in this paper, the minimum-bias FCal distribution was divided into centrality intervals according to the following percentiles: 10% intervals over 0-80%, 5% intervals over $20-80\%$ and 2% intervals over $0-20\%$. By convention, the 0-10% centrality interval refers to the 10% most central events – the events with the highest values – and increasing percentiles refer to events with successively lower ${\mbox{$\Sigma E_{\mathrm{T}}$}}$. The average number of participants, ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}$, was evaluated for each of the experimental centrality intervals by dividing the Glauber model distribution into the same percentile centrality intervals used for the data and evaluating the average number of participants of the Glauber MC events contributing to a given interval. This procedure incorporates more realistic fluctuations into the estimation of ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}$ than would be achieved by binning in either $N_{\mathrm{part}}$ itself or in the classical impact parameter. The systematic errors on ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}$ were evaluated from the quoted uncertainty on $f$ and the known uncertainties in the nuclear density parameters as well as the assumed total inelastic nucleon-nucleon cross section of $\sigma_{\mathrm{NN}} = 64\pm 5$ mb [@Nakamura:2010zzi].
Reconstruction of charged particle multiplicity
===============================================
In the offline analysis, adjacent hits in the pixel modules were grouped into clusters using standard techniques. Two methods were, then, used to reconstruct charged particles from the pixel clusters. In one method, a Kalman Filter-based tracking algorithm, similar to that deployed in proton-proton collisions [@Newtracking1], was applied only to the pixel layers (“pixel tracks”). The other method, the “two-point tracklet” algorithm, used the reconstructed primary vertex and clusters on the first pixel layer to define a search region for clusters in the second layer consistent with a nominally straight track. Candidate tracklets were required to have deviations between projected and measured cluster positions in the second pixel layer in pseudorapidity and azimuth, $\Delta \eta$ and $\Delta
\phi$, respectively, satisfying $$\Delta {\mathcal R} \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{\left(\frac{\Delta \eta}{\sigma_\eta(\eta)}\right)^2 +
\left(\frac{\Delta \phi}{\sigma_\phi(\eta)}\right)^2} < 3.
\label{eq:trackletcuts}$$ The widths of the $\Delta \eta$ and $\Delta \phi$ distributions characterized by the pseudorapidity-dependent resolutions $\sigma_\eta(\eta)$ and $\sigma_\phi(\eta)$ were obtained from the MC simulations described below. The $\eta$ and $\phi$ values of the reconstructed tracklets were determined using the cluster position on the first layer and the primary vertex position. The two-point tracklet analysis excluded clusters with low energy deposits inconsistent with minimum-ionizing particles originating at the primary vertex. It also excluded duplicate clusters resulting from the overlap of the pixel modules in $\phi$ and from a small set of pixels at the centres of the pixel modules that share readout channels [@pixel].
The high charged particle multiplicity in collisions can generate misidentified tracks and/or two-point tracklets when only two or three measurements are made on each trajectory. The misidentified contributions have been evaluated using the MC studies described below, but to check the MC results, an independent, data-driven estimate of misidentified two-point tracklets was obtained using a variant of the two-point tracklet algorithm. In the default two-point tracklet analysis, referred to as “Method 1”, at most one tracklet was reconstructed for a given cluster on the first pixel layer. If multiple clusters on the second pixel layer fell within the search region defined in Equation \[eq:trackletcuts\], the closest cluster to the projected position was chosen. This method limits, but does not eliminate, the generation of misidentified tracklets. A second implementation of the two-point tracklet algorithm, referred to as “Method 2”, produced tracklets for all combinations of clusters on the two layers consistent with the search region. Using Method 2, the rate of false tracklets resulting from random combinations of clusters was estimated by performing the same analysis but with the clusters on the second layer having their $z$ positions inverted around the primary vertex and their azimuthal angles inverted, $\phi \rightarrow \pi-\phi$. The tracklet yield from this “flipped” analysis was then subtracted from the proper tracklet yield event-by-event to obtain the estimated yield of true tracklets, $${N_{\mathrm{2p}}}(\eta) = {N_{\mathrm{2p}}}^{\mathrm{ev}}(\eta) - {N_{\mathrm{2p}}}^{\mathrm{fl}} (\eta),
\label{eq:flipsub}$$ where $ {N_{\mathrm{2p}}}^{\mathrm{ev}}$ represents the yield of two-point tracklets using Method 2 and ${N_{\mathrm{2p}}}^{\mathrm{fl}}$ represents the yield obtained by flipping the clusters in the second pixel layer. For the 0-10$\%$ centrality interval, the flipped yield is about 50$\%$ of the unflipped yield in the $|\eta|<0.5$ region.
The response of the detector to the charged particles produced in collisions and the performance of the track and tracklet methods was evaluated by MC simulations of collisions using the HIJING [@Wang:1991hta] event generator followed by GEANT4 [@Agostinelli:2002hh] simulations of the detector response [@ATLASSim]. The resulting events were then reconstructed and analyzed using the full offline analysis chain that was applied to the experimental data. HIJING events were generated without jet quenching and with an unbiased impact parameter distribution. Impact parameter and -dependent elliptic flow was imposed on the HIJING events after generation and prior to simulation. The GEANT4 detector geometry included a distribution of disabled pixel modules matching that in the experiment. The MC events were used to derive correction factors from reconstructed pixel tracks and two-point tracklets to the primary HIJING particles. Primary particles were defined to be either particles originating directly from the collision or particles resulting from secondary decays of HIJING produced particles with lifetimes $c\tau < 1$ cm.
From the MC simulated events, correction factors accounting for particle detection efficiency, misidentified tracks or tracklets from unrelated clusters, and extra tracks or tracklets from secondary decays or from interactions in the detector were calculated. The correction factors were evaluated in 20 intervals of detector occupancy () parameterized using the number of reconstructed clusters in the first pixel layer in the region $|\eta| < 1$. Different corrections were applied to the pixel track and both two-point tracklet measurements. For the pixel tracks, the efficiency, $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pt}}$, for reconstructing tracks associated with charged primary particles was obtained from $$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta) \equiv \frac{N^{\mathrm{match}}_{\mathrm{pr}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}},
\eta)}{N_{\mathrm{pr}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)},
\label{eq:pixtrkeffic}$$ where $N_{\mathrm{pr}}$ represents the number of charged primary particles produced by HIJING within a given $\eta$ interval, and $N^{\mathrm{match}}_{\mathrm{pr}}$ represents the portion of those primary particles matched to reconstructed pixel tracks. The contributions to the number of reconstructed pixel tracks ($N_{\mathrm{pt}}$) from “background” sources were separately evaluated to produce a “background” fraction $$b_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta) \equiv \frac{N^{\mathrm{backg}}_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)}{N_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}},
\eta)},$$ where $N^{\mathrm{backg}}_{\mathrm{pt}}$ represents the number of tracklets from secondary interactions and decays, from particles initially produced outside the kinematic acceptance of the measurement but scattering into it, and from combinations of clusters not associated with any primary or secondary particle in the GEANT4 simulation. This factor was combined with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)$ to produce a correction factor $$C_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta) \equiv \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)} \left(1 - b_{\mathrm{pt}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta) \right).
\label{eq:pixtrktrkcorr}$$ For the 0-10$\%$ centrality interval, $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{pt}}$ is about 0.55 and $b_{\mathrm{pt}}$ is about 0.02 in the mid-rapidity region, giving a $C_{\mathrm{pt}}$ of about 1.8.
![Tracklet candidate $\Delta\eta$ (left) and $\Delta\phi$ (right) distributions from data (histogram) and reweighted MC (shaded region) for collisions at ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}=2.76$ TeV. The top panels correspond to $|\eta|<1$ and the bottom panels correspond to $1<|\eta|<2$. Data and MC distributions are normalized to the same area. []{data-label="fig:detadphi"}](paper_detadphi_v7){width="80.00000%"}
For the two-point tracklet methods, a single multiplicative correction factor was obtained from the MC simulations, $$C_{\mathrm{2p}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta) \equiv \frac{N_{\mathrm{pr}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)}{{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{2p}}$}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)},
\label{eq:twopttrkcorr}$$ where ${\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{2p}}$}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)$ represents reconstructed tracklets. For the two-point tracklet Method 2, $N_{\mathrm{2p}}({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)$ was obtained from the MC events via Eq. \[eq:flipsub\] using the same flipping procedure as that applied in the data. For the 0-10$\%$ centrality interval, the correction factor is about 1.05 for Method 1 and 1.25 for Method 2 in the mid-rapidity region.
The charged particle spectrum measured at ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}=
2.76$ TeV [@Aamodt:2010jd] differs from the spectrum generated by HIJING at low and high , with the generator exceeding the data by 20% at $\pT=500$ MeV, and underpredicting the charged particle yield by a factor of about two at $\pT=1.5$ GeV. Because the MC corrections are applied to the data in matching intervals, the mismatch in the spectrum does not influence the corrections for misidentified tracks or occupancy-induced inefficiencies. However, if left uncorrected the mismatch could distort the -weighted single track or tracklet efficiencies in the calculated correction factors. To avoid this distortion a -dependent weight was applied to the generated particles and to tracklets or tracks that match generated particles in Eqs. \[eq:pixtrkeffic\]-\[eq:twopttrkcorr\]. The -dependent weights were obtained using an iterative procedure that, in each analyzed centrality interval, optimally matched the spectrum of pixel tracks in data with the solenoid magnet turned-on to the reweighted spectrum produced from a separate sample of HIJING+GEANT4 simulations also performed with the solenoid turned-on. Distributions of $\Delta
\eta$ and $\Delta \phi$ for candidate tracklets are shown in Fig. \[fig:detadphi\] for two different pseudorapidity intervals, $|\eta| < 1$ and $1 < |\eta| < 2$. The corresponding distributions for the reweighted HIJING+GEANT4 events are also shown in the figure and compare well with the data. The maximum difference between data and MC is less than 5$\%$. It should be noted that the $\sigma_\eta(\eta)$ and $\sigma_\phi(\eta)$ mentioned above are evaluated using the unreweighted MC, but they are applied consistently to data and reweighted MC when calculating all $\eta$-dependent corrections.
![[**Left:**]{} Top: uncorrected track/tracklet $dN_{\mathrm{raw}}/d\eta$ distribution from tracklet Method 1 (points), tracklet Method 2 (squares) and pixel tracking (blue triangles) for 0-10$\%$ centrality events. Middle: corrected tracklet and track distributions. Bottom: ratio of from the tracklet Method 2 (squares) and pixel tracking (triangles) to tracklet Method 1. [**Right:**]{} distributions from tracklet Method 1 for eight 10% centrality intervals. The statistical errors are shown as bars and the systematic errors are shown as shaded bands. []{data-label="fig:dndeta"}](paper_dndeta_v12){width="100.00000%"}
Uncorrected pixel track and two-point tracklet pseudorapidity distributions for 0-10% centrality collisions are shown in the top left panel of Fig. \[fig:dndeta\]. The corrections described above are applied to obtain corrected, per-event primary charged particle pseudorapidity distributions, averaged over the events in each centrality bin ($c$), according to $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \frac{d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}}{d\eta}\right|_c =
\frac{1}{{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{evt}}$}}}\sum_{\mathrm{events},c} \frac{ \Delta {\mbox{$N^{\mathrm{raw}}$}}}{\Delta \eta} C({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta {\mbox{$N^{\mathrm{raw}}$}}$ indicates either the number of reconstructed pixel tracklets or two-point tracklets and $C({\mbox{$\mathcal{O}$}}, \eta)$ indicates the $\eta$-dependent correction factors corresponding to the occupancy bin for each event. The corrected distributions for the 0-10% centrality interval are shown in the middle left panel of Fig. \[fig:dndeta\]. The bottom left panel of Fig. \[fig:dndeta\] shows the ratio of the pixel tracking and two-point tracklet Method 2 results to the two-point tracklet Method 1 results. In spite of the factor of $\sim$2 differences between the raw yields for the three reconstruction methods, the corrected pseudorapidity distributions for central collisions agree within 5%. The measurements presented in the remainder of this paper were obtained from tracklet Method 1, which has the highest reconstruction efficiency, only a moderate contribution of misidentified tracklets, and the smallest correction factors. The resulting corrected distributions are shown for 8 centrality intervals in the right-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:dndeta\].
Systematic uncertainties
========================
Various studies were performed to quantify the experimental uncertainties on the measurement. To address inaccuracies in the MC description of bad channels, disabled sensors, or other small instrumental problems, a comparison was made of unit-normalized $\eta$ and $\phi$ distributions of clusters in each of the first two pixel layers between data and MC. The agreement between the $\eta$ and $\phi$ distributions was found to be better than 0.05% and 0.4% in the first and second layers, respectively. Therefore, a combined systematic uncertainty of 0.4% is assigned to account for potential MC inaccuracies. To evaluate the impact of inaccuracies in the description of the detector material in the GEANT4 simulation, a separate set of HIJING+GEANT4 simulations was performed with an artificial 10% increase in detector material and a 15-20% increase in material in various non-instrumented regions. The results obtained using correction factors from this “extra material” sample agree with those obtained using the default corrections to better than 2%. Furthermore, the analysis was repeated using a different selection (see Eq. \[eq:trackletcuts\]), ${\mbox{$\Delta {\mathcal R}$}}< 1.5$, which should have a different sensitivity to multiple scattering, secondaries, and occupancy effects. The corrections for the ${\mbox{$\Delta {\mathcal R}$}}< 1.5$ selection differ from those of the default analysis in central (0-10%) collisions by 10% at $\eta = 0$ and 20% at $\eta = 2$. However, the corrected pseudorapidity distributions agree to 1% in all centrality intervals. To address differences between the HIJING description of particle production in collisions and reality, the analysis was performed without the spectrum re-weighting; the results agree with those obtained using the re-weighting within 0.5%. To address potential errors resulting from discrepancies in particle composition between data and MC, the changes in correction factors that would result from enhanced charged kaon and proton production as observed at RHIC [@Adler:2003cb] have been evaluated. From the impact of the modified corrections on the final result, a 1% systematic uncertainty due to incomplete knowledge of the hadron composition is assigned. To further test the sensitivity of the results to the use of the HIJING generator, a set of MC simulations using the HYDJET event generator [@HYDJET] was produced, and a separate set of correction factors was obtained from this MC sample. HYDJET has a more complete description of soft particle production than HIJING, including a description of elliptic flow, and the version used here was tuned to have much lower multiplicities than found in HIJING. In central collisions, the results obtained using the HYDJET-based corrections agree with the HIJING-based results to better than 0.5% at mid-rapidity, but differ by as much as 7.5% at $\eta = \pm 2$. A centrality-dependent and $\eta$-dependent systematic error is assigned to account for this difference. To address the inaccuracies from the analysis procedure, a systematic uncertainty is assigned based on the differences between the results obtained from the three reconstruction methods described in this paper. That uncertainty is centrality-dependent and maximal for the 0-10% centrality interval for which a 3.5% uncertainty on the overall scale of the pseudorapidity distribution is assigned based on the comparison of the three results in the left, bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:dndeta\]. The systematic uncertainties described above are summarized in Table \[tbl:systerr\] for the most central (0-10%) and the most peripheral (70-80%) intervals. The total systematic uncertainties are shown as shaded bands in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:dndeta\].
Source Uncertainty (0-10%) (70-80%)
-------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------
MC detector description 0.4% 0.4%
Extra material 2% 2%
${\mbox{$\Delta {\mathcal R}$}}$ cut 1% 1%
re-weighting 0.5% 0.5%
Hadron composition 1% 1%
Enhanced $K_s$, $\Lambda$ 1% 1%
HYDJET 0.5-7.5% vs. $\eta$ 0%
Analysis Method 3.5% 1%
Combined ($\eta = 0$) 4% 3%
Combined ($\eta = 2$) 8.5% 3%
: Summary of the various sources of systematic uncertainties and their estimated impact on the measurement in central (0-10%) and peripheral (70-80%) collisions. Only the uncertainty due to the choice of the event generator is $\eta$-dependent. []{data-label="tbl:systerr"}
Results
=======
The measured charged particle shown in Fig. \[fig:dndeta\], increases rapidly with collision centrality for all $\eta$. It is conventional to characterize particle production in nucleus-nucleus collisions by the mid-rapidity , , which here is defined to be averaged over $|\eta|<0.5$. The analysis presented in this paper yields values in central collisions of $1479 \pm 10 {\rm
({\rm stat.})} \pm 63 ({\rm syst.})$, $1598 \pm 11 {\rm
({\rm stat.})} \pm 68 ({\rm syst.})$, and $1738 \pm 12 {\rm (stat.)} \pm 75
({\rm syst.})$ for the 0-10%, 0-6%, and 0-2% centrality intervals, respectively. Table \[table:npart\] provides results of the measurements for all centrality bins.
The top panel of Fig. \[fig:physplot\] compares the ATLAS measurement to the previously reported ALICE [@Collaboration:2010cz] and CMS [@CMS:2011mult] results for $|\eta|<0.5$ for the 0-5% centrality interval in terms of per colliding nucleon pair, ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$, and to other measurements at different (see [@Alver:2010ck], which includes data from Refs.[@468861]-[@644319]). The ALICE and CMS 0-5% centrality measurements agree with the result reported here for the 0-6% centrality interval, $8.5 \pm 0.1 {\rm (stat.)} \pm 0.4 (\rm syst.)$, within the quoted errors. The LHC results show that the multiplicity in central collisions rises rapidly with above the RHIC top energy of =200 GeV. The three curves shown in Fig. \[fig:physplot\] indicate possible variations of ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ with . The dotted curve describes a dependence expected from Landau hydrodynamics [@Carruthers:1973ws]. It is clearly inconsistent with the data. The dot-dashed curve represents a logarithmic extrapolation of RHIC and SPS data [@Busza:2007ke] that is also excluded by the measurement presented in this paper and by the ALICE and CMS measurements. The dashed curve shows an $s^{0.15}$ dependence suggested by ALICE [@Collaboration:2010cz] that is consistent with the ATLAS measurement. Also shown in the top panel in Fig. \[fig:physplot\] are results from and measurements at different $\sqrt{s}$ ([@Alver:2010ck] and references therein, as well as [@:2010ir]-[@:2009dt]). The excess of ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ in collisions over collisions observed at RHIC persists and is proportionately larger at the higher values of the LHC.
![ [**Top:**]{} dependence of the charged particle per colliding nucleon pair ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ from a variety of measurements in and (inelastic and non-single diffractive results from [@Alver:2010ck] and references therein, as well as [@:2010ir]-[@:2009dt]) and central collisions, including the ATLAS 0-6% centrality measurement reported here for $|\eta|<0.5$ and the previous 0-5% centrality ALICE [@Collaboration:2010cz] and CMS [@CMS:2011mult] measurements (points shifted horizontally for clarity). The curves show different expectations for the dependence in collisions: results of a Landau hydrodynamics calculation [@Carruthers:1973ws] (dotted line) , an $s^{0.15}$ extrapolation of RHIC and SPS data proposed by ALICE [@Collaboration:2010cz] (dashed line), a logarithmic extrapolation of RHIC and SPS data from [@Busza:2007ke] (solid line). [**Bottom:**]{} ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ vs for 2% centrality intervals over 0-20% and 5% centrality intervals over 20-80%. Error bars represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties on the measurements, whereas the shaded band indicates the total systematic uncertainty including uncertainties. The RHIC measurements (see text) have been multiplied by 2.15 to allow comparison with the ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}= 2.76$ results. The inset shows the $\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle<60$ region in more detail. []{data-label="fig:physplot"}](paper_dndetaNpart_v25){width="95.00000%"}
Centrality $<N_{part}>$ ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/{\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2$
------------ ---------------- --------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-2$\%$ 396 $\pm$ 2 1738 $\pm$ 76 8.8 $\pm$ 0.4
2-4$\%$ 378 $\pm$ 2 1591 $\pm$ 67 8.4 $\pm$ 0.4
4-6$\%$ 356 $\pm$ 3 1467 $\pm$ 63 8.2 $\pm$ 0.4
6-8$\%$ 335 $\pm$ 3 1350 $\pm$ 57 8.1 $\pm$ 0.4
8-10$\%$ 315 $\pm$ 3 1250 $\pm$ 53 8.0 $\pm$ 0.3
10-12$\%$ 296 $\pm$ 3 1159 $\pm$ 48 7.8 $\pm$ 0.3
12-14$\%$ 277 $\pm$ 4 1074 $\pm$ 44 7.8 $\pm$ 0.3
14-16$\%$ 260 $\pm$ 4 996 $\pm$ 41 7.7 $\pm$ 0.3
16-18$\%$ 243 $\pm$ 4 918 $\pm$ 37 7.6 $\pm$ 0.3
18-20$\%$ 228 $\pm$ 4 849 $\pm$ 34 7.5 $\pm$ 0.3
20-25$\%$ 203 $\pm$ 4 739 $\pm$ 29 7.3 $\pm$ 0.3
25-30$\%$ 170 $\pm$ 4 603 $\pm$ 24 7.1 $\pm$ 0.3
30-35$\%$ 142 $\pm$ 4 486 $\pm$ 19 6.9 $\pm$ 0.3
35-40$\%$ 117 $\pm$ 4 387 $\pm$ 15 6.6 $\pm$ 0.3
40-45$\%$ 95.0 $\pm$ 3.7 303 $\pm$ 11 6.4 $\pm$ 0.3
45-50$\%$ 76.1 $\pm$ 3.5 233 $\pm$ 9 6.1 $\pm$ 0.4
50-55$\%$ 59.9 $\pm$ 3.3 176 $\pm$ 6 5.9 $\pm$ 0.4
55-60$\%$ 46.1 $\pm$ 3.0 129 $\pm$ 5 5.7 $\pm$ 0.4
60-65$\%$ 34.7 $\pm$ 2.7 93 $\pm$ 3 5.3 $\pm$ 0.5
65-70$\%$ 25.4 $\pm$ 2.3 65 $\pm$ 2 5.1 $\pm$ 0.5
70-75$\%$ 18.0 $\pm$ 2.0 43 $\pm$ 2 4.8 $\pm$ 0.6
75-80$\%$ 12.3 $\pm$ 1.6 28 $\pm$ 1 4.6 $\pm$ 0.6
: Tabulation of measurements of evaluated over $|\eta|
< 0.5$ and ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ for the full set of centrality bins considered in the analysis and shown in Fig. \[fig:physplot\]. The uncertainties on include statistical and systematic errors on the multiplicity measurement. The errors reported for ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ also include systematic uncertainties on the centrality selection and determination. []{data-label="table:npart"}
The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:physplot\] shows ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ as a function of for 2% centrality intervals over 0-20%, and 5% centrality intervals over 20-80%. The values are also reported in Table \[table:npart\]. A moderate variation of ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta$}}|_{\eta = 0}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ with is observed, from a value of $4.6 \pm 0.1 ({\rm stat.}) \pm 0.6 ({\rm syst.})$ at ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}= 12.3$ (centrality 75-80%) to $8.8 \pm 0.1 ({\rm stat.}) \pm 0.4 ({\rm syst.})$ at ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}= 396$ (centrality 0-2%). The increase of ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta|_{\eta=0}$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ with ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}$ is monotonic up to the most central interval (0-2%). This demonstrates that, even for the most central collisions, variations in centrality – as characterized by transverse energy depositions well outside the acceptance used for the multiplicity measurement – yield significant changes in the measured final state multiplicity.
The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:physplot\] also shows ALICE and CMS measurements of as a function of that agree with the results presented here for all centrality intervals. Also shown are results from collisions at ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}= 200$ GeV obtained from an average of measurements from the four RHIC collaborations [@Adler:2004zn]-[@Adams:2004cb]. Similar to the approach used in Ref. [@Collaboration:2010cz], the 200 GeV results have been scaled by a factor of $2.15$ to allow comparison with the ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}= 2.76$ data. This factor was obtained by matching the most central 200 GeV measurement at $\eta = 0$ to the measurement from this paper at $\eta = 0$ in the 2-4% centrality interval, the interval that has the closest value of to the most central 200 GeV measurement. After re-scaling, the trend of the 200 GeV data is in good agreement with the 2.76 TeV measurements for all reported centrality intervals. Similar observations have been made previously in comparisons of top energy RHIC data to much lower energies [@Alver:2010ck]. Therefore, this scaling behavior appears to be a robust feature of particle production in heavy ion collisions.
To evaluate the shapes of the measured charged particle distributions Fig. \[fig:ratio\] (top) shows the distribution divided by for the 70-80% centrality interval. For this centrality interval, the increases by 7% $\pm$ 1% from $\eta = 0$ to $|\eta| > 1$. The bottom panel shows ratios of for several other 10% centrality intervals to the same quantity in the 70-80% interval. No significant variation of the shape of with centrality is observed within the systematic uncertainties.
![[**Top:**]{} distributions from tracklet Method 1, scaled by , as a function of the pseudorapidity for the 70-80% centrality interval. The statistical errors are shown as error bars. [**Bottom:**]{} Ratio of ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta$}}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ measured in different centrality intervals: 0-10% (squares), 20-30% (triangles), 40-50% (inverted triangles) and 60-70% (crosses) to that measured in peripheral collisions (70-80%). Statistical uncertainties are shown as bars while $\eta$-dependent systematic uncertainties are shown as shaded bands. []{data-label="fig:ratio"}](auxi_dndEtaRatio_errorBand_v8){width="100.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
This paper presents results on the measurement of charged particle pseudorapidity distributions over $|\eta| <2$ as a function of collision centrality in a sample of ${\mbox{$\sqrt{s_{_\mathrm{NN}}}$}}= 2.76$ TeV lead-lead collisions recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Three different analysis methods are used, based on the pixel detector and using events with the solenoid magnet turned off in order to measure particles with transverse momenta as low as 30 MeV. The charged particle mid-rapidity , normalized by ${\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2$, is found to increase significantly with beam energy by about a factor of two relative to earlier RHIC data, and is substantially larger than ${\mbox{p+p}}$ data at the same energy. The relative centrality dependence of ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta$}}|_{\eta = 0}/({\mbox{$\langle N_{\mathrm{part}} \rangle$}}/2)$ agrees well with that observed at RHIC. These results agree well with previous mid-rapidity measurements from ALICE and CMS. Furthermore, the peripheral (70-80%) ${\mbox{$d{\mbox{$N_{\mathrm{ch}}$}}/d\eta$}}$ distribution shows a significant rise with increasing $|\eta|$ away from $\eta =
0$. No variation of the shape of the distribution with centrality outside the reported systematic uncertainties is observed.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
\[app:ATLASColl\]
[^1]: ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the $z$-axis along the beam pipe. The $x$-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the $y$ axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates $(r,\phi)$ are used in the transverse plane, $\phi$ being the azimuthal angle around the beam pipe. The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle $\theta$ as $\eta=-\ln\tan(\theta/2)$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We obtain possibly valuable information about the orientation-tuning of phase diagram of superdense nuclear matter at high fermion as well as boson number density but low temperature, which is not accessible to relativistic heavy ion collision experiments. Our results resemble those proposed before by Alford. Possible observational signatures associated with the theoretically proposed states of matter inside compact stars are discussed as well.'
author:
- 'Kwang-Hua W. Chu'
title: Possible Orientation Effects to Phase Diagram of Strange Matter
---
Introduction
============
The only place in the universe where we expect sufficiently high densities and low temperatures is compact stars, also known as ’neutron stars’, since it is often assumed that they are made primarily of neutrons (for a recent review, see \[1\]). A compact star is produced in a supernova. As the outer layers of the star are blown off into space, the core collapses into a very dense object. In a broader perspective, neutron stars and heavy-ion collisions provide access to the phase diagram of matter at extreme densities and temperatures, which is basic for understanding the very early Universe and several other astrophysical phenomena. These range from nuclear processes on the stellar surface to processes in electron degenerate matter at subnuclear densities to boson condensates and the existence of new states of baryonic matter〞 such as color superconducting quark matter at supernuclear densities. More than that, according to the strange matter hypothesis strange quark matter could be more stable than nuclear matter, in which case neutron stars should be largely composed of pure quark matter possibly enveloped in thin nuclear crusts. Neutron stars and white dwarfs are in hydrostatic equilibrium, so at each point inside the star gravity is balanced by the degenerate particle pressure, as described mathematically by the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equation \[2\].It is often stressed that there has never been a more exciting time in the overlapping areas of nuclear physics, particle physics, and relativistic astrophysics than today \[3\]. Neutron stars are dense, neutron-packed remnants of massive stars that blew apart in supernova explosions \[1\]. They are typically about twenty kilometers across and spin rapidly, often making several hundred rotations per second. Many neutron stars form radio pulsars, emitting radio waves that appear from the Earth to pulse on and off like a lighthouse beacon as the star rotates at very high speeds. Depending on star mass and rotational frequency, gravity compresses the matter in the core regions of pulsars up to more than ten times the density of ordinary atomic nuclei, thus providing a high pressure environment in which numerous subatomic particle processes compete with each other.The most spectacular ones stretch from the generation of hyperons and baryon resonances to quark deconfinement to the formation of boson condensates. There are theoretical suggestions of even more exotic processes inside neutron stars, such as the formation of absolutely stable strange quark matter, a configuration of matter more stable than the most stable atomic nucleus, $^{62}$Ni. Instead these objects should be named nucleon stars, since relatively isospin symmetric nuclear matter-in equilibrium with condensed $K^-$ mesons-may prevail in their interiors \[3\], hyperon stars if hyperons ($\Sigma$,$\Lambda$,$\Xi$, possibly in equilibrium with the $\Delta$ resonance) become populated in addition to the nucleons, quark hybrid stars if the highly compressed matter in the centers of neutron stars were to transform into u, d, s quark matter, or strange stars if strange quark matter were to be more stable than nuclear matter. Of course, at present one does not know from experiment at what density the expected phase transition to quark matter occurs. Neither do lattice Quantum ChromoDynamical (QCD) simulations provide a conclusive guide yet. From simple geometrical considerations it follows that, for a characteristic nucleon radius of $r_N
\sim 1$fm, nuclei begin to touch each other at densities of $\sim (4 \pi r^3_N/3))^{-1}
\approx 0.24$ fm$^3$, which is less than twice the baryon number density of ordinary nuclear matter, $\rho_0 = 0.16$ fm$^3$ (energy density $\epsilon_0 = 140$ MeV/fm$^3$). Depending on the rotational frequency and stellar mass, such densities are easily surpassed in the cores of neutron stars so gravity may have broken up the neutrons (n) and protons (p) in the centers of neutron stars into their constituents. The phase diagram of quark matter, expected to be in a color superconducting phase, is very complex \[3-5\]. At asymptotic densities the ground state of QCD with a vanishing strange quark mass is the color-flavor locked (CFL) phase. This phase is electrically charge neutral without any need for electrons for a significant range of chemical potentials and strange quark masses.Quite recently McLaughlin [*et al.*]{} \[6\] searched for radio sources that vary on much shorter timescales. They found eleven objects characterized by single, dispersed bursts having durations between 2 and 30 ms. The average time intervals between bursts range from 4 min to 3 h with radio emission typically detectable for $<1$ s per day. From an analysis of the burst arrival times, they have identified periodicities in the range 0.4-7 s for ten of the eleven sources, suggesting origins in rotating neutron stars. Meanwhile as all pulsars from which giant pulses have been detected appear to have high values of magnetic field strength at their light cylinder radii \[7\]. While the Crab pulsar has a magnetic field strength at the light cylinder of 9.3 $\times 10^5$ G \[6\], this value ranges from only 3 to 30G for these sources, suggesting that the bursts originate from a different emission mechanism. They therefore concluded that these sources represent a previously unknown population of bursting neutron stars, which they call rotating radio transients (RRATs). These interesting new observations make us to investigate the rotation (e.g., it is still controversial how much angular momentum the iron cores have before the onset of the gravitational-collapse) \[1,6\] as well as Pauli-blocking effects \[8\] in compact stars considering the phase diagram \[4\]. In present approach the [Ue]{}hling-Uhlenbeck collision term \[9-10\] which could describe the collision of a gas of dilute hard-sphere Fermi- or Bose-particles by tuning a parameter $\gamma$ : a Pauli-blocking factor (or $\gamma f$ with $f$ being a normalized (continuous) distribution function giving the number of particles per cell) is adopted together with a free-orientation $\theta$ (which is related to the relative direction of scattering of particles w.r.t. to the normal of the propagating plane-wave front) into the quantum discrete kinetic model \[10\] which can be used to obtain dispersion relations of plane (sound) waves propagating in different-statistic gases (of particles). We then study the critical behavior based on the acoustical analog \[11-12\] which has been verified before. The possible phase diagram (as the orientation is changed) we obtained resemble qualitatively those proposed before \[4\].
Theoretical Formulations
========================
The velocities of particles are restricted to, e.g., ${\bf
u}_1, {\bf u}_2, \cdots, {\bf u}_p$, $p$ is a finite positive integer. The discrete number densities of particles are denoted by $N_i ({\bf x},t)$ associated with the velocities ${\bf u}_i$ at point ${\bf x}$ and time $t$. If only nonlinear binary collisions and the evolution of $N_i$ are considered, we have $$\frac{\partial N_i}{\partial t}+ {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla N_i
= F_i \equiv \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j,k,l} (A^{ij}_{kl} N_k N_l - A_{ij}^{kl}
N_i N_j),
%\sum^p_{j=1} \sum_{(k,l)} (A^{ij}_{kl} N_k N_l - A^{kl}_{ij}
% N_i N_j),
\hspace*{3mm} i \in\Lambda =\{1,\cdots,p\},
% i=1,\cdots, p,$$ where $(i,j)$ and $(k,l)$ ($i\not=j$ or $k\not=l$) are admissible sets of collisions [@U:U]. Here, the summation is taken over all $j,k,l \in \Lambda$, where $A_{kl}^{ij}$ are nonnegative constants satisfying [@U:U] $ A_{kl}^{ji}=A_{kl}^{ij}=A_{lk}^{ij}$, $ A_{kl}^{ij} ({\bf u}_i +{\bf u}_j -{\bf u}_k -{\bf u}_l )=0$, and $A_{kl}^{ij}=A_{ij}^{kl}$. The conditions defined for the discrete velocities above require that there are elastic, binary collisions, such that momentum and energy are preserved, i.e., ${\bf u}_i +{\bf u}_j = {\bf u}_k +{\bf u}_l$, $|{\bf u}_i|^2 +|{\bf u}_j|^2 = |{\bf u}_k|^2 +|{\bf u}_l|^2$, are possible for $1\le i,j,k,l\le p$. We note that, the summation of $N_i$ ($\sum_i N_i$) : the total discrete number density here is related to the macroscopic density : $\rho \,(= m_p \sum_i N_i)$, where $m_p$ is the mass of the particle [@U:U]. Together with the introducing of the [U]{}ehling-Uhlenbeck collision term [@U:U] : $F_i$ $=\sum_{j,k,l} A^{ij}_{kl} \,[ N_k N_l$ $(1+\gamma N_i)(1+\gamma N_j)$ $-
N_i N_j (1+\gamma N_k)(1+\gamma N_l)]$, into equation (1), for $\gamma <0$ (normally, $\gamma=-1$), we can then obtain a quantum discrete kinetic equation for a gas of Fermi-particles; while for $\gamma
> 0$ (normally, $\gamma=1$) we obtain one for a gas of Bose-particles, and for $\gamma =0$ we recover the equation (1). Considering binary collisions only, from equation above, the model of quantum discrete kinetic equation for Fermi or Bose gases proposed before is then a system of $2n(=p)$ semilinear partial differential equations of the hyperbolic type : $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}N_i +{\bf v}_i \cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial
{\bf x}} N_i =\frac{c S}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{2n} N_j N_{j+n}(1+\gamma N_{j+1})
(1+\gamma N_{j+n+1})-$$ $$\hspace*{18mm} 2 c S N_i N_{i+n} (1+\gamma N_{i+1})(1+\gamma
N_{i+n+1}),\hspace*{24mm} i=1,\cdots, 2 n,$$ where $N_i=N_{i+2n}$ are unknown functions, and ${\bf v}_i$ =$ c
(\cos[\theta+(i-1) \pi/n], \sin[\theta+(i-1)\pi/n])$; $c$ is a reference velocity modulus and the same order of magnitude as that used in Ref. 10 ($c$, the sound speed in the absence of scatters), $\theta$ is the orientation starting from the positive $x-$axis to the $u_1$ direction, $S$ is an effective collision cross-section for the collision system. Since passage of the plane (sound wave) will cause a small departure from an equilibrium state and result in energy loss owing to internal friction and heat conduction, we linearize above equations around a uniform equilibrium state (particles’ number density : $N_0$) by setting $N_i (t,x)$ =$N_0$ $(1+P_i (t,x))$, where $P_i$ is a small perturbation. After some similar manipulations (please refer to Chu in \[12-13\]), with $B=\gamma N_0 <0$, which gives or defines the (proportional) contribution from the Fermi gases (if $\gamma < 0$, e.g., $\gamma=-1$) or the Bose gases ($B>0$, if $\gamma > 0$, e.g., $\gamma=1$), we then have $$[\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial t^2} +c^2
\cos^2[\theta+\frac{(m-1)\pi}{n}]
\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial x^2} +4 c S N_0 (1+B) \frac{\partial
}{\partial t}] D_m= \frac{4 c S N_0 (1+B)}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{\partial
}{\partial t} D_k ,$$ where $D_m =(P_m +P_{m+n})/2$, $m=1,\cdots,n$, since $D_1 =D_m$ for $1=m$ (mod $2 n)$. We are ready to look for the solutions in the form of plane wave $D_m$= $a_m$ exp $i (k x- \omega t)$, $(m=1,\cdots,n)$, with $\omega$=$\omega(k)$. This is related to the dispersion relations of 1D (forced) plane wave propagation in Fermi or Bose gases. So we have $$(1+i h (1+B)-2 \lambda^2 cos^2 [\theta+\frac{(m-1)\pi}{n}]) a_m -\frac{i h (1+B)}{n}
\sum_{k=1}^n a_k =0 , \hspace*{6mm} m=1,\cdots,n,$$ where $$\lambda=k c/(\sqrt{2}\omega), \hspace*{18mm} h=4 c S N_0 /\omega
\hspace*{6mm} \propto \hspace*{2mm} 1/K_n,$$ where $h$ is the rarefaction parameter of the gas; $K_n$ is the Knudsen number which is defined as the ratio of the mean free path of gases to the wave length of the plane (sound) wave.
Numerical Results and Discussions
=================================
We firstly introduce the concept of acoustical analog \[11-12\] in brief. In a mesoscopic system, where the sample size is smaller than the mean free path for an elastic scattering, it is satisfactory for a one-electron model to solve the time-independent Schrödinger equation : $-({\hbar^2}/{2m}) \nabla^2 \psi + V' (\vec{r}) \psi = E \psi$ or (after dividing by $-\hbar^2/2m$) $\nabla^2 \psi + [q^2 - V (\vec{r})] \psi = 0$, where $q$ is an (energy) eigenvalue parameter, which for the quantum-mechanic system is $\sqrt{2mE/\hbar^2}$. Meanwhile, the equation for classical (scalar) waves is $\nabla^2 \psi - ({\partial^2 \psi}/{c^2 \,\partial t^2})
=0$ or (after applying a Fourier transform in time and contriving a system where $c$ (the wave speed) varies with position $\vec{r}$) $\nabla^2 \psi + [q^2 - V (\vec{r})] \psi = 0$, here, the eigenvalue parameter $q$ is $\omega/c_0$, where $\omega$ is a natural frequency and $c_0$ is a reference wave speed. Comparing the time dependencies one gets the quantum and classical relation $E= \hbar \omega$. The localized state could thus be determined via $E$ or the rarefaction parameter ($h$) which is related to the ratio of the collision frequency and the wave frequency \[11-12\].The complex spectra ($\lambda=\lambda_r +$ i $\lambda_i$; the real part $\lambda_r = k_r c/(\sqrt{2}\omega)$: sound dispersion, a relative measure of the sound or phase speed; the imaginary part $\lambda_i = k_i c/(\sqrt{2}\omega)$ : sound attenuation or absorption) could be obtained from the complex polynomial equation above. Here, the Pauli-blocking parameter ($B$) could be related to the occupation number of different-statistic particles of gases \[10\]. To examine the critical region possibly tuned by the Pauli-blocking measure $B=\gamma N_0$ and the free orientation $\theta$, as evidenced from previous Boltzmann results \[12\] : $\lambda_i =0$ for cases of $\theta=\pi/4$ (or $B=-1$), we firstly check those spectra near $\theta=0$, say, $\theta=0.005$ and $\theta=\pi/4
\approx 0.7854$, say, $\theta=0.78535$ for a $B$-sweep ($B$ decreases from 1 to -1), respectively. Note that, as the free-orientation $\theta$ is not zero, there will be two kinds of propagation of the disturbance wave : sound and diffusion modes \[13-14\]. The latter (anomalous) mode has been reported in Boltzmann gases (cf. Ref. 12 by Chu) and is related to the propagation of entropy wave which is not used in the acoustical analog here. The absence of (further) diffusion (or maximum absorption) for the sound mode at certain state ($h$, corresponding to the inverse of energy $E$; cf. Chu in Ref. 12) is classified as a localized state (resonance occurs) based on the acoustical analog \[12\]. The state of decreasing $h$ might, in one case \[15\], correspond to that of $T$ (absolute temperature) decreasing as the mean free path is increasing (density or pressure decreasing). We have observed the max. $\lambda_i$ (absorption of sound mode, relevant to the localization length according to the acoustical analog \[12\]) drop to around four orders of magnitude from $\theta=0.005$ to $0.78535$ (please see Chu (2001) in \[12\])! This is a clear demonstration of the effect of free orientations. Meanwhile, once the Pauli-blocking measure ($B$) increases or decreases from zero (Boltzmann gases), the latter (Fermi gases : $B <0$) shows opposite trend compared to that of the former (Bose gases : $B>0$) considering the shift of the max. $\lambda_i$ state : $\delta h$. $\delta h >0$ is for Fermi gases ($|B|$ increasing), and the reverse ($\delta h <0$) is for Bose gases ($B$ increasing)! This illustrates partly the interaction effect (through the Pauli exclusion principle). These results will be crucial for further obtaining the phase diagram (as the density or temperature is changed) tuned by both the free orientation and the interaction. Here, $B=-1$ or $\theta=0, \pi/4$ might be fixed points. To check what happens when the temperature is decreased (or $h$ is decreased) to near $T=0$ or $T=T_c$, we collect all the data based on the acoustical analog from the dispersion relations (especially the absorption of sound mode) we calculated for ranges in different degrees of the orientation (here, $\theta$ is up to $\pi/4$ considering single-particle scattering and binary collisions; in fact, effects of $\theta$ are symmetric w.r.t. $\theta=\pi/4$ for $0\le\theta\le\pi/2$; cf. Chu (2001) in Ref. 12) and Pauli-blocking measure. After that, we plot the possible phase diagram for the inverse of the rarefaction parameter vs. the orientation (which is related to the scattering) into Fig. 1 (for different $B$s : $B=-0.98, -0.9, -0.1, 0, 0.1, 1$). Here, the Knudsen number ($K_n$) $\propto$ MFP/$\lambda_s$ with MFP and $\lambda_s$ being the mean free path and wave length, respectively and the temperature vs. MFP relations could be, ine one case, traced from Ref. 15 (following Fig. 3 therein). This figure shows that as the temperature decreases to a rather low value, the orientation will decrease sharply (at least for either Bose or Fermi gases). There is no doubt that this result resembles qualitatively that proposed before \[16\] for cases of the pressure vs. temperature analogue.On the other hand, qualitatively similar results (cf. Fig. 4 in \[17\] : theirin higher relative pressure corresponding to $\lambda_r$ here) show that (i) once the orientation $\theta$ increases, for the same $h$ (or temperature \[15\]), the dispersion $\lambda_r$ (or the relative pressure \[17\]) increases (please refer to Chu (2001) in \[12\]); (ii) as $|B|$ ($B$: the Pauli-blocking parameter) increases, the dispersion ($\lambda_r$) will reach the continuum or hydrodynamical limit (larger $h$ or high temperature regime) earlier. The phase speed of the plane (sound) wave in Bose gases (even for small but fixed $h$) increases more rapid than that of Fermi gases (w.r.t. to the higher temperature conditions : larger $h$) as the relevant parameter B increases. For all the rarefaction measure ($h$), perturbed plane waves propagate faster in Bose-particle gases than Boltzmann-particle and Fermi-particle gases (e.g., see \[18\] or \[13\]). In fact, the real part ($\lambda_r$) also resembles qualitatively those reported in \[19\] for $T>T_c$ cases. As for the imaginary part ($\lambda_i$), there is the maximum absorption (or attenuation) for certain $h$ (the rarefaction parameter) which resembles that reported in \[20\] (cf. Fig. 1 (b) therein). We observed a jump of the (relative) sound speed in the multiple scattering case (cf. Chu (2002) in \[12\]) which was also reported in \[21\](at the phase transition between hadronic phase and QGP). To know the detailed effects of interactions (tuned by the Pauli-blocking parameter : $B$ here) and the orientation, which could be linked to the effective number of thermodynamic degrees of freedom (as stated in \[22\] : $\nu$, for an ideal gas of massless, non-interacting constituents, $\nu$ counts the number of bosonic degrees of freedom plus the number of fermionic degrees of freedom weighted by $7/8$), we plot $\theta$ (of which the localization or resonance occurs for specific $B$) vs. $\mu$ (the chemical potential, in arbitrary units) in Figs. 2 and 3 by referring to two possibly localized states ($\theta=0$ or $\pi/4$; cf. Chu (2001) in \[12\]). The trends here resemble that of Fig. 1 in \[16\]. The density rises from the onset of nuclear matter through the transition to quark matter as illustrated in Fig. 2 (cf. the left branch of Fig. 1 in \[16\] by Alford). The compact star is possibly in this region of the phase diagram. Then there might be different behaviors separated by crossover regions as shown in Figs. 2 ($\theta=0$ dominated, $T$ (the temperature) $\propto h$ (the rarefaction measure)) and 3 ($\theta=\pi/4$ dominated, $T$ (the temperature) $\propto 1/h$). We remind the readers that for the case of $\theta=\pi/4$ dominated (Fig. 3), as the lower temperature is associated with the higher density, fermions ($B<0$) link to the lower temperature regime (under the same orientation). If there are differences between ours and those reported before (presumed that the matter under study is in (approximate) local thermal equilibrium. At RHIC, such evidence is believed to be provided by the agreement of the elliptic flow \[23\] measured in noncentral collisions with hydrodynamic model predictions. Such predictions are based on the assumption that the matter behaves like a fluid in local thermal equilibrium, with arbitrarily short mean free paths and correspondingly strong interactions), one possible explanation could be that the assumption of a completely thermal medium is a simplification \[24\]. The acoustic perturbations we treated are close to the thermodynamic equilibrium (for Bose or Fermi gases). Other reasoning is related to the different types of particles (with or without fragmentation) being considered. One interesting observation is that the attenuation of jet (quenching) observed at RHIC resembles qualitatively the attenuation of plane (sound) waves (cf. Chu in \[12\]).With above results, then our approach could provide an effective theory based on the opposite picture of very strong interaction (via the tuning of $B$ and $\theta$) and very small mean free paths ($h$ is large) \[24\]. This can also be useful to the study of problems in astrophysics : like compact stars. For instance, one of the most striking features of QCD is asymptotic freedom: the force between quarks becomes arbitrarily weak as the characteristic momentum scale of their interaction grows larger. This immediately suggests that at sufficiently high densities and low temperatures (corresponding to the case of Fig. 3 here; cf. Chu (2001) in \[12\] since $\theta=\pi/4$ is also possible and thus dominates the localized behavior or transition) matter will consist of a Fermi sea of essentially free quarks, whose behavior is dominated by the freest of them all: the high-momentum quarks that live at the Fermi surface. To conclude in brief, our illustrations here, although are based on the acoustical analog of our quantum discrete kinetic calculations, can indeed show the Fermi and Bose liquid (say, Cooper pairs) and their critical behavior for the transition (at least valid to the regime $T>T_c$ considering the QGP) once the orientation is tuned as well as the temperature is decreased significantly. We shall investigate more complicated problems in the future \[25-27\] (e.g., the saturated orientation shown in Fig. 3 which is almost the same for all different-statistic gases of particles might be relevant to the Stefan-Boltzmann limit; cf. Fig. 5 in \[26\] by Rischke).
[99]{} K. Kotake, K. Sato and K. Takahashi, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**69**]{}, 971 (2006). J.R. Oppenheimer and G.M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. [**55**]{}, 374 (1939). R.C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939). S.L. Shapiro and S.A. Teukolsky, [*Black Holes, White Dwarfs and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1983). F. Weber, [Prog. Particle Nucl. Phys.]{} [**54**]{}, 193 (2005). M. Alford, Dense Quark Matter in Compact Stars, in : W. Plessas and L. Mathelitsch (Eds.), Lect. Notes Phys. [**583**]{}, pp. 81-115, (Springer, Berlin, 2002). D.T. da Silva and D. Hadjimichef, J. Phys. G-Nucl. Part. Phys. [**30**]{}, 191 (2004). M.A. McLaughlin, A. G. Lyne [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**439**]{}, 817 (2006). S. Johnston and R.W. Romani, Astrophys. J. [**590**]{}, L95 (2003). M.S. Hussein, R.A. Rego and C.A. Bertulani, Phys. Rep. [**201**]{}, 279 (1991). M.A.G. Alvarez, N. Alamanos, L.C. Chamon and M.S. Hussein, nucl-th/0501084. A. Dobado and F.J. Llanes-Estrada, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 116004 (2004). J. Dolbeault, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. [**127**]{}, 101 (1994). V.V. Vedenyapin, I.V. Mingalev and O.V. Mingalev, Russian Academy of Sciences Sbornik Mathematics [**80**]{} 271 (1995). A. K.-H. Chu, Phys. Scr. [**69**]{}, 170 (2004). J.D. Maynard, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 401 (2001). K.-H. W. Chu, [J. Phys. A Math. and General]{} [**35**]{}, 1919 (2002). K.-H. W. Chu, [J. Phys. A Math. and General]{} [**34**]{}, L673 (2001). R. K.-H. Chu, Meccanica [**39**]{}, 383 (2004). A. K.-H. Chu, cond-mat/0411627. R.J. Jr. Mason, in [*Rarefied Gas Dynamics*]{}, edited by J.H. de Leeuw (Academic Press, New York, 1965), vol. 1, p. 48. D. Einzel and J.M. Parpia, [ J. Low Temp. Phys.]{} [**109**]{}, 1 (1997). G. Boyd [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 4169 (1995). M. Okamoto [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 094510 (1999). M. Alford, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**117**]{}, 65 (2003). F. Karsch, Nucl. Phys. A [**698**]{}, 199 (2002). K.-H. W. Chu, Preprint (2004). M. Asakawa and T. Hatsuda, Nucl. Phys. A [**610**]{}, 470 (1996). W. Broniowski and B. Hiller, Phys. Lett. B [**392**]{}, 267 (1997). Yu.A. Tarasov, Phys. Lett. B [**379**]{}, 279 (1996). B. Müller and K. Rajagopal, Eur. Phys. J. C [**43**]{}, 15 (2005). P.F. Kolb, P. Huovinen, U. Heinz and H. Heiselberg, Phys. Lett. B [**500**]{}, 232 (2001). X.-N. Wang, Nucl. Phys. A [**750**]{}, 98 (2005). B. Müller, Nucl. Phys. A [**750**]{}, 84 (2005). E. Shuryak, Prog. Particle Nucl. Phys. [**53**]{}, 273 (2004). E. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A [**750**]{}, 64 (2005). D.H. Rischke, Prog. Particle Nucl. Phys. [**52**]{}, 197 (2004). J. Liao and E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 014509 (2006). M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A [**750**]{}, 30 (2005). M. Bluhm, B. Kämpfer and G. Soff, Phys. Lett. B [**620**]{}, 131 (2005).
Fig. 1 Possible phase diagram for different-statistic gases w.r.t. the free orientation ($\theta$) and Knudsen number ($K_n
\propto$ the mean free path/wave length). $B >0$ : bosonic particles; $B<0$ : fermionic particles \[10\]. The orientation is related to the scattering. $K_n$ might be transformed to the dimensionless or relative temperature (cf. Fig. 3 in \[15\] ).
Fig. 2 Possible phase diagram for different-statistic gases w.r.t. the orientation ($\theta$) and temperature $T \propto h$ (the rarefaction measure). The unit of $\mu$ (related to the chemical potential) is arbitrary. $B >0$ : bosonic particles; $B<0$ : fermionic particles \[10\]. The trend here resembles the left branch of Fig. 1 in \[16\] by Alford.
Fig. 3 Possible phase diagram for different-statistic gases w.r.t. the orientation and temperature $T \propto 1/h$ or $K_n$ (the Knudsen number). The unit of $\mu$ is arbitrary (cf. Fig. 3 in \[15\]). The trend here resembles the CFL (right) branch of Fig. 1 in \[16\] by Alford.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first detection of interstellar acetone \[[(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{}\] toward the high mass star forming region Orion-KL and the first detection of vibrationally excited [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} in the ISM. Using the BIMA Array, 28 emission features that can be assigned to 54 acetone transitions were detected. Furthermore, 37 of these transitions have not been previously observed in the ISM. The observations also show that the acetone emission is concentrated toward the hot core region of Orion-KL, contrary to the distribution of other large oxygen bearing molecules. From our rotational-temperature diagram we find a beam averaged [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{}column density of [($2.0(0.3)-8.0(1.2))\times10^{16}$ cm$^{-2}$]{} and a rotational temperature of [176(48)-194(66) K]{}.'
author:
- 'D. N. Friedel, L. E. Snyder, Anthony J. Remijan, and B. E. Turner'
title: 'DETECTION OF INTERSTELLAR ACETONE TOWARD THE ORION-KL HOT CORE'
---
The first detection of interstellar acetone \[[(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{}\] was reported by @combes87 and later confirmed by @snyder02 towards the hot molecular core source Sgr B2(N-LMH). Previous to this paper, acetone had yet to be reported in any other high mass or low mass star forming region despite being structurally similar to dimethyl ether ([(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{}). Conversely, [(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{} has been detected in both low mass star forming regions including IRAS 16293-2422 [@cazaux03] and high mass star forming regions including Sgr [@winn76] and Orion [@snyder74]. It seemed therefore likely that acetone may be prevalent in other star forming regions such as Orion-KL.
The Orion-KL region is the closest ($\sim$480 pc) site of massive star formation [@genzel81]. There are several cloud components (e.g. hot core, compact ridge, extended ridge, and plateau) which are associated with Orion-KL, each with different chemical and physical properties [e.g. @blake87]. The two most chemically interesting components, the hot core and compact ridge, are separated by only $\sim$5800 AU. Large oxygen bearing species (such as methyl formate ([HCOOCH$_3$]{}), dimethyl ether ([(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{}), and formic acid ([HCOOH]{})) are observed primarily toward the compact ridge [e.g. @liu02], while large nitrogen bearing species (i.e. vinyl cyanide ([C$_2$H$_3$CN]{}) and ethyl cyanide ([C$_2$H$_5$CN]{})) are located toward the hot core [e.g. @blake87].
In this letter, we present the first detection of interstellar [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} toward the high mass star forming region Orion-KL and the first detection of vibrationally excited [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} in the ISM. Using the Berkeley-Illinois-Maryland Association (BIMA)[^1] Array, 28 emission features that can be assigned to 54 acetone transitions were detected toward the Orion hot core. The detection of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} toward the Orion hot core is unusual since it is a complex oxygen bearing species, structurally similar to [(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{}, a compact ridge species. This indicates that the formation of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} may be very different than [(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{} and may invoke N bearing species or grain surface reactions. Finally, since acetone is prevalent toward the Orion hot core region, it is most likely that a spectral line assigned as interstellar glycine (NH$_2$CH$_2$COOH) toward the Orion-KL region can be assigned instead to interstellar [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{}.
The data presented were taken between 2002 and 2003 November as part of a 3mm spectral line survey of the Orion-KL region by the BIMA Array (Friedel et al., 2006 in prep.) in its C configuration. The phase center of our observations was $\alpha$(J2000)=$05^h35^m4^s.3$, $\delta$(J2000)=$-05{\degr}22{\arcmin}27{\farcs}6$, which is near the hot core ($\alpha$(J2000)=$05^h35^m14^s.5$, $\delta$(J2000)=$-5{\degr}22{\arcmin}30{\arcsec}$) and the compact ridge ($\alpha$(J2000)=$05^h35^m14^s.2$, $\delta$(J2000)=$-5{\degr}22{\arcmin}41{\arcsec}$). The array was operating in cross-correlation (double-sideband) mode with a sideband rejection of better than 20 dB. The correlator was configured to have four 50 MHz wide windows in each sideband with 128 channels per window. This resulted in a channel spacing of 391 kHz ($\sim1.4-1.1$ km s$^{-1}$), for all observations. Saturn was used as the flux density calibrator and 0423-013 and 0609-157 were used to calibrate the antenna based gains. The absolute amplitude calibration of 0423-013 and 0609-157 from the flux density calibrators is accurate to within $\sim$20%. The passbands were automatically calibrated during data acquisition. The data were calibrated, continuum subtracted and imaged using the MIRIAD software package [@sault95]. The ground state [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} molecular parameters were taken from @groner02 and the vibrational [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} molecular parameters were taken from @groner05.
Table \[tab:acetone\] lists the molecular parameters and observational results for the detected acetone lines. Column 1 lists the rest frequency in MHz, column 2 lists the quantum numbers, column 3 lists the upper state energy ($E_u$) in K, column 4 lists the line strength ($S_{ij}$), column 5 lists the spin weight, column 6 lists the integrated line intensity ($W$) in Jy beam$^{-1}$ km s$^{-1}$, column 7 lists the rest velocity of the transitions ($V_{LSR}$) in km s$^{-1}$, column 8 lists the synthesized beam size in arcseconds, and column 9 lists the figure in which the associated spectra appear. We detected a total of 28 spectral features that can be assigned to 54 [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} transitions, 37 of which have not been previously observed in the ISM, toward the Orion hot core. Of these 54 transitions 46 are from the ground state and 8 are from the first vibrationally excited state which lies at 115 K above ground. No [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} transitions were seen, above our 3 $\sigma$ limit, toward the Orion compact ridge.
Figure \[fig:spec\] shows the spectra of each of our detected transitions and nearby identified and unidentified lines. All spectra are hanning smoothed over 3 channels and the spectral line fiducials are for a $V_{LSR}$ of 5 km s$^{-1}$. The “I” bar in the upper left corner of each plot denotes the 1 $\sigma$ rms noise level for the plot. In subplots c) and d) the dashed line and second “I” bar denote where a second spectral window was located and the associated 1 $\sigma$ rms noise level of that window.
Figure \[fig:map\] shows the map of the $8_{*,8}-7_{*,7} EE$ degenerate transitions of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} ($E_u$=19 K) in heavy contours. Contours are $\pm$3 and 5 $\sigma$ ($\sigma$=0.09 Jy beam$^{-1}$). The normal contours are the $7_{0,7}-6_{1,6}$ four fold degenerate transition of [(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{} ($E_u$=25 K, $\nu$=111.783112 GHz). Contour spacing is 4 $\sigma$ starting at 4 $\sigma$ ($\sigma$=0.24 Jy beam$^{-1}$). The hot core and compact ridge are labeled and indicated by the “+” signs. Note that the [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} emission traces closer to the hot core while the [(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{} emission traces closer to the compact ridge. The synthesized beams for each species are in the lower left corner of the map. The average $V_{LSR}$ for the detected [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} transitions is 6.4(1.3)[^2] km s$^{-1}$ which is between the $V_{LSR}$ for the hot core ($\sim$5 km s$^{-1}$) and the compact ridge ($\sim$8 km s$^{-1}$). Yet it is consistent with the $V_{LSR}$ of other molecular species [@blake87]. The maps of the transitions, however, indicate that [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} is more closely associated with the hot core rather than the compact ridge [@blake87].
For interferometric observations the total column density $\langle N_T\rangle$ can be calculated from [@snyder02; @snyder05]: $$\frac{\langle N_T\rangle}{q_{rv}}e^{-E_u/T_{rot}}=\frac{\langle N_u\rangle}{g_u}=\frac{2.04}{B\theta_a\theta_bS\mu^2\nu^3}\left(\frac{W}{g}\right)\times10^{20} cm^{-2}$$ where $\langle N_u\rangle/g_u$ is the beam averaged upper level column density over the statistical weight, $B$ is the beam filling factor, $g$ is the spin weight, $\mu$ is the dipole moment ($\mu_b$=2.93 D), $\nu$ is the transition frequency in GHz, $T_{rot}$ is the rotational temperature and $E_u$ is the upper level energy of the transition in K. The rotational-vibrational partition function, $q_{rv}$, is defined as $$q_{rv}\approx\sum_{i=0}^{2}e^{-E_i/T_{rot}}q_r,$$ where $E_i$ are the energies above ground for the ground state and the first two vibrational states (0 K, 115 K, and 180 K, respectively) and $q_r$ is the rotational partition function[^3] (261.7$T_{rot}^{3/2}$)[@groner02; @groner05; @ww05]. Even though we did not detect any transitions from the second vibrationally excited state, it lies only 180 K above ground and thus will have a significant population at temperatures above 100 K. For a set of degenerate transitions, $g$ is the sum of the spin weights of the blended states. By plotting $ln(\langle N_u\rangle/g_u)$, for each integrated line intensity in Table \[tab:acetone\], versus $E_u$ we can obtain the total beam averaged column density and rotational temperature of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{}. Figure \[fig:rtd\] shows the rotational-temperature diagram (assuming the source fills our synthesized beams, $B=0.5$, as discussed by @snyder05) and yields $\langle N_T\rangle=$[$2.0(0.3)\times10^{16}$ cm$^{-2}$]{} and $T_{rot}=$[176(48) K]{}. If instead we assume a source size similar to the hot core continuum size seen by @liu02 of 5$\times$3, the diagram yields $\langle N_T\rangle=$[$8.0(1.2)\times10^{16}$ cm$^{-2}$]{} and $T_{rot}=$[194(66) K]{}. Both temperatures are reasonable considering the range in temperatures observed toward the hot core ($\sim$100 K [[C$_2$H$_5$CN]{}, @white03] to $\sim$300 K [HC$_3$N, @wright96]). From these column densities, rotation temperatures, and @turner91 we calculated the opacity to be $<0.02$ for all transitions. For a H$_2$ column density of $\sim5\times10^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@kaufman98 and references therein] we find a fractional abundance of $(4.0(0.6)-16.0(2.4))\times10^{-9}$ which is higher than the fractional abundance of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} toward Sgr B2(N-LMH) ($4-30\times10^{-10}$) [@snyder02]. The difference however can be attributed our use of the vibrational part of the partition function. If we recalculate the abundances from Sgr B2(N-LMH) including the vibrational part of the partition function it agrees with our abundance toward Orion.
The detection of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} toward the hot core and the non-detection (above 3 $\sigma$) toward the compact ridge, makes [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} the only known highly saturated O species that is seen only toward the hot core. This suggests a formation mechanism such as high temperature gas phase reactions (i.e. neutral-neutral) or grain surface reactions, as was suggested by @herbst90, rather than formation in or behind a shock front (i.e. ion-molecule chemistry or liberation from the grain surface).
Finally, the detection of acetone toward the Orion hot core is also very significant because it shows that a spectral feature previously identified as glycine may in fact be due to interstellar acetone. @kuan03 noted that one of the lines assigned to glycine was coincident with the $31_{*,19}-31_{*,20} EE$ degenerate [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} pair. The identification of a transition of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} was dismissed as unlikely due to its unfavorable quantum numbers. However, we can calculate the expected integrated intensity for these degenerate acetone transitions using the [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} column densities from this work and from eqs. \[1\] & \[2\] of @snyder05. Solving eqs. \[1\] & \[2\] of @snyder05 for the integrated line intensity ($W$) we find: $$W=\frac{\langle N_T\rangle gS\mu^2{\nu}B^*}{1.67q_{rv}e^{E_u/T_{rot}}}\times10^{-14}~K~km~s^{-1},$$ where, for these transitions, $g=16+16=32$, $S=12.555$, $\nu=164.870$ GHz, and $E_u=364$ K. Also $B^*=\eta^*_MB$, where $\eta^*_M$ is the corrected main beam efficiency for the 12 meter ($\eta^*_M\sim0.7$ at 164 GHz). If we use the 5$\times$3 source size and associated $\langle N_T\rangle$ and $T_{rot}$ we calculate an integrated line intensity of 0.218(0.031) K km s$^{-1}$. Comparing this value to that reported by @kuan03 of 0.091(0.035) K km s$^{-1}$ we see that the integrated line intensity overlaps with the reported value at the 2 $\sigma$ level. Because of the detection of 54 transitions of interstellar [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} toward the Orion hot core, it is most likely that the transition attributed to glycine by Kuan et al. (2003) is due to [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{}.
We have reported the detection of 54 [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} transitions toward the Orion-KL hot core region with a column density of [($2.0(0.3)-8.0(1.2))\times10^{16}$ cm$^{-2}$]{} and a rotational temperature of [176(48)-194(66) K]{}. We also have reported the first detection of vibrationally exited [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} in the ISM. The detection of a large O bearing species purely toward the hot core suggests that the formation of [(CH$_3$)$_2$CO]{} may be very different than [(CH$_3$)$_2$O]{} and may invoke N bearing species or grain surface reactions.
We thank P. Groner and B. Drouin for supplying useful data. We also thank an anonymous referee for a very favorable review of this work. This work was partially funded by grant NSF AST02-28953 and the University of Illinois.
Blake, G. A., Sutton, E. C., Masson, C. R., & Phillips, T. G. 1987, , 315, 621
Cazaux, S., Tielens, A. G. G. M., Ceccarelli, C., Castets, A., Wakelam, V., Caux, E., Parise, B., & Teyssier, D. 2003, , 593, L51
Combes, F., Gerin, M., Wootten, A., Wlodarczak, G., Clausset, F., & Encrenaz, P. J. 1987, , 180, L13
Kuan, Y., Charnley, S. B., Huang, H., Tseng, W., & Kisiel, Z. 2003, , 593, 848
Genzel, R., Reid, M. J., Moran, J. M., & Downes, D. 1981, , 244, 884
Groner, P., Herbst, E., De Lucia, F. C., Drouin, B. J., & Mäder, H. 2005, 60th OSU International Conference on Molecular Spectroscopy, RA03, 206
Groner, P., Albert, S., Herbst, E., De Lucia, F. C., Lovas, F. J., Drouin, B. J., & Pearson, J. C. 2002, , 142, 145
Herbst, E., Giles, K., & Smith, D. 1990, , 358, 468
Kaufman, M. J., Hollenbach, D. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1998, , 497, 276
Liu, S., Girart, J. M., Remijan, A., & Snyder, L. E. 2002, , 576, 255
Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, ASP Conf. Ser. 77: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, 77, 433
Schilke, P., Groesbeck, T. D., Blake, G. A., & Phillips, T. G. 1997, , 108, 301
Snyder, L. E., Buhl, D., Schwartz, P. R., Clark, F. O., Johnson, D. R., Lovas, F. J., & Giguere, P. T. 1974, , 191, L79
Snyder, L. E., Lovas, F. J., Mehringer, D. M., Miao, N. Y., Kuan, Y., Hollis, J. M., & Jewell, P. R. 2002, , 578, 245
Snyder, L. E., et al. 2005, , 619, 914
Turner, B. E. 1991, , 76, 617
Ulich, B. L., & Haas, R. W. 1976, , 30, 247
White, G. J., Araki, M., Greaves, J. S., Ohishi, M., & Higginbottom, N. S. 2003, , 407, 589
Widicus Weaver, S. L., Butler, R. A. H., Drouin, B. J., Petkie, D. T., Dyl, K. A., De Lucia, F. C., & Blake, G. A. 2005, , 158, 188
Winnewisser, G., & Gardner, F. F. 1976, , 48, 159
Wright, M. C. H., Plambeck, R. L., & Wilner, D. J. 1996, , 469, 216
[ccrrccccc]{} 81,813.725 (12) & $7_{1,6}-6_{2,5} EE $ & 17.47 & 5.21 & 16 & 1.5(1.0) & 6.6(2.5) & $12.99\times8.33$ &\
82,895.112 (52) & $8_{*,8}-7_{*,7} EE, \nu=1$ & 133.95 & 7.38 & 32 & 2.1(0.6) & 6.0(2.3) & $12.54\times7.86$ & 1a\
82,908.654 (20)& $8_{*,8}-7_{*,7} AE $ & 18.85 & 7.38 & 8 & 1.7(0.3) & 6.9(0.9) & $12.54\times7.86$ & 1a\
82,908.702 (20)& $8_{*,8}-7_{*,7} EA $ & 18.85 & 7.38 & 8 & & & & 1a\
82,916.525 (14) & $8_{*,8}-7_{*,7} EE $ & 18.74 & 7.38 & 32 & 3.0(0.3) & 7.3(0.4) & $12.54\times7.86$ & 1a\
82,924.325 (22)& $8_{*,8}-7_{*,7} AA $ & 18.64 & 7.38 & 16 & 2.8(0.5) & 7.5(1.1) & $12.54\times7.86$ & 1a\
87,507.547 (46)& $18_{8,10}-18_{7,11} EE$ & 130.60 & 8.27 & 16 & 2.8(0.3) & 6.6(2.4) & $13.16\times9.21$ & 1b\
87,580.004 (44)& $18_{9,10}-18_{8,11} EE$ & 130.60 & 8.27 & 16 & 1.4(0.7) & 4.5(0.5) & $11.82\times7.81$ &\
92,714.466 (54)& $9_{*,9}-8_{*,8} EE, \nu=1$ & 138.41 & 8.38 & 32 & 3.1(0.8) & 8.3(6.9) & $13.89\times6.20$ & 1c\
92,727.906 (22)& $9_{*,9}-8_{*,8} AE $ & 23.30 & 8.38 & 8 & 3.3(0.9) & 5.8(0.8) & $13.89\times6.20$ & 1c\
92,727.952 (20)& $9_{*,9}-8_{*,8} EA $ & 23.30 & 8.38 & 8 & & & & 1c\
92,735.672 (16) & $9_{*,9}-8_{*,8} EE $ & 23.19 & 8.38 & 32 & 4.1(0.5) & 6.9(1.9) & $13.89\times6.20$ & 1c\
92,743.363 (24) & $9_{*,9}-8_{*,8} AA $ & 23.09 & 8.38 & 16 & & & & 1c\
93,311.552 (90) & $22_{12,11}-22_{11,12} EE$ & 198.48 & 11.29 & 16 & 1.8(0.7) & 6.5(1.7) & $14.86\times6.91$ & 1d\
98.651.514 (20) & $5_{5,1}-4_{4,1} EE$ & 14.09 & 3.63 & 16 & 5.6(0.4) & 7.0(3.0) & $13.86\times6.19$ & 1e\
98,800.980 (14) & $5_{5,0}-4_{4,0} EE$ & 14.09 & 3.63 & 16 & 3.7(0.3) & 6.2(1.3) & $15.54\times7.03$ & 1f\
99,422.080 (24) & $14_{*,11}-14_{*,12} EE$ & 68.11 & 3.33 & 32 & 2.7(0.5) & 4.7(2.1) & $13.64\times6.61$ & 1g\
101,426.716 (19) & $9_{1,8}-8_{2,7} AE/EA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 26.84 & 7.21 & 10 & 4.7(0.4) & 6.3(0.5) & $12.91\times6.74$ & 1h\
101,427.090 (19) & $9_{2,8}-8_{1,7} AE/EA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 26.84 & 7.21 & 6 & & & & 1h\
101,451.059 (14) & $9_{1,8}-8_{2,7} EE\tablenotemark{d} $ & 26.74 & 7.21 & 16 & 7.2(0.3) & 6.7(1.0) & $13.35\times6.94$ & 1h\
101,451.446 (14) & $9_{2,8}-8_{1,7} EE\tablenotemark{d} $ & 26.74 & 7.21 & 16 & & & & 1h\
101,475.332 (22) & $9_{1,8}-8_{2,7} AA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 26.64 & 7.21 & 10 & & & & 1h\
101,475.733 (22) & $9_{2,8}-8_{1,7} AA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 26.64 & 7.21 & 6 & & & & 1h\
102,533.756 (58) &$10_{*,10}-9_{*,9} EE, \nu=1$& 143.33 & 9.37 & 32 & 2.7(0.5) & 6.3(1.5) & $12.80\times6.17$ & 1i\
102,547.058 (22) & $10_{0,10}-9_{1,9} AE/EA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 28.22 & 9.38 & 16 & & & & 1i\
102,554.696 (18) & $10_{0,10}-9_{1,9} EE\tablenotemark{d} $ & 28.11 & 9.38 & 32 & 4.5(0.4) & 6.9(1.9) & $12.80\times6.17$ & 1i\
102,562.281 (26) & $10_{0,10}-9_{1,9} AA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 28.01 & 9.38 & 16 & 4.7(0.5) & 6.8(2.4) & $12.80\times6.17$ & 1i\
108,434.511 (32) & $14_{2,12}-14_{1,13} EE$ & 63.34 & 2.29 & 32 & 2.0(0.5) & 6.9(1.1) & $12.22\times5.64$ & 1j\
111,243.359 (22)& $10_{*,9}-9_{*,8} AE\tablenotemark{d} $ & 32.17 & 8.21 & 8 & 3.6(0.4) & 7.1(1.2) & $12.44\times5.77$ & 1k\
111,243.448 (20)& $10_{*,9}-9_{*,8} EA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 32.17 & 8.21 & 8 & & & & 1k\
111,267.540 (16) & $10_{*,9}-9_{*,8} EE\tablenotemark{d} $ & 32.07 & 8.21 & 32 & 5.6(0.2) & 6.6(0.9) & $12.44\times5.77$ & 1k\
111,291.600 (24) & $10_{*,9}-9_{*,8} AA\tablenotemark{d} $ & 31.98 & 8.21 & 16 & & & & 1k\
112,352.908 (60) & $11_{*,11}-10_{*,10} EE, \nu=1$ & 148.71 & 10.37 & 32 & & & & 1l\
112,373.548 (18) & $11_{0,11}-10_{1,10} EE$ & 33.51 & 10.39 & 32 & & & & 1l\
\[tab:acetone\]
[^1]: Operated by the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Illinois, and the University of Maryland with support from the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: All uncertainties are 1 $\sigma$ unless otherwise noted.
[^3]: The rotational part of the partition function is approximated by the ground state $q_r$ since $q_r$ for the first vibrational state differs from the ground state by less than 1 part in 1000 and $q_r$ for the second vibrational state has not been reported.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider strong-field effects in laboratory and astrophysical plasmas and high intensity laser and cavity systems, related to quantum electrodynamical (QED) photon–photon scattering. Current state-of-the-art laser facilities are close to reaching energy scales at which laboratory astrophysics will become possible. In such high energy density laboratory astrophysical systems, quantum electrodynamics will play a crucial role in the dynamics of plasmas and indeed the vacuum itself. Developments such as the free electron laser may also give a means for exploring remote violent events such as supernovae in a laboratory environment. At the same time, superconducting cavities have steadily increased their quality factors, and quantum non-demolition measurements are capable of retrieving information from systems consisting of a few photons. Thus, not only will QED effects such as elastic photon–photon scattering be important in laboratory experiments, it may also be directly measurable in cavity experiments. Here we describe the implications of collective interactions between photons and photon-plasma systems. We give an overview of strong field vacuum effects, as formulated through the Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian. Based on the dispersion relation for a single test photon travelling in a slowly varying background electromagnetic field, a set of equations describing the nonlinear propagation of an electromagnetic pulse on a radiation-plasma is derived. The stability of the governing equations is discussed, and it is shown using numerical methods that electromagnetic pulses may collapse and split into pulse trains, as well as be trapped in a relativistic electron hole. Effects, such as the generation of novel electromagnetic modes, introduced by QED in pair plasmas is described. Applications to laser-plasma systems and astrophysical environments are discussed.'
author:
- Mattias Marklund
- 'Padma K. Shukla'
date: 'Accepted version, submitted Feb. 3, 2006, to appear in Rev. Mod. Phys. **78** (2006)'
title: |
Nonlinear collective effects in photon–photon\
and photon–plasma interactions
---
= 1mm
Introduction
============
Nonlinear effects, in which a given phenomenon affects its own evolution and dynamics, are prominent components in a large variety of physical, chemical, and biological systems. The examples range from optical and nerve fibers, autocatalytic chemical reactions, to ocean waves [@Scott]. The field of hydrodynamics has been especially important for the development of nonlinear physics, both concerning analytical and computational tools, since there the nonlinear effects can play a major role in systems with important applications, e.g. meteorology. The subject of plasma physics is a natural generalization of the field of hydrodynamics, since it builds on the fluid or kinetic equations, while adding the electromagnetic interaction. The plasma state of matter is prominent in large regions of the Universe, such as our closest star, the Sun, accretion discs, and even interstellar clouds. It has since long also been noted within the field of plasma physics that both nonlinear effects and collective interactions can give rise to important new physical effects, such as the ponderomotive force concept and Landau damping [@Hasegawa]. The low-frequency ponderomotive force, which arises due to nonlinear couplings between high-frequency electromagnetic fields, plays a central role in the physics of laser-plasma interactions. This force in an unmagnetized plasma is expressed as the gradient of the electromagnetic field intensity, which pushes electrons locally and thereby creating a hugee space charge electric fields and the plasma density cavitaties. Due to the radiation ponderomotive force, one has the possibility of many interesting nonlinear pheneomena in plasmas, e.g. the generation of intense wakefields, stimulated scattering of electromagnetic waves off plasmons and phonons, localization of electromagnetic fields, etc. [@Eliezer]. The momentum and energy transfer from the laser field to the plasma particles can be harnessed in, e.g. inertial confinement fusion [@Eliezer]. Moreover, the intense electromagnetic radiation generated in state-of-the-art lasers can be used to model certain astrophysical plasma conditions in a laboratory environment [@Remington]. Questions of astrophysical interest that can be approached within the field of high energy density laboratory astrophysics range from the equations of state of planetary interiors to supernova shock formation (see @HEDLA for an overview). In the next generation laser-plasma systems the influence of quantum electrodynamics will become important, and fundamental questions related to the nonlinearity of the quantum vacuum can be approached in laboratory systems [@mou05].
Currently, lasers are capable of reaching intensities of $10^{21}-10^{22}$ W/cm$^2$ [@Bahk-etal; @mou98; @taj02; @taj03; @mou05]. At such high field strengths, the quiver velocity of the electrons is highly relativistic, and the radiation pressure, manifesting itself as a ponderomotive force term in the evolution equations for the plasma, gives rise to local electron expulsion. Moreover, at these intensities, the nonlinear relativistic dynamics of the laser-plasma system gives rise to a number of other interesting phenomena as well, such as soliton formation and pulse collapse [@Shukla-etal]. The latter could be of interest when using laser-plasma systems to generate electromagnetic field intensities approaching the Schwinger intensity limit [@cai04; @Bulanov-etal; @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund1; @bob; @bob2; @Shukla-Marklund-Eliasson; @mou05].
The event of future ultra-short (in the femto-second range) intense ($10^{23}-10^{25}$ W/cm$^{2}$) lasers [@mou98; @taj02; @taj03; @mou05] could generate new physics within the next few years (see Fig. \[fig:laserevol\]). This is based on the development of chirped pulse amplification, and the evolution of laser power is predicted to continue evolving for quite some time [@mou98; @mou05]. The X-ray free electron lasers (XFEL) under construction at SLAC [@SLAC] and DESY [@DESY] will be a major source of experimental data not achievable with today’s systems, ranging from molecular properties [@pat02] to astrophysical conditions [@Chen], such as supernova shocks [@Woolsey-etal]. The intensity at the XFEL focus is expected to reach intensities making the quantum vacuum directly accessible for observations [@Ringwald; @Ringwald1; @Ringwald2 see Fig. \[fig:brilliance\]]. Moreover, combined effects of laser pulse collapse and ponderomotive force electron expulsion would be able to create plasma channels in which ultra-high intensity field strengths are reached [@Yu-etal], such that the nonlinear vacuum effect of elastic photon–photon scattering could become important [@Shen-Yu; @Shen-etal].
![The evolution of laser intensity [reprinted with permission from @taj02].[]{data-label="fig:laserevol"}](small_fig01.eps){width=".9\columnwidth"}
![The connection between different high-energy regions in physics and experiments [reprinted with permission from @Chen].[]{data-label="fig:blobs"}](fig02.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
A majority of studies have not taken into account the influence of electron–positron pair creation or elastic photon–photon scattering on the dynamics of laser-plasma systems (there are however important exceptions, see e.g. @Bulanov-etal2005). Effects of this kind will be of the utmost importance when laser compression schemes approaches the critical field strength $$\label{eq:criticalfield}
E_{\text{crit}} = \frac{m_ec^2}{e\lambda_e} \sim 10^{18}\,\mathrm{V/m} ,$$ as the nonlinearity of the quantum vacuum becomes pronounced. Here $m_e$ is the electron rest mass, $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum, $e$ is the magnitude of the electron charge, $\lambda_e = \hbar/m_ec$ is the Compton wavelength, and $\hbar$ is the Planck constant divided by $2\pi$. Thus, for such extreme plasma systems, the concept of photon–photon scattering, both elastic and inelastic, has to be taken into account.
The interaction of high-intensity laser pulses with plasmas has applications to other fields of science, e.g. table-top particle accelerators [@bob]. Also, achieving field strengths capable of producing pair plasmas in the laboratory could facilitate a means of producing anti-matter on a more or less routine basis, as they currently are at high energy accelerators. However, it should be emphasized that the production of pairs from intense lasers requires that severe technical constraints can be overcome, such as phasing of the two interacting short electromagnetic pulses. Even if routine pair production via laser systems is not to be reached within the near future, the related possibility of directly detecting elastic photon–photon scattering is indeed a fascinating possibility [@Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo; @Soljacic-Segev]. Furthermore, the creation of multi-dimensional high intensity electromagnetic pulses, using guiding structures (such as plasma boundaries), could result in pulse collapse [@Brodin-etal; @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund]. Such pulse collapse would give rise to intensities close to the Schwinger critical field (\[eq:criticalfield\]). Thus, the combination of laser-plasma interactions and QED effects, such as pair production and photon–photon scattering could spark new methods for producing conditions reminiscent of astrophysical environments in future experiments (see Fig. \[fig:blobs\]). In fact, some of the most pertinent in today’s fundamental physics research , such as the question of dark matter (e.g. through the effects of light pseudoscalar fields, such as the axion field, on QED interactions and light propagation, see @Bernard [@Dupays-etal; @Bradley-etal]), cosmic accelerators (such as through laboratory plasma wakefield accelerator tests [@Chen]), and possible new high-density states of matter [@Remington], are related to the high energy events for which laboratory astrophysics would yield valuable insight. Thus, it is of interest to study such high energy scenarios, e.g. photon–photons scattering in the context of laser-plasma systems [@Bulanov1], as these are, in the near future, likely to yield the right conditions for such events to take place.
Nonlinear quantum electrodynamics
---------------------------------
In classical electrodynamics, as described by Maxwell’s equations, photons are indifferent to each other as long as there is no material medium present. This is not so in quantum electrodynamics (QED). Due to the interaction of photons with virtual electron–positron pairs, QED offers the possibility of photon–photon scattering [@Heisenberg-Euler; @Schwinger]. This is commonly expressed through the effective field theory approach represented by the Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian [@Heisenberg-Euler; @Weisskopf; @Greiner; @Grib-etal; @Fradkin-etal; @Schwinger], neglecting dispersive effects. This Lagrangian \[see Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) below\] and its generalizations [@Valluri-etal; @Dunne; @Dittrich-Gies], gives nonlinear corrections to Maxwell’s vacuum equations, similar to the self-interaction terms encountered in nonlinear optics due to the presence of a Kerr medium [@Agrawal; @Bloembergen], and higher order corrections can easily be incorporated by taking into account higher vertex order diagrams. Since the lowest order effective self-interaction term is proportional to the fine structure constant squared, the field strengths need to reach appreciable values until these effects becomes important, see Eq. (\[eq:criticalfield\]) [@Greiner; @Grib-etal; @Fradkin-etal]. The corrections give rise to both single particle effects, such as closed photon paths [@Novello-etal], vacuum birefringence [@Heyl-Hernquist], photon splitting [@Adler] and lensing effect in strong magnetic fields (see, e.g. @Harding [@DeLorenci-etal]), as well as collective effects, like the self-focusing of beams [@Soljacic-Segev] or the formation of light bullets [@Brodin-etal]. Recently, it has also been shown, using analytical means, that these effects give rise to collapsing structure in radiation gases [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo], results that have been extended and confirmed by numerical simulations [@Shukla-Eliasson]. Possible detection techniques, as well as physical implications, of the effects of photon–photon scattering have attracted a rather constant interest since first discussed (e.g. @Erber [@Tsai1; @Tsai2; @Greiner; @Grib-etal; @Fradkin-etal; @Bialynicka-Birula; @Ding; @Kaplan-Ding; @Latorre-etal; @Dicus-etal]), and the concept of self-trapping of photons due to vacuum nonlinearities was discussed independently by @Rozanov93 [@Rozanov] and @Soljacic-Segev in the context of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation.
The above studies assume that the dispersive/diffractive effect of vacuum polarization is negligible, and this, of course, puts constraints on the allowed space and time variations of the fields [@Soljacic-Segev]. In the context of pair creation, rapidly varying fields have been analyzed, since when individual photons pass the pair creation energy threshold $2m_ec^2$, real electron-positron pairs may be created from the vacuum by a “down-conversion” process of photons. Similar processes are thought to be of importance in the neighborhood of strongly magnetized stars, where the magnetic field induces photon splitting [@Erber; @Adler; @Adler-etal; @Adler-Shubert; @Baring-Harding], and may effectively absorb the photons [@Heyl-Hernquist; @Duncan]. It has been suggested that the nontrivial refractive index due to photon–photon scattering could induce a lensing effect in the neighbourhood of a magnetar [@Shaviv].
The physics of elastic photon–photon scattering has interested researchers for a long time, and several suggestions for ways to detect this scattering in the laboratory have been made during the last decades [@Dewar; @Alexandrov-etal], and the recent strong increase in available laser intensities have stimulated various schemes [@Rozanov93; @Rozanov; @Ding-Kaplan]. It has been suggested by @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo [@Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo2] that the effect of photon–photon scattering could be detected using fields significantly weaker ($10\,\mathrm{MV/m}$) than state-of-the-art laser fields.
Next, we present some physical systems in which the effects of photon–photon interactions may either be of importance (magnetars), or become important in the near future (such as state-of-the-art laser-plasma systems).
### Intense field generation
#### Electromagnetic cavities
High performance, i.e. large electromagnetic fields combined with low dissipative losses, can be found in superconducting cavities, which among other things are used for particle acceleration [@Graber]. The waves that can be sustained within such a cavity can have a field-strength $E \sim 10\,\mathrm{MV/m}$, i.e. close to the maximum that can be tolerated by the walls without field emissions. For such cavities, the different high intensity wave modes can act as pump waves for the quantum vacuum. Through the interaction between these waves and virtual electron–positron pairs, new modes with well-defined frequencies and wavenumbers will be generated. Those satisfying the dispersion criteria for the given cavity could then also reflect within the cavity with very small losses, thus yielding a method for detection of the quantum vacuum nonlinearities. For example, for a cavity resistance $R \sim 1\,{\rm n}\Omega$, corresponding to superconducting niobium at a temperature $1.4 \, \mathrm{K}$ and a frequency $\omega \sim 2\times 10^{10}\,\mathrm{rad/s}$ of the wave mode generated via the nonlinear quantum vacuum, one finds that the saturated energy flux $P_3$ of the generated mode is of the order of $10^{-6}\,\mathrm{W/m}^{2}$ (see Secs. \[sec:cavity\] and \[sec:cavityexp\]) [@Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo; @Eriksson-etal]. This energy flux is above the detection level by several orders of magnitude. However, one should note the importance of the superconducting walls for the output level of the excited mode. For copper at room temperature, the cavity resistance increases by a factor $\sim 10^7$ as compared to the above example, and consequently the energy flux of the excited mode falls by a factor $\sim 10^{-14}$. In the latter case, it is questionable whether the excited signal can be detected. The concepts of cavity mode interactions and cavity experiments will be further discussed in Secs. \[sec:cavity\] and \[sec:cavityexp\].
#### Laser development
The event of ultra-short (in the femto-second range) intense ($10^{22}-10^{24}$ W/cm$^{2}$) lasers [@mou98; @taj02; @taj03; @mou05] holds the promise of generating large amounts of new physics within the next few years. This promise is based on the development of chirped pulse amplification, and the increase of laser power is predicted to continue for quite some time [@mou98; @mou05]. There are two ways for reaching high intensities within laser systems. The method most common is to shorten the pulse duration ($\lesssim 100\,\mathrm{fs}$), while keeping the energy content in each pulse rather modest ($\sim 1-10\,\mathrm{J}$). Such pulse generation techniques can have high repetition rates, which can be advantageous in certain experiments where a large number of shots is needed. The other route is to increase the pulse contents while keeping the pulse duration of the order $0.5 - 1\,\mathrm{ps}$. Such systems has the advantage of providing a high signal to noise ratio for some experiments. The Nova Petawatt laser at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,USA, used this principle, and each pulse, which had a duration of $\sim 500\,\mathrm{fs}$, had an energy contents of $\sim 500\,\mathrm{J}$. Similar systems are operating at ILE/Osaka, Japan, [@ILE] and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, U.K., [@RAL]. The OMEGA EP laser under construction at the University of Rochester, USA, will also work according to the high energy principle, and have pulse energies $1-2.6\,\mathrm{kJ}$ with durations $1-10\,\mathrm{ps}$ [@OMEGA]. Apart from being a tool for practical use, such as inertial confinement fusion and material science, intense laser facilities are now of international interest for basic research (such as at, e.g. the National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA), the Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester (USA), the Advanced Photon Research Center (Japan), the Institute for Laser Engineering at Osaka University (Japan), LULI Laboratoire pour l’Utilisation des Lasers Intenses (France), LIL/Laser Mégajoule at CEA (France), or the Central Laser Facility, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (UK)), and the increased laser output power also gives the opportunity, for the first time, to obtain astrophysical energy scales in a controlled laboratory setting [@Chen; @Remington; @HEDLA].
The generation of high (electromagnetic) field strengths is at the heart of understanding a variety of phenomena, such as astrophysical shocks and jets, in a laboratory setting, and furthermore forms the basis for a number of applications, e.g., table-top plasma accelerators. Thus, schemes and mechanisms for generating such high fields, other than the direct laser pumping, will be of importance to the development of a wide range of scientific areas.
#### The free electron laser
The x-ray free electron laser (XFEL) is an alternative to the current laser generation techniques, and it has as its base the particle accelerator, where high energy electrons are generated to obtain high-frequency radiation [@DESY; @SLAC]. Within these lasers, a large number of coherent photons are generated (10 orders of magnitude more than regular synchrotron sources). The XFEL concept has a wide variety of interesting applications, among these the possibility to probe the structure of large molecules, commonly found within molecular biology systems [@pat02]. It is also hoped that XFEL could form the basis of electron–positron pair creation [@alk01; @Ringwald; @Roberts-etal]. Both at the TESLA collider at DESY and LCLS at SLAC, the energy density at the focus (with a spatial width $\sim 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{m}$ and on the time-scale $10^{-13}\,\mathrm{s}$) of the XFEL is expected to reach energy densities of $10^{29}\,\mathrm{J/m^3}$ [@Ringwald], see Fig. \[fig:brilliance\]. This corresponds to electric field strengths of the order $10^{20}\,\mathrm{V/m}$, i.e. two orders of magnitude *above* the Schwinger critical field (\[eq:criticalfield\]), at which pair creation is expected to take place. The possibility to ‘fuel’ the generation of electron–positron pairs by nonlinear effects is therefore a very promising prospect, and as some authors have noted, this essentially amounts to ‘boiling the vacuum’ [@Ringwald1; @Ringwald2]. Moreover, it is believed that nonlinear QED effects will be a very important component of the interaction of XFEL generated radiation with dense media. Therefore, it is of interest to achieve an understanding of the influence of those nonlinear effects within the parameter regime obtainable by the XFEL.
![Evolution of peak brilliance, in units of photons/(smrad$^2$mm$^2$0.1%$\times$bandwidth), of X-ray sources. Here, ESRF stands for the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble. (Source: DESY Hamburg, `http://xfel.desy.de/`)[]{data-label="fig:brilliance"}](fig03.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
### Laser-plasma systems
High laser powers generate enormous radiation pressures, and accelerate particles to relativistic velocities. The fields generated by the particles will, therefore, backscatter and create a nonlinear feedback, something which can give rise to, e.g. laser pulse compression and electron density cavitation. This may play a significant role in different proposed schemes of laser self-focusing [@Bulanov-etal; @puk03; @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund1], completely changing the dynamics of the suggested methods and altering the final results in nontrivial ways. This serves as an important example of nonlinear effects in the evolution of laser-plasma systems.
The interaction of high power lasers, reaching intensities of $10^{20} - 10^{22}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, with plasmas has long been the backbone in different schemes for table-top particle accelerators [@bob], and is also essential for the concept of inertial confinement fusion [@Eliezer]. The ponderomotive force generated in high power laser-plasma systems due to laser intensity gradients may give rise to a plethora of phenomena, such as laser pulse self-focusing and filamentation, soliton formation, parametric instabilities, and magnetic field generation (see @Eliezer and references therein).
Laser-plasma systems have been suggested as sources of high intensity radiation. Due to the laser ponderomotive force plasma electrons will be pushed out of the path of the laser pulse, trapping and compressing the laser pulse, such that further electrons are pushed out. The plasma can sustain high field strengths, and the pulse compression can therefore reach appreciable intensity values [@mou05]. In fact, using a Langmuir wave as a plasma ‘mirror’ for the laser pulse, pulse intensities could reach, and even surpass, the Schwinger critical field (\[eq:criticalfield\]) [@Bulanov-etal; @mou05]. Thus, the interaction between intense lasers and plasmas is an intriguing tool for generating pulse intensities above the laser limit [@mou98].
### Astrophysical and cosmological environments
Astrophysical environments and events display truly enormous energy releases. Supernova explosions, black hole accretion, magnetar and pulsar systems are a few examples of such extreme situations. Moreover, the energy scales in the early universe are equally immense, or even greater, and our understanding of the origin of the universe is hampered by the fact that the energy density scales are so far from anything that can be generated in a laboratory, except perhaps in relativistic heavy ion collisions [@RHIC]. It is therefore not surprising that these environments can often act as laboratories for phenomena that we currently do not have technology to reproduce in earth based laboratories. Quantum electrodynamical nonlinear vacuum effects have received a fair amount of attention in strongly magnetized systems, such as pulsars [@CurtisMichel; @Beskin-etal] and magnetar environments [@magnetar; @Harding]. The magnetic field strengths of magnetars can reach energy levels comparable, or even surpassing, the energy corresponding to the Schwinger critical field strength $10^{18}\,\mathrm{V/m}$, thus making the vacuum truly nonlinear (nonlinear QED effects in the magnetized vacuum are described in a large number of publications, and for a representative but incomplete list, see @Erber [@Adler; @Adler-etal; @Adler-Shubert; @Tsai1; @Tsai2; @Mentzel-Berg-Wunner; @Baier-Milstein-Shaisultanov; @Chistyakov-etal] and references therein). The effect of a nonlinear vacuum may even be of crucial importance for our understanding of these objects [@Baring-Harding].
Effective field theory of photon–photon scattering
==================================================
The development of quantum electrodynamics was the result of a long and collective effort, and paved the way for an understanding of the weak and strong forces as well. It has, since its advent, been confirmed to an unprecedented accuracy, compared to any physical theory. It solved some of the long-standing conceptual problems of relativistic quantum theory, as proposed by Dirac and others, and it furthermore changed the way we look at the elementary interactions between particles and fields. The theoretical proposal, due to Dirac, of anti-matter as a result of relativistic quantum theory was put on a firm foundation with QED.
The quantization of the vacuum has lead to some remarkable insights and discoveries. Consider for example the Casimir effect [@Casimir1; @Casimir2],[^1] in which two parallel conducting plates with area $A$ separated by a distance $d$. Due to the different boundary conditions between and outside the plates, there will be a net attractive force $F \propto A/d^4$ between the plates. In a heuristic sense, the vacuum between the plates is ‘emptier’ than outside, since fewer states are allowed due the finite distance between the plates. Related to this is the much debated Scharnhorst effect [@Scharnhorst; @Barton; @Barton-Scharnhorst; @Scharnhorst2], at which the phase (and group) speed exceeds the speed of light $c$ in vacuum. As will be demonstrated later, the opposite occurs in the electromagnetic vacuum, i.e. the phase and group velocities decrease due to the electromagnetic influence on the quantum vacuum.
In conjunction with any description of photon–photon scattering, it should also be mentioned the large amount of literature and interest in finite temperature effective field theory effects. Thermal effects generalize the classical results of Schwinger in the weak field limit [@Heisenberg-Euler; @Weisskopf; @Schwinger]. It was pioneered by @Dittrich who investigated the thermal effects in combination with an external magnetic field, and later a comprehensive study using the real time formalism in the case of an general electromagnetic field background was performed by @Elmfors-Skagerstam (see also @Gies). The dispersion relation, including dispersive effects, was discussed by @Gies2, and it was later shown that in a thermal vacuum, in contrast to the non-thermal one, two-loop corrections will dominate over the one-loop effects [@Gies3]. However, treating all these studies (we have by no means exhausted the list of papers in this short exposé) in detail is outside the scope of the present paper, and since we moreover are interested in the problem of collective effects, the treatment of thermal effects, although of interest, is left for a future review.
The concept of elastic scattering among photons
-----------------------------------------------
Photon–photon scattering is a non-classical effect arising in quantum electrodynamics (QED) due to virtual electron–positron pairs in vacuum, see Fig. \[fig:weak\]. In the low energy limit, i.e. $\hbar\omega \ll m_ec^2$ the magnitude of photon–photon can be descibed in terms of the differential cross-section [@Berestetskii-etal] $$\label{eq:diffcross}
\frac{d\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}}{d\Omega} = \frac{139\alpha^2r_e^2}{32400\pi^2} (3 + \cos^2\theta)\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{m_ec^2}\right)^6 ,$$ where $\omega$ is the photon frequency in the center-of-mass system, $r_e$ is the classical electron radius, and $\alpha = e^2/4\pi\epsilon_0\hbar c
\approx 1/137$ is the fine structure constant. Integrating (\[eq:diffcross\]) gives the total cross-section $$\sigma_{\gamma\gamma} = \frac{973\alpha^2r_e^2}{10125} \left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{m_ec^2}\right)^6 \approx
0.7\times10^{-65}\left(\frac{\hbar\omega}{1\,\mathrm{eV}}\right)^6
\,\mathrm{cm}^2.$$ We note that the cross-section decreases very fast with decreasing photon energy. In the high energy limit, the cross-section on the other hand goes like $\omega^{-2}$. The cross-section reaches a maximum of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma} \approx 2\times 10^{-30}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ for photon energies $\hbar\omega \sim m_ec^2$ [@Berestetskii-etal], indeed a very small number.
Instead of a microscopic description, the interactions of photons may be described by an effective field theory. Formulated in terms of such an effective field theory, using the Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian (valid in the long wavelength and weak field limit, see Eq. (\[eq:constraint1\])) [@Heisenberg-Euler; @Schwinger], this results in nonlinear corrections to Maxwell’s vacuum equations, which to lowest order in the fine structure constant are cubic in the electromagnetic (EM) field. These correction takes the same form as in nonlinear optics, where the material properties of, e.g. optical fibres, gives rise to cubic nonlinear terms in Maxwell’s equations, so called Kerr nonlinearities [@Agrawal; @Kivshar-Agrawal]. Since the effective self-interaction term is proportional to the fine structure constant squared, this means that the field strengths under most circumstances need to reach values close to the critical field (\[eq:criticalfield\]) until these effects becomes important [@Greiner; @Grib-etal; @Fradkin-etal]. With this at hand, we now continue to focus on the concept of photon–photon scattering.
![The Feynman box diagram for the lowest order photon–photon scattering at the one-loop level.[]{data-label="fig:weak"}](fig04.eps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Weak field limit
----------------
We first derive the general dispersion relation in the low photon energy and weak field limit, assuming (see Eq. (\[eq:criticalfield\])) $$\omega \ll \omega_e \equiv m_ec^2/\hbar \,\,\text{ and }\,\, |\mathbf{E}| \ll
E_{\text{crit}} ,
\label{eq:constraint1}$$ where $E_{\text{crit}}$ is given by (\[eq:criticalfield\]), and $\omega_e \approx
8\times 10^{20}\,\mathrm{rad/s}$ is the Compton frequency. When these constraints are valid, pair-creation, both due to single photons and collective effects, will be unimportant, and the effective Lagrangian may therefore be treated solely in terms of its real part. It should be remembered that the second of these constraints comes from the pair creation probability of Schwinger [@Schwinger], which was derived for a pure electric field and may therefore not strictly be applied to the case of a radiation gas. Thus, this investigation goes far beyond the description of the thermodynamics of nonlinearly interacting incoherent photons with a photon gas in a plasma environment [@Nodar].
Photon-photon scattering is a second order effect (in terms of the fine structure constant $\alpha$), and for constant or weakly varying fields it can be formulated in standard notation using the Euler–Heisenberg Lagrangian density [@Heisenberg-Euler; @Schwinger] $$\label{eq:lagrangian1}
{\mathscr{L}} = \mathscr{L}_0 + \mathscr{L}_c
= \epsilon_0{\mathscr{F}} + \epsilon_0^2\kappa(4{\mathscr{F}}^2 +
7{\mathscr{G}}^2) \ ,$$ where $$\label{eq:parameter}
\kappa \equiv \frac{2\alpha^2\hbar^3}{45m_e^4c^5}
= \frac{\alpha}{90\pi}\frac{1}{\epsilon_0E_{\text{crit}}^2}
\approx \frac{1}{3\times10^{29}\,\mathrm{J/m^3}}.$$ Moreover, the field invariants are defined in terms of the field tensor $F_{ab}$ according to $${\mathscr{F}}\equiv \tfrac{1}{4}F_{ab}F^{ab} =
\tfrac{1}{2}(c^2\mathbf{B}^2 - \mathbf{E}^2) , \,
{\mathscr{G}}\equiv \tfrac{1}{4}F_{ab}\widehat{F}^{ab} = -c\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B} ,
\label{eq:invariants}$$ $\widehat{F}^{ab} = \epsilon^{abcd}F_{cd}/2$, and ${\mathscr{F}}^2$ and ${\mathscr{G}}^2$ are the lowest order QED corrections. We note that ${\mathscr{F}} = {\mathscr{G}} = 0$ in the limit of parallel propagating waves. The latter terms in (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) represent the effects of vacuum polarization and magnetization, and the QED corrected Maxwell’s vacuum equations take the classical form, using $${\bf D} = \epsilon_0{\bf E} + {\bf P} \ , \quad
{\bf H} = \frac{1}{\mu_0}{\bf B} - {\bf M} \ ,
\label{eq:constituent}$$ where ${\bf P}$ and ${\bf M}$ are of third order in the field amplitudes ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$ (see Eqs. (\[eq:polarization\]) and (\[eq:magnetization\]) below), and $\mu_0 = 1/c^2\epsilon_0$. Furthermore, they contain terms ${\mathscr{F}}$ and ${\mathscr{G}}$ such that ${\bf P} = {\bf M} = 0$ in the limit of parallel propagating waves. It is therefore necessary to use nonparallel waves in order to obtain an effect from these QED corrections.
From the constituent relations (\[eq:constituent\]) we can deduce the general wave equations for ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$ according to $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2{\bf E}}{\partial t^2}
- \nabla^2{\bf E} =
-\mu_0\left[ \frac{\partial^2{\bf P}}{\partial t^2}
+ c^2\nabla(\nabla\cdot{\bf P})
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla\times{\bf M)} \right]
\ , \label{WaveE}$$ and $$\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2{\bf B}}{\partial t^2}
- \nabla^2{\bf B} =
\mu_0\left[ \nabla\times(\nabla\times{\bf M})
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial t}(\nabla\times{\bf P)} \right]
\ . \label{WaveB}$$ Furthermore, the effective polarization and magnetization, appearing in (\[eq:constituent\]), in vacuum due to photon-photon scattering induced by the exchange of virtual electron-positron pairs can be obtained from the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) and are given by (see, e.g., @Soljacic-Segev) $${\bf P} = 2\kappa\epsilon_0^2\left[ 2(E^2 - c^2B^2){\bf E}
+ 7c^2({\bf E\cdot B}){\bf B} \right] \ ,
\label{eq:polarization}$$ and $${\bf M} = 2\kappa\epsilon_0^2c^2\left[ -2(E^2 - c^2B^2){\bf B}
+ 7({\bf E\cdot B}){\bf E} \right] \ .
\label{eq:magnetization}$$ Equations (\[WaveE\])–(\[eq:magnetization\]) offer the starting point for the study of a weakly nonlinear electromagnetic vacuum in terms of the classical field strength vectors $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$.
The corrections in the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) is the power series expansion in the field strengths of the full one-loop correction given by [@Heisenberg-Euler; @Weisskopf; @Schwinger] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\mathscr{L}}_{c} = -\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\epsilon_0E_{\text{crit}}^2\int_0^{\mathrm{i}\infty}
\frac{dz}{z^3}\mathrm{e}^{-z}\times
\label{eq:lagrangian2} \\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\bigg[
z^2\frac{ab}{E_{\text{crit}}^2}\,\coth\left(\frac{a}{E_{\text{crit}}}z\right)\, \cot\left(\frac{b}{E_{\text{crit}}}z\right)
- \frac{z^2}{3}\frac{(a^2 - b^2)}{E_{\text{crit}}^2} - 1 \bigg] ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$a = \left[({\mathscr{F}}^2 + {\mathscr{G}}^2)^{1/2} + {\mathscr{F}}\right]^{1/2} , \,
b = \left[({\mathscr{F}}^2 + {\mathscr{G}}^2)^{1/2} - {\mathscr{F}}\right]^{1/2} .
\label{eq:ab}$$ Thus, ${\mathscr{F}}= (a^2 -
b^2)/2$ and $|{\mathscr{G}}| = ab$. The Lagrangian correction (\[eq:lagrangian2\]) is the starting point of the effective field theory analysis of a strongly nonlinear quantum vacuum, such as used in some studies of photon splitting (see @Dittrich-Gies2 [@Dittrich-Gies] and references therein), and defining some of the properties of a strongly nonlinear gas of photons [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson].
The dispersion function {#sec:dispersionfunction}
-----------------------
One may find the dispersion relation of photons in an arbitrary constant, or weakly varying, electromagnetic background [@Bialynicka-Birula; @DeLorenci-etal; @Thoma]. Starting from the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]), introducing the four-potential $A^b$ such that $F_{ab} = \partial_aA_b - \partial_bA_a$, the Maxwell equations resulting from the variation with respect to the four-potential becomes $$\partial_aF^{ab} =
2\epsilon_0\kappa\partial_a\left[ (F_{cd}F^{cd})F^{ab} +
\tfrac{7}{4}(F_{cd}\widehat{F}^{cd})\widehat{F}^{ab} \right] ,
\label{eq:exact-evol1}$$ where we adopt the convention $(-1,1,1,1)$ for the metric $\eta_{ab}$, used for raising and lowering four-indices $a, b, \ldots = 0, 1, 2, 3$. Next, assuming that $F_{ab}
= f_{ab} + \phi_{ab}$, where $f_{ab}$ denotes the varying background field, and $\phi_{ab}$ ($\ll{f_{ab}}$) is a weak field propagating on this background, we find that the background satisfies $\partial_af^{ab} = 0$, and $\partial_a\widehat{F}^{ab} = 0$ is identically satisfied due to the definition of $F_{ab}$ in terms of the four-potential $A^b$.
Linearizing Eq. (\[eq:exact-evol1\]) with respect to $\phi$, and Fourier decomposing perturbations according to $
\phi_{ab}(x) = (k_a\epsilon_b - k_b\epsilon_a)\exp(ik\cdot x) + \text{c.c.},
$ where $\epsilon_a$ is the polarisation vector, $k\cdot x \equiv
k_ax^a$ and c.c. denotes the complex conjugate, we obtain the following algebraic set of equations for the polarization vector $$M^0_{ab} \epsilon^b = \big[k^2g_{ab} - k_ak_b
- \kappa\epsilon_0\left( 8a_a a_b + 14\hat{a}_a\hat{a}_b\right) \big]
\epsilon^b = 0,
\label{eq:algebraic}$$ where $a_b \equiv f_{bc}k^c$ and $\hat{a}_b \equiv
\widehat{f}_{bc}k^c$ has the properties $k^ba_b = k^b\hat{a}_b 0$. From this it follows that $M^0_{ab}k^b = 0$, and that the polarization may therefore, without loss of generality, be taken to obey $\epsilon_b
k^b = 0$, corresponding to the Lorentz gauge. In order to simplify the analysis, it is assumed that the background is slowly varying in spacetime compared to the perturbation. Using $a_b$ and $\hat{a}_b$ as the polarization eigenvectors gives two equations $$\label{eq:equations}
k^2 = 8\kappa\epsilon_0f_{ab}f^{ac}k^bk_c ,
\,\text{ and }\,
k^2 = 14\kappa\epsilon_0f_{ab}f^{ac}k^bk_c ,$$ from Eq. (\[eq:algebraic\]) for the polarization $a^a$ and $\hat{a}^a$, respectively. Since we can decompose $f_{ab} = u_aE_b
-u_bE_a + \epsilon_{abc}B^c$ for an observer with four-velocity $u^a$, we have $$a^2 = -(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{E})^2 - c^2(\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{B})^2 +
\omega^2\mathbf{E}^2 + c^2\mathbf{k}^2\mathbf{B}^2 -
2c\omega\mathbf{k}\cdot(\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B})$$ and $ \hat{a}^2 \approx a^2$. Equations (\[eq:equations\]) can be written in the clear and compact form [@Bialynicka-Birula] $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|(1 -
\tfrac{1}{2}\lambda|\mathbf{Q}|^2 ) ,
\label{eq:HE-disprel}$$ where $\lambda$ is $8\kappa$ or $14\kappa$, respectively, depending on the polarization state of the photon, and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! |\mathbf{Q}|^2 \equiv \epsilon_0|\hat{\mathbf{k}}\times\mathbf{E} +
c\hat{\mathbf{k}}\times(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\times\mathbf{B})|^2
\label{eq:Q2}
\\ &&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
=
\epsilon_0\Big[ \mathbf{E}^2 + c^2\mathbf{B}^2 -
(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{E})^2 - c^2(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{B})^2
- 2c\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot(\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}) \Big] .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, the hat denotes the unit vector. The expression (\[eq:HE-disprel\]) is valid for arbitrary, slowly varying background fields. It is straightforward to show that expression (\[eq:Q2\]) vanishes in the case of a self-interacting plane wave field. The two different possible polarization directions can be given in a similar manner (see @Bialynicka-Birula).
Corrections due to rapidly varying fields
-----------------------------------------
As we saw in the previous section, it is possible to derive a dispersion relation for photons moving in a given background field. However, the field variations were neglected, and in order to take them into account, a modified weak field Lagrangian must be used.
It is well-known that the weak field theory of photon–photon scattering can be formulated using the effective Lagrangian density ${\mathscr{L}}= {\mathscr{L}}_0 + {\mathscr{L}}_{\text{HE}} + {\mathscr{L}}_D$, where ${\mathscr{L}}_0$ is the classical free field Lagrangian ${\mathscr{L}}_{\text{HE}}$ is the Heisenberg–Euler correction as given in Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian1\]), The derivative corrections are given by [@Mamaev-etal] $${\mathscr{L}}_D = \sigma\epsilon_0\left[ (\partial_aF^{ab})(\partial_cF^{c}\!_b)
- F_{ab}\square F^{ab}\right] ,$$ where $\square = \partial_a\partial^a$, and $\sigma = (2/15)\alpha c^2/\omega_e^2
\approx 1.4\times10^{-28}\,\mathrm{m}^2$. As we have seen in the dispersion relation (\[eq:HE-disprel\]), the parameter $\kappa$ gives the nonlinear coupling. Here, we find that the parameter $\sigma$ gives the dispersive effects in the polarized vacuum. Physically, setting the parameter $\sigma \neq 0$ corresponds to to taking correction due to rapidly varying perturbation into account. Since the Compton frequency is $\sim 10^{20} \, \mathrm{rad/s}$, we see that $\omega/\omega_e \ll 1$ in most applications. Thus, the dispersive term is normally a small correction.
In the previous section, the requirement (\[eq:constraint1\]) was assumed to be satisfied. Here, even though we include effects of the rapidly varying fields, we require that there is no electron–positron pair creation, neither by single photons nor by collective effects, i.e. the conditions (\[eq:constraint1\]) should still hold. Furthermore, the dispersive/diffractive effects must be small, otherwise the limit of weak fields would imply unphysical branches in the dispersion relation [@Rozanov].
As in the previous section, we set $F_{ab} = \partial_aA_b - \partial_bA_a$, and obtain the field equations from the Euler–Lagrange equations $\partial_b[\partial{\mathscr{L}}/\partial F_{ab}] = 0$. Thus, we have [@Rozanov; @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson] $$\tfrac{1}{2}(1 + 2\sigma\square)\partial_aF^{ab} =
\epsilon_0\kappa\partial_a\left[ (F_{cd}F^{cd})F^{ab} +
\tfrac{7}{4}(F_{cd}\widehat{F}^{cd})\widehat{F}^{ab} \right] .
\label{eq:exact-evol}$$ Equation (\[eq:exact-evol\]) describes the nonlinear evolution of the electromagnetic field through the nonlinear dispersive vacuum. We note that when $\sigma, \kappa \rightarrow 0$, we obtain the classical Maxwell’s equations, as we should.
Repeating the procedure leading up to Eq. (\[eq:algebraic\]), we find the corresponding expression in the case of a dispersive vacuum $$\begin{aligned}
M_{ab} \epsilon^b = \left[ M^0_{ab} - 2\sigma k^2(k^2g_{ab} - k_ak_b) \right]
\epsilon^b = 0,
\label{eq:algebraic2}\end{aligned}$$ where $M^0_{ab}$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:algebraic\]). With $a_b$ and $\hat{a}_b$ as the principal polarization direction, Eq. (\[eq:algebraic2\]) yields
$$(1 - 2\sigma k^2)k^2 = 8\kappa\epsilon_0f_{ab}f^{ac}k^bk_c ,$$
and $$(1 - 2\sigma k^2)k^2 = 14\kappa\epsilon_0f_{ab}f^{ac}k^bk_c ,$$ \[eq:equations2\]
for the two different polarizations $a_b$ and $\hat{a}_b$, respectively. When $\sigma = 0$, Eqs. (\[eq:equations2\]) reduces to Eqs. (\[eq:equations\]), which yield the dispersion relation (\[eq:HE-disprel\]). With $\sigma \neq 0$, we may use Eq. (\[eq:HE-disprel\]) in the dispersive term of Eqs. (\[eq:equations2\]). Thus, the final dispersion relation is of the form [@Rozanov; @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson] $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|\Big[ 1 - \tfrac{1}{2}\lambda|\mathbf{Q}|^2
\left( 1 + 2\sigma\lambda|\mathbf{Q}|^2|\mathbf{k}|^2 \right) \Big] ,
\label{eq:gen-disprel}$$ where $|\mathbf{Q}|^2$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:Q2\]). Thus, we see that the effect of the dispersive parameter is, as expected, to make $\omega$ a nonlinear function of $\mathbf{k}$.
Special cases of weak field dispersion
--------------------------------------
### Magnetized background {#sec:weakmagnetic}
In the case of a background magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_0$, the dispersion relation (\[eq:HE-disprel\]) becomes [@Erber; @Adler; @Adler-etal; @Adler-Shubert; @Dittrich-Gies2] $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|\left( 1
- \tfrac{1}{2}\lambda\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2 \sin^2\theta \right) ,
\label{eq:magnetized}$$ where $\theta$ is the angle between the background magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_0$ and the wavevector $\mathbf{k}$. Thus, photons propagating parallel to the background magnetic field will not experience any refractive effects, while a maximum refraction is obtained for perpendicular propagation. This dispersion relation will be relevant for photon propagation in pulsar magnetospheres and in magnetar environments, where for example the vacuum becomes birefringent [@Heyl-Hernquist; @Tsai-Erber]. This in turn may affect the optical depth of neutron star thermal emission, and thereby also influence the interpretation of pulsar observations [@Lodenqual-etal; @Ventura; @Heyl-Shaviv; @Heyl-etal].
For a magnetar with surface field strength $|\mathbf{B}_0| = 10^{11}\,\mathrm{T}$ [@magnetar], the field has the energy density $\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2 \approx
8\times 10^{27}\,\mathrm{J/m^3}$. Since $\lambda \sim 10\kappa \approx 1/(3\times 10^{28}\,\mathrm{J/m^3})$ (see Eqs. (\[eq:parameter\]) and (\[eq:HE-disprel\])), we find from (\[eq:magnetized\]) that the phase velocity $v = \omega/|\mathbf{k}|$ satisfies $v/c \approx 1 - 0.13\sin^2\theta$. However, the magnetar field strength does not qualify as a weak field, and one may question if it is appropriate to use Eq. (\[eq:magnetized\]) in this case (see Sec. \[sec:strongmagnetic\]).
### Random photons in a magnetic field
From the previous example, we saw that the effect of a magnetic field on the thermal or random distribution of photons could be observationally important. Thus, for a random ensemble of photons in a strong magnetic field we have a direction independent dispersion relation $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|\left( 1
- \tfrac{1}{3}\lambda\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2 \right) .$$ We note that the value of the effective action charge $\lambda$ still depends on the polarization of the thermal photons. As the crust of magnetars are subject to enormous stresses due to the immense field strengths ($\sim 10^{10} - 10^{11}\,\mathrm{T}$ [@magnetar]), it will suffer from crust quakes, at which bursts of low-frequency random photons are released [@Kondratyev]. In such a scenario, the above dispersion relation may be of relevance.
### Random photons in a plane wave field
Analogously, we may treat the case of incoherent photons on an intense plane wave background $\mathbf{E}_p$. Then, in the equilibrium state of the radiation gas, the propagation directions of the photons in the gas are random and the EM pulse is a superposition of uni-directional plane waves such that $\mathbf{B}_p \hat{\mathbf{k}}_p\times\mathbf{E}_p/c$. Thus, we obtain the direction independent dispersion relation $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|\left( 1
- \tfrac{2}{3}\lambda\epsilon_0|\mathbf{E}_p|^2 \right) .
\label{eq:planewave}$$ Equation (\[eq:planewave\]) is the proper dispersion relation to use in some laser-plasma interaction applications, where a large number of incoherent photons are produced [@bob; @bob2; @cai04].
### Radiation gas background
Consider a single photon transversing a dense background radiation gas with energy density $\mathscr{E}$. Then the dispersion relation can be written as [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo; @Dittrich-Gies] $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|\left( 1
- \tfrac{2}{3}\lambda\mathscr{E} \right) .
\label{eq:weakgas}$$ As one considers higher redshifts $z$, the cosmic microwave background will increase in energy density, since $\mathscr{E}(z) = (1 + z)^4\mathscr{E}_0$ (we note that radiation decouples from matter at a redshift $\sim 10^3$ [@Peacock]), where $\mathscr{E}_0 = a T_0^4$ denotes the current energy density, and $a = 8\pi^5k_B^4/15h^3c^3 \approx 7.6\times 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{J/m^3K^4}$ is the radiation constant. Thus, Eq. (\[eq:weakgas\]) gives $v/c = 1 - (2/3)\lambda a(1 + z)^4T_0^4 $, for the phase velocity $v$. Using $T_0 = 2.7\,\mathrm{K}$, a correction of 10% to the phase velocity in vacuum is obtained for a redshift $z_c \sim 10^{10}$, i.e. roughly at the time for neutrino–matter decoupling [@Peacock].
Including the dispersive correction, as given by Eq. (\[eq:gen-disprel\]), the dispersion relation for a background of incoherent photons takes the form $$\omega \approx c|\mathbf{k}|\left[ 1
- \tfrac{2}{3}\lambda\mathscr{E}\left( 1 +
\tfrac{8}{3}\sigma\lambda\mathscr{E}|\mathbf{k}|^2\right) \right]
\label{eq:weakgas-disp}$$ i.e. high-frequency pulses may suffer spectral dilution when propagating through a radiation gas.
### Other field configurations
Similar dispersion relations can be found for other background field configurations, e.g. plane wave backgrounds or partially coherent electromagnetic fields, as is relevant in ultra-high intensity laser applications. Of special interest for detection purposes is the configuration of photon propagation perpendicular to a collection of constant electric and magnetic fields [@Bakalov-etal; @Rikken-Rizzo1; @Rikken-Rizzo2]
We should also note that in all the cases above the group and phase velocities of the test photons are subluminal, as expected, since we have excited the quantum vacuum by using electromagnetic fields, analogous to a normal dispersive material medium. This can be contrasted with the Scharnhorst effect [@Scharnhorst; @Barton; @Barton-Scharnhorst; @Scharnhorst2], for which we obtain superluminal phase and group velocities between two conducting plates. This can be traced back to the Casimir effect [@Casimir1; @Casimir2], where the quantization between two conducting plates allows fewer states than for field with boundary conditions at infinity. Thus, in this sense, the vacuum between the plates is ‘emptier’ than outside, giving rise to superluminal velocity.
Ultra-intense fields
--------------------
The dispersion relations treated so far have used the weak field expansion of the general Heisenberg–Euler correction (\[eq:lagrangian2\]). However, both from an application point of view and due to theoretical issues, the inclusion of fully nonlinear vacuum effects deserve attention (see also @Dittrich-Gies for a thorough discussion of the strong magnetic field case).
Within astrophysical and cosmological settings, such as neutron stars and magnetars [@magnetar], the strong field conditions can be met. Even in laboratory environments, such conditions could be encountered in future high energy laser configurations. While today’s lasers can produce $10^{21}-10^{22}$ W/cm$^2$ [@mou98], it is expected that the next generation laser-plasma systems could reach $10^{25}$ W/cm$^2$ [@cai04; @bob; @bob2], where field strengths close to the Schwinger critical value could be reached [@Bulanov-etal]. Thus, nonlinear effects introduced by photon–photon scattering will be significant, and the weak field approximation no longer holds. In terms of Feynman diagrams the discussion to follow will consider the full one-loop correction $$\includegraphics[width=0.05\columnwidth]{HE-1.eps}\, {}^{\displaystyle{+}} \,
\includegraphics[width=0.05\columnwidth]{HE-2.eps}\, {}^{\displaystyle{+}} \,
\includegraphics[width=0.05\columnwidth]{HE-3.eps}\, {}^{\displaystyle{+}} \,
\includegraphics[width=0.05\columnwidth]{HE-4.eps}\, {}^{\displaystyle{+ \ldots}}$$
The general dispersion relation for a test photon in a vacuum dressed by a strong electromagnetic field is given by [@Dittrich-Gies2] $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\left[1 + \tfrac{1}{2}{\lambda}\epsilon_0(\mathbf{E}^2 + c^2\mathbf{B}^2)\right]\frac{v^2}{c^2} -
2{\lambda}\epsilon_0c\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot(\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B})\frac{v}{c}
\nonumber \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+ {\lambda}\epsilon_0\left[ \tfrac{1}{2}(\mathbf{E}^2 + c^2\mathbf{B}^2) -
(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{E})^2 -
c^2(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{B})^2\right] = 1 ,
\label{eq:disprel-full}\end{aligned}$$ where $v = \omega/|\mathbf{k}| \equiv c/n$ is the photon phase velocity, and $n$ is the refractive index. The effective action charge ${\lambda}$ is no longer a constant, but instead defined through [@Dittrich-Gies2] $${\lambda} = \frac{1}{\epsilon_0}\frac{(\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}} +
\partial^2_{{\mathscr{G}}}){\mathscr{L}}}{-2\partial_{{\mathscr{F}}}{\mathscr{L}}+
{\mathscr{F}}(\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}} + \partial^2_{{\mathscr{G}}}){\mathscr{L}}-
2({\mathscr{F}}\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}} + {\mathscr{G}}\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}{\mathscr{G}}}){\mathscr{L}}} .
\label{eq:Q}$$ In many cases, the part of the denominator of (\[eq:Q\]) stemming from the nonlinear QED correction (\[eq:lagrangian2\]) can be neglected, since it will be much smaller than the remaining terms, even for fields $\gg E_{\text{crit}}$.
### Pure magnetic field {#sec:strongmagnetic}
The case of pure magnetic fields enables a simplification of the evaluation of the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian2\]). The refractive index for the strongly magnetized vacuum can be determined in terms of special functions. For a pure magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_0$, we immediately obtain using Eq. (\[eq:ab\]) that $a = c|\mathbf{B}_0|$ and $b = 0$, respectively. @Dittrich-Gies2 (see also @Dittrich-Gies), starting from the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian2\]), devised the general expression (\[eq:Q\]) for the effective action charge $\lambda$ (as also can be found in the work of, e.g. @Bialynicka-Birula).
Using $a = c|\mathbf{B}_0|$ and $b = 0$ and the approximation $\lambda \approx (\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}} + \partial^2_{{\mathscr{G}}}){\mathscr{L}}/2\epsilon_0$ (see Eq. (\[eq:Q\])), the effective action charge takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda = \frac{\alpha}{2\pi\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2}\Bigg[
\left( 2x^2 - \tfrac{1}{3}\right)\psi(1 + x) - x - 3x^2
\nonumber \\
- 4x\ln\Gamma(x)
+ 2x\ln 2\pi + \frac{1}{6} + 4\zeta^{\prime}(-1, 4x) + \frac{1}{6x}
\Bigg] ,
\label{eq:exact}\end{aligned}$$ where $x = E_{\text{crit}}/2c|\mathbf{B}_0|$, $\psi$ is the logarithmic derivative of the $\Gamma$ function, and $\zeta^{\prime}$ is the derivative of the Hurwitz zeta function with respect to the first index. Thus, the refractive index, given in Eq. (\[eq:disprel-full\]), becomes $$n^{-2} \approx 1 - \lambda\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2\sin^2\theta
\geq 0,$$ where higher order terms in the fine structure constant $\alpha$ has been neglected, and $\theta$ is the angle between the background magnetic field $\mathbf{B}_0$ and the wavevector $\mathbf{k}$.
The refractive effects of a super-strong magnetic field is of interest in neutron stars and in magnetar environments, since they generate extreme conditions in terms of the field strength. Comparing with the case presented in Sec. \[sec:weakmagnetic\] we see that given the magnetic field strength $|\mathbf{B}_0| \sim 10^{11}\,\mathrm{T}$, we have $\lambda\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2
\approx 15\alpha/\pi \approx 0.03$. Thus, the effect of the magnetic field on the refractive index is weaker than predicted by the lowest order calculation.
### Crossed field background
For a crossed field configuration, i.e. $|\mathbf{E}| = c|\mathbf{B}|$ and $\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B} = 0$, it immediately follows that $a = b = 0$. For a test photon belonging to an ensemble of random photons (such as in a photon gas), we obtain [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson] $$n = \left(\frac{1 + {\lambda}\epsilon_0|\mathbf{E}|^2}{1 - \tfrac{1}{3}{\lambda}\epsilon_0|\mathbf{E}|^2} \right)^{1/2} ,
\label{eq:refractive1}$$ from Eq. (\[eq:disprel-full\]), where the effective action charge in (\[eq:Q\]) is a constant due to the random properties of the test photons, ${\lambda}^{-1} =
({45}/{22})({4\pi}/{\alpha})\epsilon_0{E}_{\text{crit}}^2 $. Note that this is the same charge as the geometrical average of the coefficient obtained from the polarization tensor in the weak field limit [@Bialynicka-Birula], i.e. an average over polarization states. The refractive index diverges as $\epsilon_0|\mathbf{E}|^2 \rightarrow 3{\lambda}^{-1}$. As these field strengths are reached, it is not correct that the test radiation gas is in thermodynamical equilibrium, and the assumptions behind the derivation of (\[eq:refractive1\]) are no longer valid.
### Incoherent radiation background
We may characterize single photons in terms of plane electromagnetic waves. Thus, for an electromagnetic wave moving in an isotropic and homogeneous medium with the refractive index $n$ we have $|\mathbf{B}| = n|\mathbf{E}|/c$, ${\mathscr{G}}= - c\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}$ = 0, and ${\mathscr{F}}= \tfrac{1}{2}(n^{2} - 1)|\mathbf{E}|^2 \geq 0$. Here we have assumed that $n > 1$, which implies $a = [(n^2 - 1)\mathscr{E}/\epsilon_0]^{1/2}
\neq 0$ and $b = 0$, while for superluminal velocities, we have $a = 0$ and $b \neq 0$, which allows for spontaneous pair production [@Schwinger]. The $n > 1$ assumption is consistent with elastic photon–photon scattering. The vacuum is now treated fully nonlinearly so we have to take into account the backreaction of the random photons onto themselves, an interaction mediated by the refractive index. The effective action charge (\[eq:Q\]) will therefore depend on both the field strength and the refractive index. Since the refractive index itself depends on the effective action charge ${\lambda}$, it will be nonlinearly determined via (\[eq:disprel-full\]). For incoherent photons the Poynting flux in the gas rest frame vanishes, and we may uniquely characterize the gas by its energy density $\mathscr{E}$. From (\[eq:disprel-full\]) we then obtain [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson] $$\frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{1 - \tfrac{2}{3}{\lambda} \mathscr{E} + \sqrt{1 -
2{\lambda}\mathscr{E} +
\tfrac{1}{9}({\lambda}\mathscr{E})^2}}{2 +
{\lambda}\mathscr{E}} ,
\label{eq:refractive2}$$ while the effective action charge takes the form $${\lambda} = \frac{\alpha}{4\pi\epsilon_0
a^2}\,\frac{F(a/E_{\text{crit}})}{2 +
(\alpha/8\pi)[ F(a/E_{\text{crit}}) +
G(a/E_{\text{crit}}) ]} .
\label{eq:Qgas}$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
&&
F(a/E_{\text{crit}}) =
\frac{4\pi}{\alpha\epsilon_0}a^2\lim_{b\rightarrow 0}\,(\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}} + \partial^2_{{\mathscr{G}}}){\mathscr{L}}\label{eq:FG} \\ &&
= \frac{1}{4\pi}
\int_0^{\mathrm{i}\infty} \frac{dz}{z}\,\mathrm{e}^{-E_{\text{crit}}
z/a} \left( \frac{1 - z\coth z}{\sinh^2 z} + \frac{1}{3}z\coth z
\right) ,
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and $$G(a/E_{\text{crit}}) = \frac{8\pi}{\alpha\epsilon_0}
\lim_{b\rightarrow 0}\,[ -2\partial_{{\mathscr{F}}}{\mathscr{L}}_c
-a^2\partial^2_{{\mathscr{F}}}{\mathscr{L}}_c ]
.$$ Note that the latter function only gives a small correction to the effective action charge, and can in most cases safely be neglected. Moreover, the function $F$ may be expressed in terms of special functions, see Eq. (\[eq:exact\]) [@Dittrich-Gies].
The weak field limit of (\[eq:refractive2\]) and (\[eq:Qgas\]) takes the form (\[eq:weakgas\]) [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo; @Dittrich-Gies2; @Bialynicka-Birula]. On the other hand, in the ultra-strong field limit ($ \mathscr{E} / \epsilon_0{E}_{\text{crit}}^2
\rightarrow \infty$), we obtain the asymptotic constant phase velocity [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson] $$v_{\infty} = c/\sqrt{5} \approx 0.45 c ,
\label{eq:constant}$$ valid in the low frequency approximation. Thus, for very high radiation densities, we expect the phase and group velocities to be approximately half that of the speed of light in vacuum. In this limit, the one-loop radiation gas essentially evolves by free streaming, and it is therefore likely that higher-order loop corrections are important [@Ritus]. The phase velocity as a function of intensity is depicted in Fig. \[fig:velocity\].
![The phase velocity $v$ in units of $c$, as given by Eqs. (\[eq:refractive2\]) and (\[eq:Qgas\]), plotted as a function of the normalised energy density $\mathscr{E}/\mathscr{E}_{\text{crit}}$ (reprinted with permission from @Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson).[]{data-label="fig:velocity"}](fig05.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
Under most circumstances, the contribution proportional to $\alpha$ in the denominator of Eq. (\[eq:Qgas\]) is small and may be neglected. When $\mathscr{E} \geq \epsilon_0{E}_{\text{crit}}^2$, we obtain $F \approx a/3E_{\text{crit}}$ from Eq. (\[eq:FG\]), and we have [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson] $${\lambda}
\approx \frac{\alpha}{8\pi \epsilon_0a^2}F(a/E_{\text{crit}})
\approx \frac{\alpha}{24\pi \epsilon_0^{1/2}E_{\text{crit}}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n^2 -
1}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathscr{E}}} \ .
\label{eq:approxlambda}$$ This expression for the effective action charge can be used in conjunction with (\[eq:refractive2\]) to analyse the propagation of single photons in a radiation gas where the energy density is in the intermediate range.
Nonlinear collective photon interactions
========================================
In the preceding section, we presented the dispersion relations for single photons interacting nonlinearly with the vacuum, for a number of special cases. The single-photon picture contains many interesting physical phenomena, such as photon splitting and the birefringence of the quantum vacuum. However, in many applications, collective effects among photons may be dominant [@Mendonca].
Coherent field interactions
---------------------------
The formulation of the interaction between coherent electromagnetic waves and possible background field configurations is a starting point for the discussion concerning possible detection techniques of elastic photon–photon collisions. Experiments for detecting elastic photon–photon scattering are important tests of QED, and constitute a new type of tests of, e.g. Lorentz invariance in extensions of the Standard Model such as supersymmetric field theories [@Colloday-Kostelecky; @Jackiw-Kostelecky; @Lipa-etal; @Nibbelink-Pospelov].
The Maxwell equations that results from the weak field Heisenberg–Euler corrected electromagnetic Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) are
$$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\cdot\mathbf{E} &=& (\rho - \nabla\cdot\mathbf{P})/\epsilon_0 , \\
\nabla\cdot\mathbf{B} &=& 0 , \\
\frac{\partial\mathbf{B}}{\partial t} + \nabla\times\mathbf{E} &=& 0 ,\\
\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial\mathbf{E}}{\partial t} - \nabla\times\mathbf{B}
&=& -\mu_0\left( \mathbf{j} + \frac{\partial\mathbf{P}}{\partial t}
+ \nabla\times\mathbf{M} \right)\!\! , \end{aligned}$$
\[eq:maxwell\]
where the vacuum polarization and magnetization are given by the expressions (\[eq:polarization\]) and (\[eq:magnetization\]), respectively, and $\rho$ and $\mathbf{j}$ are the charge and current densities, respectively. From these, it is straightforward to derive the wave equations (\[WaveE\]) and (\[WaveB\]). These may in turn be used to derive the dispersion function for the appropriate wave field on a given background.
As noted above, the interaction between waves in parallel propagation does not yield any interaction due to the vacuum dispersion function $D_{\text{vac}}
= \omega^2 - |\mathbf{k}|^2c^2$ appearing as an overall factor in the wave equations (\[WaveE\]) and (\[WaveB\]). Thus, dispersive effects need to be introduced in the wave propagation. This can be done in a multitude of ways, such as crossing light beams [@Soljacic-Segev], photon propagation on a constant coherent field background [@Rozanov93; @Rozanov; @Ding; @Ding-Kaplan; @Kaplan-Ding; @Bakalov-etal; @Rikken-Rizzo1; @Rikken-Rizzo2],[^2] cavity fields [@Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo; @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo2], waveguide propagation [@Brodin-etal; @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund; @Shen-Yu; @Shen-etal], plasma interactions [@Shen-Yu; @Shen-etal; @Stenflo-etal; @Marklund-Shukla-Stenflo-Brodin-Servin; @Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-StenfloC], and interaction between coherent and incoherent photons [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo; @Shukla-Eliasson; @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson; @r1; @Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-Stenflo; @Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-Stenflo2; @Shukla-Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo].
### Nonlinear vacuum magneto-optics
We have seen that the propagation of photons on a magnetized background can be expressed according to the dispersion relation (\[eq:magnetized\]). We may also start from the constituent relations (\[eq:constituent\]) together with the expressions (\[eq:polarization\]) and (\[eq:magnetization\]) for the polarization and magnetization, respectively. This was first done by @Klein-Nigam1 [@Klein-Nigam2], and later for arbitrary intensities by @Heyl-Hernquist. Denote the slowly varying background magnetic field by $\mathbf{B}_0$, and the perturbation fields by $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$. Then, we find that $D_i = \epsilon_{ij}E_j$ and $H_i = \mu_{ij}B_j$, where the quantum vacuum electric permittivity and magnetic permeability are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& \epsilon_{ij} = \epsilon_0\left[ \delta_{ij}
+ 4\kappa\mathscr{B}_0\left(-\delta_{ij} + \tfrac{7}{2}b_ib_j \right) \right] , \\
&& \mu_{ij} = \mu_0\left[ \delta_{ij}
+ 4\kappa\mathscr{B}_0\left( \delta_{ij} + 2b_ib_j \right)\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Here, we have introduced the background magnetic field energy density $\mathscr{B}_0 = |\mathbf{B}_0|^2/\mu_0$ and the background magnetic field direction $\mathbf{b} = \mathbf{B}_0/|\mathbf{B}_0|$. Thus, the permittivity and permeability are diagonal when using the magneto-optical axis as eigen-direction. Denoting this direction by $z$, we have $\epsilon_{xx} = \epsilon_{yy}
= \epsilon_0(1 - 4\kappa\mathscr{B}_0)$ and $\epsilon_{zz}
= \epsilon_0(1 + 10\kappa\mathscr{B}_0)$, while $\mu_{xx} = \mu_{yy}
= \mu_0(1 + 4\kappa\mathscr{B}_0)$ and $\mu_{zz}
= \mu_0(1 + 12\kappa\mathscr{B}_0)$.
For an electromagnetic wave propagating perpendicular to $\mathbf{B}_0$, there are essentially two different polarization states, and we may write $\epsilon_{ij} = \epsilon\delta_{ij}$, $\mu_{ij} = \mu\delta_{ij}$ . When $\mathbf{E} \perp \mathbf{B}_0$, we have $\epsilon = \epsilon_{\perp}$, $\mu = \mu_{\perp}$ according to $$\epsilon_{\perp} = \epsilon_0(1 - 4\kappa\mathscr{B}_0) , \quad\text{ and }\quad
\mu_{\perp} = \mu_0(1 + 12\kappa\mathscr{B}_0) ,$$ while if $\mathbf{E} \| \mathbf{B}_0$, we find $\epsilon = \epsilon_{\|}$, $\mu = \mu_{\|}$, where $$\epsilon_{\|} = \epsilon_0(1 + 10\kappa\mathscr{B}_0) , \quad \text{ and }\quad
\mu_{\|} = \mu_0(1 + 4\kappa\mathscr{B}_0) .$$ Thus, we see that for strong magnetic fields, there is a significant difference in the behavior of the two polarization modes. This has been exploited in various scenarios (e.g. @Bakalov-etal2 [@Bakalov-etal; @Ding; @Ding-Kaplan; @Kaplan-Ding; @Rikken-Rizzo1; @Rikken-Rizzo2; @Heyl-Hernquist]). The procedure is straightforward to perform for other uni-directional background field configuration.
### Nonlinear self-interactions
Based on these results, the self-action of an electromagnetic pulse on a given background can also be considered. Taking into account the lowest order cubic nonlinear terms of the (complex) pulse amplitude $E$, and employing the slowly varying envelope approximation [@Hasegawa; @Kivshar-Agrawal], one can derive a nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) for $E$. Letting $E = \int E_k\exp[i(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}_0)\cdot\mathbf{r}
- i(\omega - \omega_0)t]\,d\mathbf{k}$, and expanding the frequency around the background values (denoted by $0$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\omega \approx \omega_0
+ \left.\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial k_i}\right|_0(k_i - k_{0i})
+ \frac{1}{2}\left.\frac{\partial^2\omega}{\partial k_i\partial k_j}\right|_0 (k_i - k_{0i})(k_j - k_{0j})
\nonumber \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+ \left.\frac{\partial\omega}{\partial|\mathbf{Q}|^2}\right|_0 (|\mathbf{Q}|^2 - |\mathbf{Q}_0|^2) , \end{aligned}$$ where $|\mathbf{Q}|^2$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:Q2\]). Thus, the envelope will satisfy the NLSE $$i\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + v_{gi}\nabla_i\right)E
+ \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial v_{gi}}{\partial k_{0j}}\nabla_i\nabla_jE
+ \frac{1}{2}\lambda k_0c I(|\mathbf{Q}|^2) = 0 ,
\label{eq:nlse-gen}$$ where $\mathbf{v}_g$ is the group velocity and $I(|\mathbf{Q}|^2) =
\int E_k(|\mathbf{Q}|^2 - |\mathbf{Q}_0|^2)\exp[i(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}_0)\cdot\mathbf{r}
- i(\omega - \omega_0)t]\,d\mathbf{k}$ is the nonlinear response. We note that the term containing $|\mathbf{Q}_0|^2$ represents a phase shift, and can be removed by a transformation. When high-frequency corrections are added, the NLSE will attain a second order derivative along the propagation direction. The group velocity $\mathbf{v}_g = \partial\omega/\partial\mathbf{k}$ on an arbitrary background can be written as [@Bialynicka-Birula] $\mathbf{v}_g = c\,\hat{\mathbf{k}} - ({c\lambda\epsilon_0}/{2})[
|\mathbf{E}|^2 + c^2|\mathbf{B}|^2 + (\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{E})^2
+ c^2(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{B})^2
]\hat{\mathbf{k}}
-
{c\lambda\epsilon_0}[(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{E})\,\mathbf{E}
+ c^2(\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\mathbf{B})\,\mathbf{B} +
c\,\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{B}]$ in the weak field case. We note that $|\mathbf{v}_g| = \omega/k < c$. We will now discuss some special cases.
#### Constant background fields
For a constant background configuration, the back reaction of the photon propagation may, in some cases, be neglected. Then, the nonlinear contribution to the self-interaction of the pulse will come through a coupling of higher order in the parameter $\lambda$.
@Rozanov considered the perpendicular propagation of high intensity laser pulses on a background $\mathbf{E}_0 = E_0\hat{\mathbf{x}},
\mathbf{B}_0 = B_0\hat{\mathbf{y}}$. By choosing the polarization directions of the laser pulse in the direction of the background fields, one obtains the NLSE[^3] $$i\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + v_g\frac{\partial}{\partial z} \right)E
+ \frac{1}{2}v_g^{\prime}\nabla_{\perp}^2E + \xi|E|^2E = 0
\label{eq:rozanov}$$ where $v_g^{\prime} = c(1 - \lambda|\mathbf{Q}_0|^2/2)/k_0$ is the group velocity dispersion, $\xi = k_0c\epsilon_0\lambda^3|\mathbf{Q}_0|^4/8$, and $|\mathbf{Q}_0|^2 = \epsilon_0(E_0 - cB_0)^2$. The NLSE (\[eq:rozanov\]) could be of interest for laboratory applications, when studying high intensity laser pulse propagation in given background electromagnetic fields.
#### Crossing beams
When the background is given by the source itself, the nonlinear self-interaction term will be of first order in $\lambda$, thus requiring weaker background conditions.
@Soljacic-Segev derived a NLSE for the dynamics of the envelope $A(x)$ of the interaction region due to crossing laser beams. By symmetry arguments concerning the QED corrected Maxwell’s equations, they reduce the problem to a 1D stationary NLSE $$\frac{d^2A}{dx^2} + \Gamma A + \tfrac{1}{2}k^2\kappa\epsilon_0 A^3 = 0 ,$$ where $k$ is the wavenumber of the laser beams, $\Gamma$ is the eigenvalue of the equation, and the beams are assumed to be polarized in the $x$-direction. The lowest order solitary wave solution is given by [@Kivshar-Agrawal] $A(x) = A_0\,\text{sech}\left( \sqrt{-2\Gamma}\,z\right)$ where we have denoted the eigenvalue $\Gamma = -k^2\kappa\epsilon_0A_0^2/8$. This one-dimensional soliton solution is stable, as opposed to higher dimensional solitons [@Kivshar-Agrawal; @r5]. Furthermore, @Soljacic-Segev also suggested the possibility of higher dimensional soliton formation, e.g., necklace solitons [@Soljacic-etal; @Soljacic-Segev2].
### Propagation between conducting planes {#sec:planes}
Similar to the case of a Casimir vacuum, one of the simplest geometries where dispersive effects makes the presence of QED vacuum nonlinearities apparent, is given by two parallel conducting planes. They are the first example where multi-dimensional photon configurations can self-compress to reach intensities above the laser limit [@mou98; @Brodin-etal; @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund].
#### Variational formulation
Consider the propagation between two parallel conducting planes with spacing $x_0$ of one ${\rm TE}_{\ell0}$-mode ($\ell = 1, 2, ...$) given by $$\label{eq:TEn0-mode}
\mathbf{A} = {A}\sin \left( \frac{\ell\pi x}{x_{0}}\right) \exp [{\rm i}(kz-\omega t)]\hat{\mathbf{y}} + {\rm c.c.}$$ in the radiation gauge ($\phi =0$). The *linear* dispersion relation is $\omega^2/c^2 - k^2 - \ell^2\pi^2/x_0^2 = 0$. From Maxwell’s equations (\[eq:maxwell\]) a nonlinear dispersion relation can be derived by inserting the linear expression for the fields and separating into orthogonal trigonometric functions. The coefficients in the NLSE can be found from the resulting equation. One may also start from the Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]), and minimize the resulting expression for the action. This may appear more elegant and gives the same result [@Brodin-etal].
We follow @Brodin-etal. Let ${A} = {A}(t,y,z)$ and assume ${A}$ to be weakly modulated so that $|\partial{A}/\partial t| \ll |\omega{A}|$, $|\partial{A}/\partial z| \ll |k{A}|$. To lowest order, the nonlinear terms and the slow derivatives in $\mathscr{L}$ are omitted. Averaging over the plate spacing, $x_0$, shows that this lowest order Lagrangian is identically zero due to the dispersion relation. To the next order of approximation in the Lagrangian, first order slow derivatives are included. After variation of the corresponding action, this leads to an equation where the envelope moves with the group velocity. The next order and final approximation includes second order slow derivatives. After performing the averaging between the plate inter-spacing, the final expression for the Lagrangian is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\mathscr{L}}
= {\rm i}\omega \varepsilon _{0}\left( \frac{\partial
{A}}{\partial t}{A}^{\ast }-
\frac{\partial {A}^{\ast }}{\partial t}{A}\right) -
{\rm i}kc^{2}\varepsilon _{0}\left( \frac{\partial {A}}{\partial
z}{A}^{\ast }-
\frac{\partial {A}^{\ast }}{\partial z}{A}\right)
\nonumber \\
&& \qquad
+ (c^2 - v_g^2)\varepsilon_0\left| \frac{\partial {A}}{\partial z}\right|^2 +
\frac{3\ell^4c^4\pi^4\epsilon_0^2\kappa}{x_0^4}|{A}|^{4} .
\label{eq:averagelagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ Variation of the action due to the Lagrangian (\[eq:averagelagrangian\]) with respect to ${A}^*$ leads to the NLSE $$i \left( \frac{\partial }{\partial t} + v_{g}\frac{\partial }{\partial z}\right)A
+ \frac{c^{2}}{2\omega}\frac{\partial ^{2}A}{\partial y^{2}}+
\frac{v_{g}}{2}^{\prime }\frac{\partial ^{2}A}{\partial z^{2}}
+ L^2|A|^{2}A
= 0 ,
\label{eq:nls2}$$ where $v_{g}$ and $v_{g}^{\prime } = \partial v_g/\partial k$ follow from the linear dispersion relation, and $L^2 = (3\ell^{4}c^{4}\pi^{4}\kappa\epsilon_0)/(\omega x_{0}^{4})$. The nonlinear correction in Eq. (\[eq:nls2\]) is due to the self-interaction of the $\mathrm{TE}_{\ell0}$-mode (\[eq:TEn0-mode\]) via the quantum vacuum. In one space dimension, i.e. $\partial^2 A/
\partial y^2 = 0$, Eq. (\[eq:nls2\]) reduces to the cubic Schrödinger equation which admits an envelope soliton solution [@Kivshar-Agrawal].
Changing to a system moving with the group velocity while rescaling the coordinates and the amplitude according to $
\tau = \omega t/2$, $\upsilon =\,\omega y/c$, $\zeta = (\omega/v_{g}^{\prime })^{1/2}(z-v_{g}t)$, and $a = \sqrt{2}\,LA$, and assuming cylindrical symmetry, Eq. (\[eq:nls2\]) takes the form $${\rm i}\frac{\partial a}{\partial \tau }+
\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{\partial }{\partial \rho }
\left( \rho \frac{\partial a}{\partial \rho }\right)
+|a|^{2}a=0 , \label{eq:nls3}$$ where $a=a(t,\rho )$, and $\rho ^{2}=\upsilon ^{2}+\zeta ^{2}$.
Equation (\[eq:nls3\]) is a 2-dimensional radially symmetric NLSE, to which exact solutions are not available. However, an accurate analytical approximation of the dynamics of the pulse-like solutions of Eq. (\[eq:nls3\]) can be obtained by means of Rayleigh–Ritz optimization based on suitably chosen trial functions (see e.g. @Desaix-Anderson-Lisak [@Anderson-Cattani-Lisak] and references therein). An accurate approximate solution, mimicking the solitary behavior as well as capturing the collapse properties of Eq. (\[eq:nls3\]) is given by [@Desaix-Anderson-Lisak] $$\label{eq:approximatesolution}
a_T(\tau, \rho) =
F(\tau)\,{\rm sech}\!\left[ \frac{\rho}{f(\tau)}
\right]\exp\left[ {\rm i} b(\tau)\rho^2 \right] ,$$ where[^4] $f(\tau) =
[f^2(0) + {\gamma}\left(1 -
{I_0}/{I_c}\right)\tau^2]^{1/2}$, showing the instability of the stationary solution $I_0 = I_c$, either collapsing to zero width in a finite time when $I_0 > I_c$, or diffracting monotonously towards infinite width when $I_0 < I_c$.
In the next section, a perturbation analysis will show that the exact equations produced unstable solutions.
#### Instability analysis
Following @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund, a rescaling of Eq. (\[eq:nls2\]) gives the dimensionless equation $$\label{eq:nls4}
\mathrm{i}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}+\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)A
+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^2 A}{\partial y^2}+
\frac{\beta^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2A}{\partial z^2}+|A|^2A=0,$$ where $\beta=\ell\pi c/x_0\omega$, and the time is scaled by $\omega^{-1}$, the spatial variables by $c/\omega$, and the vector potential by $(\kappa\epsilon_0/2\omega^2)^{1/2}$.
Conditions for the modulational and filamentation instabilities can be obtained as follows. Let $A=[A_0+A_1\exp(i\phi)+A_2\exp(-i\phi)]\exp(-i\omega_0 t)$, where $\phi={\bf K}\cdot {\bf r}- {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} t$ is a phase, $\omega_0$ is a constant frequency and the constants $A_0$, $A_1$ and $A_2$ are the complex amplitudes of the pump wave and the two electromagnetic sidebands, respectively. The wavevector and the frequency of modulating perturbations are denoted by ${\bf K} = \hat {\bf y} K_y + \hat {\bf z} K_z$ and ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}$, respectively, where $\hat {\bf y}$ and $\hat {\bf z}$ are the unit vectors along $x$ and $y$ axes, respectively. Following the standard procedure of the modulational/filamentational instability [@Shukla-etal; @dan99], the nonlinear dispersion relation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\left({{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} -K_z\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\right)^2
\nonumber \\ &&\!\!\!\!
+\left[ |A_0|^2-\tfrac{1}{4}\left(K_y^2+\beta^2 K_z^2 \right)\right]
\left(K_y^2+\beta^2K_z^2 \right) = 0.
\label{eq:Shu-Eli-disprel}\end{aligned}$$ Letting ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} = K_z\sqrt{1-\beta^2} + i \gamma$ in (\[eq:Shu-Eli-disprel\]), one obtains the modulational instability growth rate $$\label{eq:plategrowthrate}
\gamma=\left[ |A_0|^2-\tfrac{1}{4}(K_y^2+\beta^2 K_z^2)\right]^{1/2}
(K_y^2+\beta^2K_z^2)^{1/2} .$$ The instability grows quadratically with the amplitude $A_0$, and attains a maximum value at a critical wavenumber. Values of $\beta$ different from unity make the instability region asymmetric with respect to $K_y$ and $K_z$. On the other hand, the spatial amplification rate ${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}} = iK_z$ of the filamentation instability in the quasi-stationary limit ([*viz*]{}. $\Omega=0$) and for $\beta^2 {{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}}^2 \ll K_y^2$ is $${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}} = \left(|A_0|^2-\tfrac{1}{4}K_y^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{K_y}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}.$$
@Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund performed a numerical study of Eq. (\[eq:Shu-Eli-disprel\]) showing the instabilities indicated by the approximate solution (\[eq:approximatesolution\]), see Fig. \[fig:plates1\]. Using the normalized Eq. (\[eq:nls4\]) an initially Gaussian pulse was shown to collapse or disperse in accordance to the collapse criterion in @Brodin-etal, see Fig. \[fig:plates2\]. The collapse is unbounded in the weakly nonlinear model given by (\[eq:nls4\]). As the collapse pursues, the intensity of the pulse will reach values at which the weakly nonlinear theory breaks down and higher order effects [@Bialynicka-Birula; @Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson], and possible pair creation processes [@Schwinger], has to be taken into account. For the latter, a significant energy dissipation into the electron–positron plasma will take place.
![The growth rate $\gamma$ as given by (\[eq:plategrowthrate\]) of the modulational instability for an initially homogeneous radiation field as a function of the wavenumber $(K_y,\,K_z)$, for different values of $\beta$ and pump strength $A_0$. (Reprinted from @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund, Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.)[]{data-label="fig:plates1"}](small_fig06.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
![The time-evolution of $|A|^2$ as given by Eq. (\[eq:nls4\]) for an initially Gaussian shaped electromagnetic pulse. The pulse slowly self-focuses and finally collapses. Here $\beta=0.5$ and a Gaussian pulse $A=10^{-2}\exp[-(y^2+z^2)/(2\times 10^3)^2]$ is used. In the upper right and lower left panels, the pulse self-compresses and in the lower right panel the field strength of the pulse has reached a critical limit where Eq. (\[eq:nls4\]) is no longer valid. (Reprinted from @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund, Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.)[]{data-label="fig:plates2"}](fig07.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
In practice, the trapping of an electromagnetic pulse could be achieved by two highly conduction layers. As an example, we consider the generation of two-dimensional plasma channels due to the interaction of a plasma with high–intensity lasers [@Shen-etal]. In this case, a vacuum will be created within the plasma due to the complete evacuation of the electrons by the ponderomotive force of intense laser beams. The resulting plasma waveguides can sustain very high field intensities [@bob], and with future laser systems [@mou98; @mou05] the intensities could surpass even the theoretical laser limit [@mou98; @she02; @puk03]. The trapping of intense laser fields could yield the right conditions for the electromagnetic modes to self-interact via the nonlinear quantum vacuum, giving rise to pulse evolution according to Eq. (\[eq:nls4\]).
### Cavity mode interactions {#sec:cavity}
Wave-wave interactions can give rise to a host of interesting phenomena, well-known in optics and plasma physics [@Agrawal; @Kivshar-Agrawal; @Weiland-Wilhelmsson]. As cubic nonlinearities act within a cavity environment, they will produce wave-wave couplings, and given certain resonance conditions, a new mode will be generated, that will satisfy the cavity dispersion relation. @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo showed that these new modes could reach detectable levels within state of the art cavities, and @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo2 were able to derive a NLSE for the self-interaction of a single mode in a rectangular cavity.
Calculations of the three-wave coupling strength between various eigenmodes can be made including the nonlinear polarization (\[eq:polarization\]) and magnetization (\[eq:magnetization\]), see e.g. @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo. However, a more convenient and elegant approach, which was pioneered by @Brodin-etal and which gives the same result, starts directly with the Lagrangian density (\[eq:lagrangian1\]).
A general procedure for finding the cavity eigenmode coupling and the saturated amplitudes of the excited mode can be formulated [@Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo; @Brodin-etal; @Eriksson-etal; @Weiland-Wilhelmsson]:
1\. Determine the linear eigenmodes of the cavity in terms of the vector potential .
2\. Choose resonant eigenmodes fulfilling frequency matching conditions for modes 1, 2, and 3, such as $$\omega _{3}=2\omega _{1}-\omega _{2} . \label{frequency-matching}$$
3\. Assume a slowly varying amplitude of the vector potential eigenmode amplitudes and minimize the effective action obtained from the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) and follow steps 1 and 2. The lowest order linear terms vanish, since the dispersion relation of each mode is fulfilled.
4\. In the absence of dissipation, the mode coupling equations imply steady growth of mode 3, until the energy of that mode is comparable to that of the pump modes. A damping mechanism, such as finite conductivity of the cavity walls, may be inserted on phenomenological grounds. This saturates the amplitude at a level depending on the the mode-coupling growth versus losses.
#### Rectangular cavities
For a rectangular prism cavity with dimensions $(x_0, y_0, z_0)$, choosing the radiation gauge, the pump modes have vector potentials of the form $$\mathbf{A}_{j}=A_{j}\sin \left( \frac{\pi x_j}{x_{j0}}\right) \sin \left( \frac{\ell_{j}\pi z}{z_{0}}\right) \exp (-\mathrm{i}\omega _{j}t)\hat{\mathbf{y}}+\mathrm{c.c} , \label{vector-rectj}$$ where $j = 1,2$, $\ell_{j}=1,2,3...$ are the mode numbers the pump waves, and $x_1 = x$, $x_2 = y$, $x_{10} = x_0$, and $x_{20} = y_0$. The dispersion relations are $$\omega _{j}^{2} = \frac{\ell_{j}^{2}\pi ^{2}c^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}}
+ \frac{\pi^{2}c^{2}}{x_{j0}^{2}} .$$ The mode excited due to the QED nonlinearities is given by $$\mathbf{A}_{3}=A_{3}\sin \left( \frac{\pi y}{y_{0}}\right) \sin \left( \frac{\ell_{3}\pi z}{z_{0}}\right) \exp (-\mathrm{i}\omega _{3}t)\widehat{\mathbf{x}}+\mathrm{c.c.} , \label{vector-rect3}$$ where $$\omega _{3}^{2} = \frac{\ell_{3}^{2}\pi^{2}c^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}}
+ \frac{\pi^{2}c^{2}}{y_{0}^{2}} .$$
Following the scheme as given by @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo [@Brodin-etal] and @Eriksson-etal, with the resonance condition $\omega _{3}=2\omega _{1}-\omega _{2}$, one obtains the evolution equation for mode 3 $$\frac{dA_{3}}{dt}=-\frac{\mathrm{i}\varepsilon _{0}\kappa \omega _{3}^{3}}{8}K_{\mathrm{rec}}A_{1}^{2}A_{2}^{\ast } , \label{Evolution1}$$ where the dimensionless coupling coefficient $K_{\mathrm{rec}}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&&
K_{\mathrm{rec}} = \frac{\pi ^{2}c^{2}}{\omega _{3}^{4}}\Bigg\{(-,-,+)\bigg[ \frac{8\pi ^{2}c^{2}}{x_{0}^{2}y_{0}^{2}}+\left( \frac{4}{x_{0}^{2}}+\frac{ 7\ell_{1}^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}}\right) \omega _{2}\omega _{3}\bigg]
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{ \ell_{2}\ell_{3}\pi ^{2}c^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}}\left( \frac{7\ell_{1}^{2}}{z_{0}^{2}}-\frac{ 3}{x_{0}^{2}}\right)
\nonumber \\ &&
+ \frac{7\omega _{1}\ell_{1}}{z_{0}^{2}}\left( (-,+,-)\omega
_{2}\ell_{3}(+,-,-)\omega _{3}\ell_{2}\right) \Bigg\} .\label{Coupling1}\end{aligned}$$ The different signs in the expression (\[Coupling1\]) for the coupling strength correspond to the mode number matchings $2\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}+\ell_{3} = 0$, $2\ell_{1}+\ell_{2}-\ell_{3} = 0$, and $2\ell_{1}-\ell_{2}-\ell_{3} = 0$, respectively, that must be fulfilled for nonzero coupling. The coupling coefficient for specific mode numbers and geometries can thus be evaluated. If a saturation mechanism is included in (\[Evolution1\]), one may solve for the steady-state value of $A_3$.
#### Cylindrical cavities
As was shown by @Eriksson-etal, the efficiency of the mode conversion can be slightly improved by the choice of a cylindrical cavity. The results can be obtained along the lines of the previous example. For -modes with no angular dependence, the vector potential $$\mathbf{A}=AJ_{1}(\rho \beta /a)\sin \left( \frac{\ell\pi z}{z_{0}}\right) \exp
(-\mathrm{i}\omega t)\hat{\mathbf{\varphi }}+\mathrm{c.c.}
\label{Vector-cyl}$$ gives a complete description of the fields. Here $a$ is the cylinder radius, $z_{0}$ the length of the cavity, $J_{1}$ the first order Bessel function, $\ell$ is the mode number, and $\beta $ one of its zeros. The cylinder occupies the region $0\leq z\leq z_{0}$ centered around the $z$-axis. We have here introduced cylindrical coordinates $\rho $ and $z$ as well as the unit vector $\hat{\mathbf{\varphi }}$ in the azimuthal direction. The eigenfrequency is given by $\omega ^{2} = c^{2}[ ({\beta }/{a})^2
+ ({\ell\pi}/{z_{0}})^2 ] $, for all modes $\omega =\omega _{1,2,3}$. From the matching condition $\omega _{3}=2\omega _{1}-\omega _{2}$ it follows that all the eigenmodes cannot have the same order of their respective $\beta$, and one thus introduces $\beta =\beta_{1,2,3}$. Proceeding along the lines of the previous section, one obtains $$\frac{dA_{3}}{dt}=-\frac{\mathrm{i}\varepsilon _{0}\kappa \omega _{3}^{3}}{8}K_{\mathrm{cyl}}A_{1}^{2}A_{2}^{\ast } \label{Evolution2}$$ for the mode number matching $\ell_3 = 2\ell_1 + \ell_2$. Here the cylindrical coupling coefficient $K_{\mathrm{cyl}}$ is defined in terms of integrals of Bessel functions and can be found in @Eriksson-etal. As in the case of a rectangular geometry, the linear growth of $A_3$ as dictated by Eq. (\[Evolution2\]) will be saturated by dissipative mechanisms. The intensity of the generated field amplitudes and the pump field amplitudes is shown in Fig. \[fig:cavity\].
Incoherent field interactions
-----------------------------
Above we have considered the interaction via the nonlinear quantum vacuum between coherent electromagnetic waves. However, in many situations where the Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian is important, such as in astrophysical and laser-plasma applications, there can be intense incoherent electromagnetic fields present. We will below study two scenarios. First, a plane wave pulse propagating on a vacuum dressed by an intense gas of incoherent photons is analysed, and, secondly, the effects on a radiation gas by the quantum vacuum excited by an intense electromagnetic (EM) pulse is investigated. These two results are then used in conjunction to obtain the relevant equations governing the nonlinear interaction between the pulse and the radiation gas.
### Coherent pulse interaction with incoherent photons
The dispersion relation (\[eq:weakgas-disp\]) represents the propagation of test photons in an intense incoherent radiation background. Using standard methods for slowly varying envelopes [@Hasegawa] in conjunction with (\[eq:weakgas-disp\]), we obtain the special case of (\[eq:nlse-gen\]), for a pulse in an intense photon gas background [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo; @r1; @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson] (see also @Rozanov for a similar result using a different strong background field) $$i\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + v_g\frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\right)E_p + \frac{v_g}{2k_0}\left(\nabla_{\perp}^2 -
\beta_z\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2} \right)E_p + \mu\,
\delta\mathscr{E}\,E_p = 0 .
\label{eq:nlse}$$ where $\delta\mathscr{E} = \mathscr{E} - \mathscr{E}_0$ is a radiation gas perturbation due to the pulse propagation and $\mathscr{E}_0$ is the unperturbed background radiation energy density. Here we have adapted the coordinates such that $\mathbf{k}_0 = k_0\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, $\mathbf{k}_0$ being the background wavevector of the pulse, included the high-frequency correction represented by $\beta_z$, and denoted the (complex) pulse amplitude by $E_p$. Moreover, $\mathbf{v}_g = (\partial\omega/\partial\mathbf{k})_0$ is the group velocity on the background, $\beta_z = (32/3)\sigma\lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0^2k_0^2$ is the vacuum dispersion parameter, $\mu
= (2/3)ck_0\lambda [1 + (16/3)\sigma\lambda\mathscr{E}_0k_0^2]$ is the nonlinear refraction parameter, $\nabla^2_{\perp} = \nabla^2 -
(\hat{\mathbf{k}}_0\cdot\nabla)^2$, and $\lambda = 8\kappa$ of $14\kappa$ depending on the polarization of the pulse (see Sec. \[sec:dispersionfunction\]).
### Radiation gas response of pulse propagation
We saw that the effects of a plane wave on incoherent photons could be expressed via the dispersion relation (\[eq:planewave\]). Following @Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo, the response of the radiation gas can be determined using a kinetic theory. For a dispersion relation $\omega = ck/n(\mathbf{r}, t)$, where $n$ is the spacetime dependent refractive index, we have the Hamiltonian ray equations $$\label{eq:groupvelocity}
\dot{\mathbf{r}} = \frac{\partial\omega}{\partial\mathbf{k}} = \frac{c}{n}\,\hat{\mathbf{k}} ,
\text{ and }
\dot{\mathbf{k}} = -\nabla\omega = \frac{\omega}{n}\nabla n ,$$ where $\dot{\mathbf{r}}$ denotes the group velocity of the photon, $\dot{\mathbf{k}}$ the force on a photon, and the dot denotes a time derivative.
The equation for the collective interaction of photons can then be formulated as [@Mendonca] $$\label{eq:kinetic}
\frac{\partial f(\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{r}, t)}{\partial t} +
\nabla\cdot(\dot{\mathbf{r}} f(\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{r}, t)) +
\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathbf{k}}\cdot(\dot{\mathbf{k}}f(\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{r},
t)) = 0 ,$$ where the distribution function $f(\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{r},t)$ has been normalized such that $\int f(\mathbf{k},
\mathbf{r},t)\,d\mathbf{k}$ gives the photon gas number density. In what follows, we will neglect the dispersive effects on the evolution of the radiation gas [^5]. Taking the moments of the kinetic equation (\[eq:kinetic\]) [@r1], we obtain the energy conservation equation
$$\label{eq:energy}
\frac{\partial\mathscr{E}}{\partial t} +
\nabla\cdot\left( \mathscr{E}\mathbf{u} + \mathbf{q} \right) = -\frac{\mathscr{E}}{n}\frac{\partial n}{\partial t} ,$$
where $\mathscr{E}(\mathbf{r}, t) = \int\hbar\omega f\,d\mathbf{k}$ is the energy density, and $\mathbf{q}(\mathbf{r}, t) = \int\hbar\omega\mathbf{w} f\,d\mathbf{k}$ is the energy (or Poynting) flux. Here we have introduced $\dot{\mathbf{r}} = \mathbf{u} + \mathbf{w}$, where $\int\mathbf{w} f\,d\mathbf{k} = 0$. Thus $\mathbf{w}$ represents the random velocity of the photons. Equation (\[eq:energy\]) is coupled to the momentum conservation equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:momentum}
\frac{\partial{{\mathbf{{\Pi}}}}}{\partial t} + \nabla\cdot\Big[
\mathbf{u}\otimes{{\mathbf{{\Pi}}}} + \mathbf{\mathsf{P}} \Big] = \frac{\mathscr{E}}{n}\nabla n ,\end{aligned}$$ \[eq:comoving\]
where ${{\mathbf{{\Pi}}}} = \int \hbar\mathbf{k} f\,d\mathbf{k}$ is the momentum density and $\mathbf{\mathsf{P}} = \int \mathbf{w}\otimes(\hbar\mathbf{k}) f\,d\mathbf{k}$ is the pressure tensor. It follows immediately from the definition of the pressure tensor that the trace satisfies $\mathrm{Tr}\,\mathbf{\mathsf{P}} = \int \hbar k\mathbf{w}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{k}} f\,d\mathbf{k}
= (n/c)\int \hbar\omega\mathbf{w}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{k}} f\,d\mathbf{k}$. For an observer comoving with the fluid, i.e. a system in which $(\mathbf{u})_0 = 0$ (the $0$ denoting the comoving system), Eq. (\[eq:groupvelocity\]) shows that $(\mathbf{w}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{k}})_0 = (n)_0/c$, so that the trace of the pressure tensor in the comoving system becomes $(\mathrm{Tr}\,\mathbf{\mathsf{P}})_0 = (\mathscr{E})_0$. For an isotropic distribution function, the pressure can be expressed in terms of the scalar function $P = \mathrm{Tr}\,\mathbf{\mathsf{P}}/3$, satisfying the equation of state $P = \mathscr{E}/3$. We will henceforth adopt the comoving frame, in which $\mathbf{u} = 0$, and the equation of state $\mathsf{P}_{ij} = P\delta_{ij} \delta_{ij}\mathscr{E}/3$, in order to achieve closure of the fluid equations.
### Quasi-linear theory
We now assume that the radiation gas is perturbed around the equilibrium state $\mathscr{E}_0 =$ constant and ${{\mathbf{{\Pi}}}}_0 = \mathbf{0}$, letting $\mathscr{E} = \mathscr{E}_0 + \delta\mathscr{E}$, where $|\delta\mathscr{E}| \ll \mathscr{E}_0$. Then, using Eqs.(\[eq:comoving\]), we obtain an acoustic equation $$\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} - \frac{c^2}{3}\nabla^2
\right)\delta\mathscr{E} = -\frac{2\lambda\epsilon_0\mathscr{E}_0}{3}\left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} + {c^2}\nabla^2
\right) |E_p|^2 ,
\label{eq:response}$$ to lowest order in $\delta\mathscr{E}$. This gives the dynamics of a radiation gas due to the pulse propagation [@r1]. Equations (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]) were first presented by @r1, and generalize the Marklund–Brodin–Stenflo (MBS) equations [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo], to the case of a dispersive vacuum. The MBS equations are different from the Karpman equations [@Karpman; @Karpman2], that govern the dynamics of small amplitude nonlinearly interacting electromagnetic waves and ion-sound waves driven by the radiation pressure in an electron-ion plasma, due to the difference in the driving term on the right hand side of Eq. (\[eq:response\]).
The dispersion-free case admits pulse collapse [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo; @Shukla-Eliasson], and similar features appear within the dispersive case, with the difference that pulse splitting may occur, resulting in a train of ultra-short pulses. If the time response of the radiation background is slow, Eq.(\[eq:response\]) may be integrated to yield $\delta\mathscr{E}
\approx 2\lambda\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0|E_p|^2$, and from Eq.(\[eq:nlse\]) we obtain the standard equation for analyzing ultra-short intense pulses in normal dispersive focusing media, see @Chernev-Petrov [@Rothenberg; @Zharova-Litvak-Mironov; @Gaeta; @Kivshar-Agrawal] and references therein. It is well known that the evolution of a pulse within this equation displays first self-focusing, then pulse splitting [@Chernev-Petrov; @Rothenberg], and the approximate description of the solutions can be given as a product of bright and dark soliton solutions [@Hayata-Koshiba]. A modulational instability can be found as well [@Kivshar-Agrawal].
### Instability analysis
#### The two-dimensional case
As $\beta_z$ goes to zero in Eq. (\[eq:nlse\]), we regain the MBS equations [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo]. In this case, the dispersion relation for the modulational and filamentational instabilities of a constant amplitude photon pump ($\omega_0,
{\bf k}_0)$ can be found by linearizing the simplified set of Eqs.(\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]) around the unperturbed state $E_p = E_{0} =$ real constant and $\delta\mathscr{E}
=0$. Following the standard procedure of parametric instability analysis [@Shukla; @Kivshar-Agrawal] (see also next section), we consider perturbations varying according to $\exp[ i (\mathbf{K}\cdot\mathbf{r} - {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} t)]$. Here ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}$ and $\mathbf{K}$ are the frequency and wavevector of the acoustic-like disturbances. Then, Eqs. (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]), yield the nonlinear dispersion relation [@Shukla-Eliasson; @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson] $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\left[\left({{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} - c \hat{\mathbf{k}}_0\cdot\mathbf{K} \right)^2
- \frac{K_\perp^4c^2}{4 k_0^2}\right](3{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 - K^2c^2)
\nonumber \\ &&
= \frac{4
K_\perp^2 c^2}{3}
({{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 + K^2c^2)\lambda^2 \mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0 E_{0}^2,
\label{eq:2D-disprel}\end{aligned}$$ where $K^2 =K_x^2 + K_y^2 + K_z^2 \equiv K_\perp^2 + K_z^2$. Defining ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} = c K_z + i \gamma_{2D}$, $|\gamma_{2D}| \ll
c K_z$, we obtain the approximate modulational instability growth rate $$\gamma_{2D} \approx \left\{\frac{c}{2k_0}K_{\perp}^2\Bigg[ \chi_{2D}\,
\frac{K_{\perp}^2 + 2K_z^2 }{K_{\perp}^2 - 2K_z^2}
- \frac{c}{2k_0}K_{\perp}^2 \Bigg] \right\}^{1/2} ,
\label{eq:2Dmod_growth}$$ where $\chi_{2D} = (8/3)ck_0\lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0 \epsilon_0 E_0^2$.
Similarly, in the quasi-stationary limit, ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} =0$, a filamentational instability may occur. For $K_z \ll K_\perp$, we obtain $$K_z^2 = \frac{K_\perp^4}{4k_0^2} - \frac{4}{3} K_\perp^2
\lambda^2 \mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0 E_{0}^2 .$$ Thus, filamentation of an intense photon beam on a radiation background takes place when $\epsilon_0 |E_{p0}|^2 > 3K_\perp^2/(16 k_0^2\lambda^2
\mathscr{E}_0)$, due to elastic photon–photon scattering.
In the case of a slow acoustic response, we may integrate Eq. (\[eq:response\]) in comoving coordinates, to obtain a relation between the radiation gas perturbation and the pulse intensity. By inserting the relation into Eq. (\[eq:nlse\]) (with $\beta_z = 0$), the equation $$i\frac{\partial E_p}{\partial\tau} +
\frac{c}{2k_0}\nabla_{\perp}^2E_p
+ \frac{4}{3}\lambda^2ck_0\varepsilon_0\mathscr{E}_0|E_p|^2E_p = 0 ,
\label{eq:transformednlse}$$ is obtained. The collapse properties of Eq. (\[eq:transformednlse\]) can be obtained by approximate analytical means. Starting from an two-dimensional approximately Gaussian pulse $
E_p = A(\tau)\,\text{sech}(r_{\perp}/a(\tau))\exp[ib(\tau)r_{\perp}^2] ,
$ where $r_{\perp}^2 = x^2 + y^2$, an approximate solution can be found [@Desaix-Anderson-Lisak]. The relation $|A|/|A_0| = a_0/a$, where the 0 demotes the initial value. Moreover, the parameter $\gamma = (4/3)\lambda^2\epsilon_0\mathscr{E}_0k_0^2|A_0|^2a_0^2(I_1/I_2)$, where $I_1 = \int_0^{\infty} x\,\text{sech}^4(x) \,dx = (4\ln2 -1)/6$ and $I_2 = \int_0^{\infty} x^3\,\text{sech}^2(x) \,dx = 9\zeta(3)/8$, and $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta function, characterizes the critical behaviour of the solution in terms of the initial data. The collapse criteria can be seen in Fig. \[fig:2D-collapse\].
![The pulse width as a function of normalized time ($\tau \rightarrow ck_0\tau$) in the two-dimensional case. Note that the solitary solution ($\gamma = 1$) is unstable.[]{data-label="fig:2D-collapse"}](fig09.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
Exact results regarding the two-dimensional modulational and filamentational instabilities was found by @Shukla-Eliasson, where numerical solutions of Eq. (\[eq:2D-disprel\]) were presented, see Figs. \[fig:2D-1\] and \[fig:2D-2\]. The growth of random seeds on a radiation gas background was also investigated and is shown in Fig. \[fig:2D-3\].
![The growth rate and real part of the frequency, respectively, as a function the orthogonal wave number for different values of the parallel wave number (see Eq. (\[eq:2Dmod\_growth\])). The dimensionless pump strength is $A = \lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0 \epsilon_0E_0^2 = 0.02$ (reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson).[]{data-label="fig:2D-1"}](fig10.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
![The growth rate and the real part of the frequency, respectively, as a function the orthogonal wave number for different dimensionless pump strengths $A = \lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0 \epsilon_0E_0^2$ (see Eq. (\[eq:2Dmod\_growth\])) (reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson).[]{data-label="fig:2D-2"}](fig11.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
![The two-dimensional evolution, as given by Eqs. (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]) with $\beta_z = 0$, of the dimensionless pulse energy density $\lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0|E_p|^2$ for initially random perturbations on a radiation gas background. The color bars give the dimensionless pulse energy density (reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson).[]{data-label="fig:2D-3"}](small_fig12.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
#### The three-dimensional case
We will now show the presence of modulational and filamentational unstable modes for the three-dimensional case, as given by Eqs.(\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]). Fourier analysing Eq. (\[eq:response\]) according to $\delta\mathscr{E}$ and $|E_p|^2 \propto \exp[ i (\mathbf{K}\cdot\mathbf{r} - {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} t)]$, we obtain $$\delta\mathscr{E} = \frac{2}{3}\lambda\mathscr{E}_0W\epsilon_0|E_p|^2 ,$$ where $W = ({\mathnormal{\Omega}}^2 + c^2K^2)/(-{\mathnormal{\Omega}}^2 + c^2K^2/3)$, with ${\mathnormal{\Omega}}$ and $\mathbf{K}$ the frequency and wavevector, respectively, of the Fourier component. Next, following @Shukla (see also @Kivshar-Agrawal), we let $E_p = (E_0 +
E_1)\exp( i \delta t)$, where $\delta$ is the nonlinear phase shift and $E_0$ ($\gg |E_1|$) is a real constant. To zeroth order in $E_1$ we have the nonlinear phase shift $\delta = -\kappa E_0^2$. We let $E_1 = d_1\,\exp[ i (\mathbf{K}\cdot\mathbf{r} - {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} t)] + d_2\,
\exp[- i (\mathbf{K}\cdot\mathbf{r} - {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} t)]$, with $d_1$ and $d_2$ real constants. Linearizing Eq. (\[eq:nlse\]) with respect to $E_1$, we obtain a coupled system of equations for $d_1$ and $d_2$. Eliminating $d_1$ and $d_2$, we obtain the dispersion relation [@Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson] $$\begin{aligned}
&& ({{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} - K_z v_g)^2 = \frac{v_g}{2k_0}(K_{\perp}^2 - \beta_z
K_z^2)
\nonumber \\&&\quad \times
\left[ \frac{v_g}{2k_0}(K_{\perp}^2 - \beta_z K_z^2) -
\frac{1}{3}\chi W \right] ,
\label{eq:disprel}\end{aligned}$$ where $\chi = 4\mu\lambda\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0E_0^2$. Remembering that $W$ depends on the perturbation frequency and wavevector, we see that the solution to Eq. (\[eq:disprel\]) in terms of ${\mathnormal{\Omega}}$ is nontrivial.
Letting ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} = K_z v_g + i \gamma_m$ in (\[eq:disprel\]), $|\gamma_m| \ll
K_z v_g$, we obtain the approximate modulational instability growth rate $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\gamma_m \approx \Bigg\{\frac{v_g}{2k_0}(K_{\perp}^2 -
\beta_z K_z^2)\Bigg[ \chi\, \frac{K_{\perp}^2 +
(1 + v_g^2/c^2)K_z^2 }{K_{\perp}^2 + (1 - 3v_g^2/c^2)K_z^2}
\nonumber \\ && \quad
- \frac{v_g}{2k_0}(K_{\perp}^2 -
\beta_zK_z^2) \Bigg] \Bigg\}^{1/2} .
\label{eq:mod_growth}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, when $v_g \approx c$, we see that, unlike the standard modulational instability, we have larger growth rate for smaller length scale, with the occurring asymptotically for $K_{\perp} \sqrt{2}\,K_z$, where the approximate expression (\[eq:mod\_growth\]) diverges.
If the perturbations are stationary, Eq. (\[eq:disprel\]) yields $$K_z \approx \pm \frac{1}{v_g} \left\{ \frac{v_g}{2k_0}K_{\perp}^2\left[
\frac{v_g}{2k_0}K_{\perp}^2 - \chi \right] \right\}^{1/2}$$ when $\beta_zK_z^2 \ll K_{\perp}^2$, and we see that a filamentation instability will occur for $\chi > v_g K_{\perp}^2/2k_0$.
Solving (\[eq:disprel\]) for the growth rate, one obtains the instability regions shown in Fig. \[fig:mod\]. We note that the results found by @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson concerning the modulational instability are similar to the ones obtained by @Karpman-Washimi, where it was found that the largest growth rates are due to parametric instabilities for wave vectors oblique to the pulse propagation direction. @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson performed a numerical simulation of the three-dimensional system of equations (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]). In Fig. \[fig:evol1\] the collapse of the initially weakly modulated beam $E_p = (\lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0)^{-1/2}A [ 1 + 0.1\sin(40\pi k_0z)]\exp(-r_{\perp}^2/2a^2)$ can be seen. Using $A = \sqrt{0.02}$ and $a = 10k_0^{-1}$, the beam interact with the initially homogenous radiation gas background. The collapse is seen by the decrease in the beam width $r_{\perp} = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$ and the increase in the beam energy density. In Fig. \[fig:evol2\] the evolution of an initially spherical pulse $E_p = (\lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0)^{-1/2}A\exp(-r_{\perp}/2a^2)$ is seen. As the pulse propagated through the initially homogeneous radiation gas, collapse ensues, as can be seen by the decrease in the pulse width $r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2 + z^2}$ and the increase in the pulse energy density. The values of $A$ and $a$ are the same as in the beam case. We note that the pulse in the last panel undergoes splitting, and the radiation gas response develops a photon wedge, analogous to a Mach cone, through which energy is radiated.
![The normalized growth rate $\gamma/(ck_0)$, as given through the dispersion relation (\[eq:disprel\]), as a function of $K_{\perp}/k_0$ and $K_z/k_0$. We note that due to cylindrical symmetry, the area of non-zero growth rate is really a cone-like structure. Here $A = \lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0E_0^2$ (reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson. Copyright 2004, American Institute of Physics).[]{data-label="fig:mod"}](small_fig13.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
![The evolution of a normalized spherical pulse energy density $\lambda^2\mathscr{E}_0\epsilon_0|E_p|^2$ (left panels) and the normalized radiation gas energy density $\lambda\,\delta\mathscr{E}$ (right panels). The pulse first undergoes compression, and later splitting, while the radiation gas develops a high intensity region, from which photon wedges (similar to a Mach cone) are radiated (reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson. Copyright 2004, American Institute of Physics).[]{data-label="fig:evol2"}](small_fig15.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
### Pulse collapse and photonic wedges
The approximate analytical results in conjunction with the numerical simulations presented above, shows that collapse, filamentation and pulse splitting as generic features of the system (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]). On the other hand, both these methods of investigation have shortcomings, and it is therefore of great interest to obtain more analytical prediction valid for a wider range of parameters. In this section we will show that under very general conditions, pulse split and collapse are essential features of the photon pulse–acoustic system (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]).
As we have seen, the dynamics of an intense short photon pulse and the radiation background response is described by the system of equations (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]).
Following @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson, we re-normalize the system of equations (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]), by introducing the new variables $E = \left({4k_{0}\mu\lambda\epsilon_0\mathscr{E}_0}/{v_g}\right)^{1/2}
E_p(t, r_{\perp}, z - v_g t)$, $\tau = {v_g t}/{k_0}$, and $\delta\mathscr{E} = (v_g/2k_0\mu)\left( |E|^2 - \mathscr{N} \right)$. It is implied that the wave packet has the cylindrical symmetry and moves along the $z$-axis. From Eqs. (\[eq:nlse\]) and (\[eq:response\]) we then obtain
$$2i\frac{\partial E}{\partial \tau }+\nabla^2_{\perp }E_{{}}-\beta _{z}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial z^{2}}E_{{}}+\left| E\right| ^{2}E+\mathscr{N}E_{{}}=0,
\label{five}$$
and $$\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2} - \frac{k_0^2c^2}{3v_g^2}
\nabla^2 \right) \mathscr{N} = \frac{4}{3}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\tau^2}
\left| E(t, r_{\perp }, z - v_g t)\right|^2 ,
\label{six}$$
respectively.
Representing $\delta\mathscr{E}$ in terms of $|E|^2$ and $\mathscr{N}$, the part of the perturbation of the radiation gas that is concentrated in the region of localization of the wave packet and takes part in its compression, has been isolated. The second part of the representation of $\delta\mathscr{E}$ corresponds to the interaction of the pulse with the radiation field $\mathscr{N}$. This interaction is described by the last term in Eq.(\[five\]). As seen by Eq. (\[six\]) \[or Eq. (\[eq:response\])\], the velocity $v_g \approx c$ of the source (the pulse) exceeds the velocity $c/\sqrt{3}$ of the radiation waves, i.e. $v_{g}>c/\sqrt{3}$, and it is therefore expected that the radiation field $n$ will be localized behind the pulse. Hence, it is assumed that the pulse and the radiation field are localized in different volumes, and in the region with a possible overlap the relation $\mathscr{N} \ll \left| E\right| ^{2}$ is satisfied (see also the end of the next section). This inequality allows us to neglect the last term in Eq. (\[five\]), which means neglecting the back reaction of the radiation on the pulse. In this approximation, the pulse field $E$ drives the radiation field $\mathscr{N}$ through Eq. (\[six\]), while the pulse propagation is unaffected by the radiation field.
From Eq. (\[five\]) we have the conservation of the ”field mass” parameter of the pulse
$$N=\int |E|^2\,d\mathbf{r}_{\perp }dz, \label{eighteen}$$
and the Hamiltonian $$H = \int \mathscr{H}\,d\mathbf{r}_{\perp }dz
\label{nineteen}$$
where the Hamiltonian density is given by $\mathscr{H} = |\mathbf{\nabla }_{\perp }E|^2 - \beta_z|\partial_z E|^2 - |E|^4/2$.
Some information on the spatio-temporal behaviour of the initially localized wave-packet can be found by following the evolution of the characteristic widths of the packet in the transversal and longitudinal directions. These widths are defined by $$R^{2}(\tau )=\frac{1}{N}\int r_{\perp}^{2}|E|^2\,d\mathbf{r}_{\perp
}dz, \label{twentyone}$$ and $$Z^{2}(\tau ) = \frac{1}{N}\int z^{2}|E|^2\,d\mathbf{r}_{\perp }dz.
\label{twentatwo}$$ Straightforward calculations give the following evolution equations $$\frac{\partial ^{2}R^{2}}{\partial \tau ^{2}} =
\frac{2}{N}\int \left( \left| \mathbf{\nabla }_{\perp }E\right| ^{2}-\frac{1}{2}\left| E\right| ^{4}\right)\, d\mathbf{r}_{\perp }dz,
\label{twentythree}$$ and $$\frac{\partial ^{2}Z^{2}}{\partial \tau ^{2}}=
\frac{2}{N}\beta _{z}\int \left( \beta_z \left| \frac{\partial E}{\partial z}\right|^2
+ \frac{1}{4}\left| E\right| ^{4}\right)\,
d\mathbf{r}_{\perp }dz > 0
\label{twentyfour}$$ for the widths (\[twentyone\]) and (\[twentatwo\]), respectively.
In the two-dimensional (2D) case, the process of self-compression of the wave-packet can be clearly seen [@r2; @r3]. A necessary condition for collapse in this case consists in the predominance of the ”field mass” $N$ of the given state over some critical value $N_{c}$, i.e. $N > N_{c},$ where $N_{c}$ is the ”field mass” calculated for the stationary ground state [@r3]. The ground state is described by the (positive) radially-symmetric solution $\Psi
= E(r,\tau )\exp (-i\lambda \tau )$ of the equation $$\nabla _{\perp }^2\Psi -\lambda \Psi +\Psi^{3}=0, \label{twentyfive}$$ derived from Eq. (\[five\]) and computed with $\lambda =1.$ In the 2D case, the right-hand side of the expression for the mean square transverse radius (\[twentythree\]) is $2H/N$, i.e. a combination of the conserved quantities. Thus, integrating Eq. (\[twentythree\]) twice, we obtain $$R^{2}(\tau )=R^{2}(0)+C\tau +(H/N)\tau ^{2}, \label{twentysix}$$ where the constants $R^{2}(0)$ and $C$ are defined by the initial conditions. Hence, a sufficient condition for 2D self-focusing, ultimately leading to complete collapse in a finite time, is $H < 0$. Because this is independent of the value of $C$, there will always exists a finite time $t_{0}$ for which the transverse radius vanishes. In the three-dimensional (3D) case and for $\beta_z < 0$ (corresponding to anomalous dispersion) the equality (\[twentysix\]) must be replaced by the inequality $$R^{2}(\tau )<C_{0}+C_{1}\tau +(H/N)\tau ^{2}, \label{twentyseven}$$ and the sufficient condition for the collapse of the wave-packet is again $H < 0$ [@r3].
Equation (\[five\]) with $\beta _{z} > 0$ and $\mathscr{N} = 0$ corresponds to the normal dispersion region of the wave-packet. In @r4 [@r5] and @r6 the features of the pulse self-focusing, described by the solution to Eq. (\[five\]), have been investigated in detail. Their conclusions, can be applied directly to the numerical results presented here concerning the break-up of the wave-packet. @r4 showed that the characteristic length $Z^{2}(\tau )$ of the wave-packet localization along the direction of propagation is bounded from below by a positive constant. The relation (\[twentyfour\]) indicates an asymptotic longitudinal spreading. Thus, a 3D (global) collapse cannot take place in media with normal dispersion, since the necessary conditions for the pulse self-focusing to occur is ($\partial R^{2}/\partial \tau ) < 0$ and ($\partial Z^{2}/\partial \tau
) > 0$, which explicitly excludes the 3D case. The self-focusing in the transverse direction is accompanied by a longitudinal spreading and in the following by the splitting of the pulse. This does not, however, immediately exclude partial (local) collapse scenarios.
The process of pulse splitting close to the time of self-focusing $t\rightarrow t_{0}$ is described by @r5 [@r6] employing a *quasi-self-similar* analysis. This approach uses, besides the description of the solution of Eq. (\[five\]) (neglecting $\mathscr{N}$), the time-dependent characteristic lengths in the longitudinal $l_{z}(t)$ and transversal $l_{\perp }(t)$ directions. @r5 and @r6 found that the transverse scale $l_{\perp }(t)$ exhibits a changing behaviour as one passes some critical point $z^{\ast }(t)$ on the $z$-axis. Inside the localized region $z<z^{\ast }(t)$, the transverse width collapse with the rate $
l_{\perp }(t) \sim (t_0 - t)^{1/2}/[\ln\{ \ln \left[ 1/(t_0 - t)\right]\}]^{1/2},
$ while in the complementary (delocalizing) domain, $z>z^{\ast }(t)$, the transverse pulse width spreads out with the rate $
l_{\perp }(t) \sim \sqrt{t\ln\{ \ln[ 1/(t_{0}-t)]\}}.
$ Hence, the time derivative of $l_{\perp }(t)$ changes sign around the point $z^{\ast }(t)$. Meanwhile, the self-similar longitudinal scale $l_{z}(t) $ increases slowly in time. @r5 and @r6 found that near the self-focusing time $t\rightarrow t_{0}$, $l_{z}(t)\thicksim t$, which implies a linear increase of $z^{\ast }(t)$ in time such that $z^{\ast }(t_{0})$ $(\thicksim \sqrt{\beta _{z}}l_{z}(t_{0})).$ The presence of the coefficient $\sqrt{\beta _{z}}$ leads to the decrease of the distance of the critical point $z^{\ast }(t_{0})$ from the origin for small $\beta _{z}.$ The scale $l_{\perp }(t)$ remains strictly positive at times $t\leqslant t_{0}.$ Consequently, the transversal scale reaches a minimum value at a finite distance $z^{\ast }(t_{0}).$
Since the wave-packet is assumed to be cylindrically symmetric and also symmetric relative to the origin $z=0,$ the total field distribution during self-focusing must exhibit two maxima located at $z=\pm z^{\ast
}(t_{0}),$ respectively. The wave-packet has therefore been split into two identical smaller cells, symmetrically placed on each side of the origin $z=0.$
Hence, a wave-packet, propagating in media with anisotropic dispersion, will be spread out along the direction of the negative dispersion, and split up into smaller cells. These analytic results have been confirmed by numerical solutions [@r6; @r8]. The duration $\Delta t$ of self-focusing, accompanied by the pulse splitting, can be estimated using Eq. (\[twentythree\]) as $$\Delta t\thickapprox \frac{k_{0}}{v_{g}}R(0)\sqrt{\frac{N}{H}} .
\label{twenty.1}$$ In the first part of our numerical solution — where the splitting of the wave-packet takes place — coincides with these results. The small coefficient $\beta _{z}$, which determines the negative dispersion, changes the distance (from the origin) along the $z$-axis, at which the field is localized after splitting.
@r5 and @r6 have shown that this splitting process can be continued (multi-splitting process) if the newly formed cells will possess a transverse energy higher than the self-focusing threshold $N_{c}$. In our case, the wave-packet splits into two cells only, as the energy localized in each new cell is below the threshold $N_{c}$. Furthermore, the wave-packet also loses energy to the radiation gas during the splitting process. The analysis of the formation of these photonic wedges, or the radiation Mach cone, can be analyzed in accordance with the presentation in @Shukla-Marklund-Tskhakaya-Eliasson, such that e.g. the energy loss from the pulse can be estimated.
In conjunction with pulse collapse in a radiation gas it should be mentioned that if the field invariant ${\bf E}^2 - c^2{\bf B}^2 > 0$ pair creation will occur as the pulse intensity increases, and the loss of energy through the photonic wedges will be negligible in comparison to the energy radiated into Fermionic degrees of freedom. This will give rise to a rich and complex dynamical interplay between the pulse photons, the radiation gas, and the pair plasma [@Bulanov-etal2005]. For the case of interaction between a pulse and a pure radiation gas, we have $c|{\bf B}| > |{\bf E}|$, due to zero dispersion, and pair creation would not occur. However, since we will in practice always have some ionized particles present, pair creation is likely to be the result of pulse collapse due to weak dispersive plasma effects.
### The strong field case
Our knowledge of the nonlinear refractive properties of the radiation gas gives a means for investigating the effects of higher-order nonlinear corrections to the standard first order Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian, and to probe the significance of higher-order effects for photonic collapse [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo; @Shukla-Eliasson; @r1]. The dynamics of coherent photons, travelling through an intense radiation gas, may be analysed as above, following @Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo. We obtain a nonlinear Schrödinger equation for the slowly varying pulse envelope $E_p$ according to [@Kivshar-Agrawal] $$i\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \mathbf{v}_0\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}
\right)E_p + \frac{v_0}{2k_0}\nabla_{\perp}^2 E_p +
\omega_0 \frac{n_{\mathrm{nl}}(\delta\mathscr{E})}{n_0} E_p = 0 ,
\label{eq:nonlin-nlse}$$ where the subscript $0$ denotes the equilibrium background state, $\nabla_{\perp}^2 = \nabla^2 -(\hat{\mathbf{k}}_0\cdot\mathbf{\nabla})^2$, $\delta\mathscr{E} = \mathscr{E} - \mathscr{E}_0$ is a perturbation, $v_0 = v(\mathscr{E}_0)$, $n_0 = n(\mathscr{E}_0)$, $n_{\mathrm{nl}}(\delta\mathscr{E}) = \sum_{m = 1}^{\infty}
n_0^{(m)}\delta\mathscr{E}^m/ m!$, $n_0^{(m)} = d^m n_0/d
\mathscr{E}_0^m$, and the refractive index $n$ is given through Eqs. (\[eq:refractive2\]) and (\[eq:Qgas\]).
For a dispersion relation $\omega = |\mathbf{k}|c/n(\mathbf{r}, t)$, the motion of a single photon may be described by the Hamiltonian ray equations (\[eq:groupvelocity\]) [@Mendonca]. Since $n = n(\mathscr{E})$ and $d n/d \mathscr{E} > 0$ always hold (see @Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson), a denser region of the radiation gas will exercise an attractive force on the photon [@Partovi], thus creating lensing effects. The single particle dynamics thus supports that photonic self-compression is an inherent property of the one-loop radiation gas, but we note that as the density of a region increases, the phase velocity approaches a constant value, given by (\[eq:constant\]), i.e. $\mathbf{\nabla} \ln n \rightarrow 0$.
Following @Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo, the response of the radiation gas to a plane wave pulse may be formulated in terms of an acoustic wave equation, generalizing Eq. (\[eq:response\]) to the strong field case, according to [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson] $$\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} - \frac{v_0^2}{3}\nabla^2
\right)\delta\mathscr{E} = - \frac{\mathscr{E}_0}{n_0} \left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} + v_0^2 \nabla^2
\right)n_{\mathrm{nl}}(|E_p|^2 ) .
\label{eq:acoustic}$$ If the time response of $\delta\mathscr{E}$ is slow, Eq. (\[eq:acoustic\]) gives $$\delta\mathscr{E}
\approx \frac{3\mathscr{E}_0n_0'}{n_0} \left(
1 + \frac{n_0''}{2 n_0'}|E_p|^2 \right) |E_p|^2 .
\label{eq:deltaE}$$ Using (\[eq:deltaE\]) and the expression for $n_{\mathrm{nl}}(\delta\mathscr{E})$, we can write Eq. (\[eq:nonlin-nlse\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!
i\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \mathbf{v}_0\cdot\mathbf{\nabla}
\right)E_p +
\frac{v_0}{2k_0}\nabla_{\perp}^2 E_p
\nonumber \\ && \!\!\!\!\!\! \quad
+
\omega_0\left(\frac{3\mathscr{E}_0 n_0'}{n_0}\right)^2\!\!\!
\left(
1 + \frac{n_0''}{2 n_0'}|E_p|^2\right)|E_p|^2 E_p = 0 .
\label{eq:nlse-strong}\end{aligned}$$ When ${n_0''}|E_p|^2/{2 n_0'} \ll 1$, we have a self-focusing nonlinearity in Eq. (\[eq:nlse-strong\]), but as $|E_p|$ grows the character of the nonlinear coefficient changes. The coefficient is positive when $|E_p|^2 < E_{\text{sat}}^2 \equiv |2n_0'/n_0''|$, but since $n_0'' < 0$ for all $\mathscr{E}_0$ [@Marklund-Shukla-Eliasson], the sign changes as the pulse amplitudes grow above the saturation field strength $E_{\text{sat}}$, making the nonlinearity defocusing and arresting the collapse. The numerical value of this turning point is dependent on the background parameter $\mathscr{E}_0$. For low intensity radiation gases, $n_0'' \approx 0$, and Eq.(\[eq:nlse-strong\]) always displays self-focusing, i.e. the field strengths can reach values above the Schwinger field. When $\mathscr{E}_0$ roughly reaches the critical value $\mathscr{E}_{\text{crit}}$, the weak field approximation breaks down, and Eqs.(\[eq:refractive2\]) and (\[eq:approxlambda\]) can be used to derive an expression for $E_{\text{sat}}$. As an example displaying the general character of the intense background case, consider $\mathscr{E}_0 = \mathscr{E}_{\text{crit}}\times
10^{2}$. We find that $E_{\text{sat}} \approx 2\times10^{17}\,\mathrm{V/cm}\, >
E_{\text{crit}}$, i.e. the pulse saturates above the Schwinger critical field. Thus, both the weak and moderately strong intensity cases, the latter desribed here by Eq. (\[eq:nlse-strong\]), display self-compression above the Schwinger critical field.
This analysis can be generalized to take into account the statistical spread in the coherent pulse, giving rise to a damping of the instabilities [@Marklund].
### Other field configurations
Above, we have seen that the propagation of an electromagnetic pulse through a radiation field gives rise to instabilities, wave collapse, self-focusing, and pulse splitting. These concepts can be carried over to the case of multiple beams or pulses propagating through a radiation gas, including pulse incoherence. @Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-Stenflo showed that when several pulses are present, they can exchange energy via a background radiation gas and instabilities can occur, even if their propagation is parallel.
@Shukla-Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo considered an incoherent non-thermal high-frequency spectrum of photons. As will be shown, this spectrum can interact with low-frequency acoustic-like perturbations. The high-frequency part is treated by means of a wave kinetic description, whereas the low-frequency part is described by an acoustic wave equation with a driver [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo] which follows from a radiation fluid description. The high-frequency photons drive low-frequency acoustic perturbations according to [@Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo] $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!
\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} - \frac{c^2}{3}\nabla^2
\right)\mathscr{E}
\nonumber \\&& \!\!\!
= -\frac{2\lambda\mathscr{E}_0}{3}\left(
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} + c^2\nabla^2 \right) \int \hbar\omega
f(\mathbf{k}, \mathbf{r}, t)\, d^3k ,
\label{eq:wave}\end{aligned}$$ where the constant $\mathscr{E}_0$ is the *background* radiation fluid energy density and $f$ is the high frequency photon distribution function. This hybrid description, where the high-frequency part is treated kinetically, and the low-frequency part is described within a fluid theory, applies when the mean-free path between photon-photon collisions is shorter than the wavelengths of the low-frequency perturbations. We note that the specific intensity $I_k = \hbar\omega
f/\epsilon_0$ satisfies Eq. (\[eq:kinetic\]), and is normalized such that $\langle|E|^2\rangle = \int\,I_k\,d^3k$, where $E$ is the high-frequency electric field strength. These equations resemble the photon–electron system in the paper by @Shukla-Stenflo-PoP, where the interaction between randomly phased photons and sound waves in an electron–positron plasma has been investigated.
Next, we consider a small low-frequency long wavelength perturbation of a homogeneous background spectrum, i.e. $f = f_{0} + f_{1}\exp [i(Kz -
{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}t)]$, $|f_{1}|
\ll f_{0}$ and $ \mathscr{E} = \mathscr{E}_1\exp[i(Kz - {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}t)]$ and linearize our equations. Thus, we obtain the nonlinear dispersion relation $$1 = -\frac{\mu K}{3}\frac{{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 +
K^2c^2}{{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 - K^2c^2/3}\int\frac{k^2}{{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}
-Kc\hat{\mathbf{k}}\cdot\hat{\mathbf{z}}}\hat{\mathbf{z}}\cdot\frac{\partial
f_{0}}{\partial\mathbf{k}} \,d^3k ,
\label{eq:kinetic-dispersion}$$ where $\mu = \frac{4}{3}\lambda^2c^2\hbar\mathscr{E}_0$.
\(a) For a mono-energetic high frequency background, we have $f_{0} = n_0\delta(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}_0)$. The nonlinear dispersion relation (\[eq:kinetic-dispersion\]) then reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
&&
({{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 - K^2c^2/3}){({{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} -
Kc\cos\theta_0)^2}
\label{eq:disprel-mono}
\\ &&
= \frac{\mu n_0k_0 K}{3}
({{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 +
K^2c^2})
[{Kc + (2{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}} -3Kc\cos\theta_0)\cos\theta_0}] ,
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced $\cos\theta_0 \equiv
\hat{\mathbf{k}}_0\cdot\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. This mono-energetic background has a transverse instability when $\theta_0 = \pi/2$, with the growth rate $${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}} = \frac{Kc}{\sqrt{6}}\left[ \sqrt{ \left(\frac{v_T}{c}\right)^4
+ 14\left(\frac{v_T}{c}\right)^2 + 1} - \left(\frac{v_T}{c}\right)^2 - 1
\right]^{1/2} ,
\label{eq:growth1}$$ where ${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}} \equiv -i{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}$, and $v_T \equiv
(\mu n_0k_0c)^{1/2}$ is a characteristic speed of the system. The expression in the square bracket is positive definite.
In fact, when $\mathscr{E}_{0}\hbar ck_{0}n_{0}/E_{\text{crit}}^{4}
\ll 1$, a condition which is satisfied due to (\[eq:constraint1\]), we have $v_T \ll c$. Using the expression (\[eq:disprel-mono\]), we then have two branches. The branch corresponding to ${\mathnormal{\Omega}}\approx
Kc/\sqrt{3}$ is always stable for small $v_T$, while for the branch corresponding to ${\mathnormal{\Omega}}\approx Kc\cos\theta_0$ we obtain the growth rate $${\mathnormal{\Gamma}}= Kv_T\sqrt{\frac{1 - \cos\theta_0}{1 - 3\cos\theta_0}} ,
\label{eq:growth2}$$ which is consistent with (\[eq:growth1\]) in the limit $\theta_0 \rightarrow \pi/2$. In Fig.\[fig2\], the behavior of the growth rate (\[eq:growth2\]) is depicted.
![$({\mathnormal{\Gamma}}/Kv_T)^2$, according to Eq. (\[eq:growth2\]), plotted as a function of $\alpha_0 = \cos\theta_0$ in the mono-energetic case. (Reprinted from @Shukla-Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo, Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.)[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig16.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
\(b) The high-frequency photons have generally a spread in momentum space. For simplicity, we here choose the background intensity distribution as a shifted Gaussian, i.e. $$\label{eq:gaussian-distribution}
I_{k0} = \frac{\mathscr{I}_0}{\pi^{3/2}k_W^3}\exp\left[
- \frac{(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{k}_0)^2}{k_W^2}\right] ,$$ where $\mathscr{I}_0 = \langle|E_0|^2\rangle$ is the (constant) background intensity and $k_W$ is the width of the distribution around $\mathbf{k}_0$. Assuming that the deviation of $\mathbf{k}_0$ from the $\hat{\mathbf{z}}$-axis is small, and that $\delta \equiv k_0/k_W \ll 1$, we can integrate Eq.(\[eq:kinetic-dispersion\]) with (\[eq:gaussian-distribution\]), keeping terms linear in $\delta$, to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
1 &\approx& -\pi b^2\frac{\eta^2 + 1}{\eta^2 - 1/3}\Bigg[
\frac{3\sqrt{\pi}}{2} + 8\delta\eta\cos\theta_0
\\ && \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
+
\left(\delta\cos\theta_0 - \frac{3\sqrt{\pi}}{4}\eta
-4\delta\eta\cos\theta_0 \right)(2\,\text{arctanh}\,\eta - i\pi)
\Bigg] ,
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ for $0 < \eta < 1$. Here $\eta \equiv {{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}/Kc$ and $b^2 = (4/9\pi^{3/2})\lambda^2\epsilon_0\mathscr{E}_0
\mathscr{I}_0\exp(-k_0^2/k_W^2)$. Thus, we see that the non-zero width of the distribution complicates the characteristic behavior of the dispersion relation considerably. It is clear that the width will reduce of the growth rate compared to the mono-energetic case.
We may also look at the case when the time-dependence is weak, i.e. $\partial^2\mathscr{E}/\partial t^2 \ll c^2\nabla^2\mathscr{E}$, such that Eq. (\[eq:wave\]) yields $\mathscr{E} = 2\lambda\mathscr{E}_0\int\hbar\omega_k f\,d^3k $. Upon using this relation, we find that ${\nabla\omega} = -\mu k\nabla\int\,k' f' \,d^3k'$. Hence, Eq. (\[eq:kinetic\]) becomes $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} +
\mathbf{v}_g\cdot\frac{\partial f}{\partial\mathbf{r}} +
\mu k
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\mathbf{r}}\int k'f' \,d^3k' \right) \cdot\frac{\partial f}{\partial\mathbf{k}} = 0 .
\label{eq:self}$$ A similar equation may be derived for the specific intensity $I_k$. Equation (\[eq:self\]) describes the evolution of high-frequency photons on a slowly varying background radiation fluid, and it may be used to analyze the long term behavior of amplitude modulated intense short incoherent laser pulses. The results in this section can be generalized to several partially coherent pulses [@Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-Stenflo].
Effects due to plasmas
----------------------
Plasma channels are closely connected to both the plasma dispersion and the propagation of wave modes in waveguides. @Shen-etal and @Shen-Yu first suggested the use of plasma cavitation as a means of fostering conditions in which nonlinear quantum vacuum effects, such as photon–photon scattering, could take place. As a high intensity electromagnetic pulse propagates through a plasma, the interaction with the plasma may completely evacuate regions giving conditions similar to the that of Secs. \[sec:planes\] and \[sec:cavity\].
Moreover, although in many cases the presence of a plasma will swamp the effects due to photon–photon scattering, it can under certain circumstances provide a means for the propagation of non-classical plasma modes. Due to the nontrivial dispersion of electromagnetic waves in plasmas, there will be a net effect due to photon–photon scattering, such that low-frequency modes will be generated. In general, the effects of a nonlinear quantum vacuum is expected to become pronounced for next generation lasers [@Bulanov-etal2; @Bulanov-etal3; @mou05]
Also, for future applications, the combination of photon–photon scattering induced pulse compression in conjunction with pair creation [@Nitta-etal] could provide interesting insights both into fundamental properties of the quantum vacuum as well as into the prospects of creating high power electromagnetic sources. The effects of plasmas within the environment of a quantum vacuum therefore deserve further investigations.
### Plasma cavitation and plasma channels
If the power of the laser pulse propagating through the plasma surpasses the critical value $P_{\text{crit}} = 17(\omega/\omega_p)^2 \,
\mathrm{GW}$, where $\omega$ is the laser frequency and $\omega_p$ the electron plasma frequency, there may be complete expulsion of plasma particles from the high intensity region [@Max-etal], thus forming a wave-guide [@Shen-Yu]. In such wave-guides, the effects of photon–photon scattering could be of importance [@Shen-etal]
The nonlinear interactions of plasmas with high intensity lasers is of great current interest (see, e.g. @gol99 [@she02; @Bulanov-etal; @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund; @cai04; @Tajima-Taniuti], and @Pukhov [@mou05] for recent reviews). In the context of doing fundamental physics and mimicking astrophysical events in laboratory environments, the evolution of laser intensities has received a lot of attention. Examples of experimental suggestions are axion detection (as a dark matter candidate) [@Bernard; @Dupays-etal; @Bradley-etal]; pair production (see, e.g. @Ringwald [@Ringwald1; @Ringwald2], and @Bamber-etal [@bur97; @Meyerhofer] for a discussion of the detection of pair production from real photons); laboratory calibration of observations, relativistic jets, analogue general relativistic event horizon experiments (such as Hawking and Unruh radiation [@Hawking; @Unruh]), and probing the quantum spacetime properties [@Chen; @Chen-Tajima]. The possibility of reaching extreme power levels with such setups is one of the promising aspects of laser-plasma systems [@bob], and also holds the potential of overcoming the laser intensity limit $\sim 10^{25}$ W/cm$^{2}$ [@mou98]. As the field strength approaches the critical Schwinger field $E_{\text{crit}} \sim 10^{16}$ V/cm [@Schwinger], there is possibility of photon–photon scattering, even within a plasma [@Shen-etal], as the ponderomotive force due to the intense laser pulse gives rise to plasma channels [@Yu-etal]. Under such extreme circumstances, the effects of pair creation will be pronounced. Electron-positron plasmas are also produced by interactions of matter with powerful multi-terawatt and petawatt laser pulses [@liang98; @gahn00]. The concept of trident pair-production, as described within the framework of perturbation theory, could give a means for creating electron–positron pairs by intense laser pulses in vacuum [@ber92]. Moreover, the future x-ray free electron laser systems [@pat02; @Ringwald; @Ringwald1; @Ringwald2] could result in methods for creating pair plasmas in the laboratory [@alk01]. The possible field strength output could reach $E \approx 0.1E_{\text{crit}}$ [@alk01]. Even on an experimental level, pair-production due to collisions of electron backscattered photons with the original photon beam has been observed [@bur97]. Thus, there are ample evidence that the investigation of nonlinear interactions of pair-plasmas and high intensity electromagnetic fields deserves attention [@kozlov79; @farina01].
#### The effect of relativistic nonlinearities
Here we follow @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund1. The propagation of a circularly polarized intense laser pulse in an unmagnetized plasma is governed by [@Yu-etal] $(\partial_t^2 -c^2 \nabla^2 ){\bf A}
+ (\omega_p^2 N/\gamma) {\bf A}=0$, where ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential of the laser pulse, $\omega_p
=(n_0e^2/\epsilon_0m_e)^{1/2}$ is the unperturbed electron plasma frequency, $\gamma
=\sqrt{1+ e^2 |{\bf A}|^2/m^2c^2}$ is the relativistic gamma factor including the electron mass variation in intense laser fields, and $N=n_e/n_0$ is the ratio of the electron number density to the background plasma number density $n_0$.
At intensities beyond $10^{18}$ W/cm$^2$, the electron quiver speed $v_{osc}=6 \times 10^{-10}c\lambda \sqrt{I}$ exceeds the speed of light, and hence nonlinear effects in plasmas cannot be ignored. Here $I$ is the intensity in W/cm$^2$ and $\lambda$ is the laser wavelength in microns. Thus, the relativistic ponderomotive force [@Yu-etal; @Shukla-etal] $ {\bf F} = -m_ec^2 \nabla \gamma$ of intense laser pulses will separate charges and thereby would create a huge ambipolar electric potential $\phi$ in the plasma. At equilibrium, the balance between the relativistic ponderomotive force and a slow electric force $e \nabla \phi$ will yield $\phi =(m_ec^2/e)(\gamma-1)$, which, when substituted into Poisson’s equation, gives $N = 1+ \lambda_e^2 \nabla^2 \gamma$. Here $\lambda_e =c/\omega_p$ is the electron skin depth, and the ions are assumed to be immobile. The electron density will be locally evacuated by the relativistic ponderomotive force of ultra-intense nonuniform laser fields. The laser pulse localization and compression would then occur due to nonlinearities associated with relativistic laser ponderomotive force created electron density evacuation and relativistic electron mass increase in the laser fields. This phenomena can be studied by means of the equation $$\frac{\partial^2 \bm{\mathcal{A}}}{\partial t^2 }
-\nabla^ 2\bm{\mathcal{ A}} + \frac{\bm{\mathcal{ A}}}{\sqrt{1+|\bm{
\mathcal{ A}}|^2}}
\left(1+ \nabla^2 \sqrt{1+|\bm{\mathcal{ A}}|^2}\right)=0,
\label{eq:compression}$$ where $\bm{\mathcal{A}} = e{\bf A}/m_ec$, and the time and space variables are in units of $\omega_p^{-1}$ and $\lambda_e$, respectively. For the propagation of a modulated laser pulse along the $z$ axis, we obtain from Eq. (\[eq:compression\]) after invoking the slowing varying envelope approximation, $$\begin{aligned}
2i\omega \left(\frac{\partial I}{\partial t}+v_g\frac{\partial I}{\partial z}\right)
+ \nabla^2 I + I-\frac{I}{P}(1+\nabla^2 P)=0,
\label{eq:envelope}\end{aligned}$$ where we have set $\bm{\mathcal{A}} = (1/2) I(r, z, t) (\hat {\bf x}
+ i \hat {\bf y}) \exp(-i \omega t+i k z)+$ complex conjugate, and denoted $P=(1+I^2)^{1/2}$. Here the normalized laser frequency and the normalized laser group velocity are denoted by $\omega =(1+k^2)^{1/2}$ and $v_g=k/\omega$, respectively. In the one-dimensional case \[viz. set $\nabla^2=\partial^2/\partial z^2$ in Eq. (\[eq:envelope\])\], we have the localization of intense electromagnetic waves in the form of a large amplitude one-dimensional bright soliton [@Yu-etal]. We have numerically solved Eq. (\[eq:envelope\]) in order to study the evolution of a cylindrically symmetric modulated laser pulse. The results are displayed in Fig. \[fig:relnlin\].
![The variation of $I$, as given by Eq. (\[eq:envelope\]), and $N$ against $r$ (the radial coordinate) and $z$ for an initial laser pulse which initially has a Gaussian shape. We observe the pulse compression and the formation of a light bullet. (Reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson-Marklund1.)[]{data-label="fig:relnlin"}](small_fig17.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
Initially, the pulse is assumed to have a Gaussian shape, $I = I_0 \exp[-(z^2+r^2)/200]$, and we used the normalized wavenumber $k=2$ and initial pulse amplitude $I_0=1$. We notice that the compression of the pulse envelope (left panels), which is correlated with the excavation of the normalized electron density (right panels). Our numerical results reveal that self-compression of the pulse is more rapid when one accounts for the relativistic light ponderomotive force induced electron density depletion, contrary to the constant density case (viz. $N=1$). Physically, the enhanced compression and self-focusing of an intense laser pulse occur due to the localization of light in a self-created electron density cavity.
The fact that evacuation of the plasma takes place as the light intensification due to self-compression occurs means that the situation discussed in @Shen-etal, where the quantum electrodynamical effect of photon–photon scattering at high intensities takes place, could be realized in the next generation laser-plasma systems. Moreover, as the intensities in the evacuated region increase, the concept of vacuum catastrophic collapse, at which the pulse due to quantum vacuum nonlinearities self-compresses, may ensue [@r1]. The intensities that can be reached at this stage, in principle, surpass the Schwinger field, but then the process of pair creation has to be investigated and removed, since this would otherwise quickly dissipate the electromagnetic energy into Fermionic degrees of freedom. The problem of self-consistent analysis of pair production in a plasma environment has been approached by @Bulanov-etal2005 where a model for incorporating a particle source term was given (see also Eq. (\[eq:paircreation\])).
#### Self-interaction in electron–positron plasmas
Consider the propagation of intense light in an electron-positron plasma. By averaging the inertialess equations of motion for electrons and positrons over one electromagnetic wave period, the expressions for the electron and positron number densities $n_e$ and $n_p$, respectively, in the presence of relativistic ponderomotive force [@Shukla-etal] of an arbitrary large amplitude laser pulse takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
n_{e,p} = n_0\exp\left[ -\frac{m_ec^2}{k_BT_e}\left(\gamma-1\right) -
\frac{q_{e,p}}{k_BT_{e,p}}\phi\right] , \end{aligned}$$ where $q_e = -e$ and $q_p = e$ are the electron and positron charges, $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $T_e (T_p)$ is the electron (positron) temperature, and $\gamma =\sqrt{1+ e^2 |\mathbf{A}|^2/m_e^2 c^2}$ for circularly polarized light. The ambipolar potential $\phi$ associated with the plasma slow motion is found from Poisson’s equation $$\nabla^2\phi = \frac{e}{\epsilon_0}(n_e - n_p).
\label{eq:poisson}$$ From the particle momentum conservation equations, the electron and positron velocities are given by $\mathbf{v}_{e,p} = -q_{e,p}\mathbf{A}/m_e\gamma_{e,p} $, where $\gamma_{e,p}= (1- v_{e,p}^2/c^2)^{-1/2} \equiv \gamma$.
The dynamics of the intense light is obtained from Maxwell’s equations and reads $$\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} - c^2\nabla^2\right)\mathbf{A} +
\frac{\omega_p^2}{\gamma n_0}(n_e + n_p)\mathbf{A} = 0 ,
\label{eq:waveA}$$ where ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential.
For a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave $\mathbf{A}=(1/2){\widetilde A} (\mathbf{r}, t)
(\hat{\mathbf{x}}+\mathrm{i}\hat{\mathbf{y}})
\exp(\mathrm{i}\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{r}-\mathrm{i}\omega_0t)$, using the scalings $n_{e,p} = n_0N_{e,p}$, $t = \tau\omega_0/\omega_p^2$, $\mathbf{r} = c(\mathbf{\xi} -
\mathbf{u}_g\tau)/\omega_p$, $\mathbf{u}_g = (\omega_0/\omega_p)\mathbf{v}_g/c$, $\widetilde{A} = (m_ec/e)\mathcal{A}$, and $\phi = (m_ec^2/e)\Phi$, Eqs. (\[eq:poisson\]) and (\[eq:waveA\]) can be written in the dimensionless form as $$\mathrm{i}\frac{\partial\mathcal{A}}{\partial \tau}
+\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2\mathcal{A} +\left(1-\frac{N_e+N_p}{2\sqrt{1+|a|^2}}\right)\mathcal{A}
=0,
\label{eq:nlse-A}$$ and $\nabla^2\Phi=N_e-N_p$, respectively, where $N_e=\exp[\beta_e(1-\sqrt{1+|\mathcal{A}|^2}+\Phi)]$, $N_p=\exp[\beta_p(1-\sqrt{1+|\mathcal{A}|^2}-\Phi)]$, $\beta_{e,p}=c^2/v_{Te,p}^2$, and $v_{Te,p}=(k_BT_{e,p}/m_e)^{1/2}$. Here the dispersion relation $\omega_0^2=c^2k^2+\omega_p^2(n_{e0}+n_{p0})/n_0$ has been used, and $\mathbf{v}_g = (c^2/\omega_0)\mathbf{k}$ is the group velocity. In the quasi-neutral limit $N_e=N_p$, we have $\Phi=(1-\sqrt{1+|\mathcal{A}|^2})(\beta_p-\beta_e)/(\beta_p+\beta_e)$. Equation (\[eq:nlse-A\]) then becomes $$\mathrm{i}\frac{\partial\mathcal{A}}{\partial \tau}
+\frac{1}{2}\nabla^2\mathcal{A} +\left[1-\frac{\exp\left[
\beta\left(1-\sqrt{1+|\mathcal{A}|^2}\right)
\right]}{\sqrt{1+|\mathcal{A}|^2}}\right]\mathcal{A} = 0,
\label{eq:nlse-A2}$$ where $\beta=2\beta_e\beta_p/(\beta_e+\beta_p)$ is the temperature parameter.
The dispersion relation for the modulational and filamentational instabilities for an arbitrary large amplitude electromagnetic pump can be derived from (\[eq:nlse-A2\]) following standard techniques [@shu87; @shu88]. From the ansatz $\mathcal{A} = (a_0+a_1)\exp(i\delta\tau)$, where $a_0$ is real, $a_0\gg |a_1|$ and $\delta$ is a constant nonlinear frequency shift, the lowest order solution gives $\delta = 1 - \exp\left[\beta\left(1 - \sqrt{1 +
a_0^2}\right)\right]/\sqrt{1 + a_0^2}$. Linearizing Eq. (\[eq:nlse-A2\]) with respect to $a_1$, with the ansatz $a_1 = (X + \mathrm{i}Y)\exp(\mathrm{i}\mathbf{K}\cdot\mathbf{\xi} -
\mathrm{i}{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}\tau)$, where $X$ and $Y$ are real constants and ${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}$ ($\mathbf{K}$) is the frequency (wavevector) of the low-frequency (in comparison with the light frequency) modulations, the nonlinear dispersion relation reads $${{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}^2 = \frac{K^4}{4} -\frac{K^2}{2}\frac{a_0^2\left(1 + \beta\sqrt{1 +
a_0^2}\right)}{(1 + a_0^2)^{3/2}}
e^{\beta(1 - \sqrt{1 + a_0^2}\,)} ,
\label{eq:nonlin1}$$ which gives the modulational instability growth rate ${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}} =-\mathrm{i}{{\mathnormal{\Omega}}}$ according to $${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}} = \frac{K}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{a_0^2\left(1 +
\beta\sqrt{1 + a_0^2}\right)}{(1 + a_0^2)^{3/2}}
e^{\beta(1-\sqrt{1+a_0^2}\,)} -
\frac{K^2}{2}\right]^{1/2}.
\label{eq:nonlin2}$$ The growth rate increases with the larger $\beta$ values (i.e. for lower temperature), while for the intensity field, we do not necessarily obtain higher growth rates for higher intensities, see Fig. \[fig:instability\]. This is attributed to an interplay between the relativistic particle mass variation and the relativistic light ponderomotive driven density responses. From the expression (\[eq:nonlin2\]) one observes a decrease in the growth rate for large enough $\beta$. However, this result should be interpreted with caution since for large-amplitude fields in a low-temperature plasma, electron inertia effects will become important and may dominate over the thermal effects. Then, in this case the assumption that the electrons (and positrons) obey a modified Boltzmann distribution may no longer be valid.
Since $N_e = N_p = \exp[\beta(1 - \sqrt{1 + |\mathcal{A}|^2})]$, the increase of the pulse intensity will cause an almost complete expulsion of the electrons and positrons from that region, see Figs. \[fig:intensity\] and \[fig:density\]. The simulations show the evolution of an initially weakly modulated beam $\mathcal{A} = 10^{-3}[1 + 0.02\sin(z/8) + 0.02\cos(z/4)
+ 0.02\cos(3z/8)]\exp(-r^2/32)$, where $r^2 = x^2 + y^2$, while the electron perturbation is zero initially. Thus, as can be seen in Figs. \[fig:intensity\] and \[fig:density\], the modulated beam self-compresses and breaks up into localized filaments. This gives rise to electron and positron holes, and as the pulse intensity grows, the conditions for pure elastic photon–photon scattering improve within these holes.
![The modulational instability growth rate ${{\mathnormal{\Gamma}}}$ as given by Eq. (\[eq:nonlin2\]) versus the wavenumber $K$, for $\beta=200$ and $a_0=0.1$ (dashed lines), $\beta=100$ and $a_0=0.1$ (solid line), $\beta=100$ and $a_0=0.2$ (dash-dotted lines), and for $\beta=100$ and $a_0=0.05$ (dotted line). (Reprinted from @Shukla-Marklund-Eliasson, Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.)[]{data-label="fig:instability"}](fig18.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
![The light amplitude $\mathcal{A}$ in $\log_{10}$-scale at five different times $\tau$ (see Eq. (\[eq:nlse-A2\])). The horizontal axis represents the distribution along the radial ($r$) coordinate, and the axial ($z$) distribution is on the vertical axis. (Reprinted from @Shukla-Marklund-Eliasson, Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.)[]{data-label="fig:intensity"}](small_fig19.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
![The normalized electron number density $N_e = \exp[\beta(1 - \sqrt{1+|\mathcal{A}|^2})]$ as a function of $r$ and $z$ at five different times $\tau$ ($\mathcal{A}$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:nlse-A2\])). Note the efficient expulsion of plasma particles in the later panels, and their correlation to the intensity peaks in Fig. \[fig:intensity\]. (Reprinted from @Shukla-Marklund-Eliasson, Copyright (2004), with permission from Elsevier.)[]{data-label="fig:density"}](small_fig20.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
#### Thin-foil amplification {#sec:thinfoil}
As noted in the previous two sections, trapping and amplification of laser pulses can take place given the right plasma environment. This could be an important tool for stepping up the available electromagnetic intensities, and could therefore be important for investigations into photon–photon scattering. Here we will describe a method which could yield high intensity pulses.
Laser-foil interactions have been used as a method for proton acceleration on table top scales [@Zepf-etal; @Silva-etal; @McKenna-etal]. By letting a high intensity laser pulse impinge normally on a thin metal foil the foil material is ionized, creating a plasma in which protons are accelerated up to MeV-energies. The exact mechanism(s) behind the proton acceleration is still not completely clear although there exists a number of plausible suggestions (see @Zepf-etal for a discussion). It was suggested by @Shen-MeyerterVehn2 that this could be used to create confined high density relativistic electron plasmas. Letting two counterpropagating laser beams illuminate a thin foil normally, a spatially confined high density plasma could be created, and be used for, e.g. harmonic generation, pair production, and $\gamma$ photon generation [@Shen-MeyerterVehn].
Building on the work of @Shen-MeyerterVehn2, @she02 suggested to let two oppositely directed laser beams interact via two closely placed thin foils. As above, when the high intensity lasers impinges normally on the thin foils, the foil material will be ionized and a plasma will be produced. @she02 showed that this may lead to electromagnetic trapping.
@she02 started with the trapping of a circularly polarized electromagnetic pulse propagating in the $z$-direction in a positive electron density profile, using the stationary equations of @Shen-MeyerterVehn2 and @Shen-MeyerterVehn
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!
M = (\gamma^2 - 1){c}\theta'/\omega , \\
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!
W = \tfrac{1}{2}(\gamma^2 - 1)^{-1}\left[ \left({c\gamma'}/{\omega}\right)^2
+ M^2 \right] + \tfrac{1}{2}{\gamma}(\gamma - 2N_i) ,\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:constantsofmotion\]
where $M$ and $W$ are two constants motion, $\gamma = \sqrt{1+ e^2 |A|^2/m_e^2 c^2}$ is the relativistic gamma-factor, $\omega$ is the laser frequency, $A$ is the vector potential $\propto \exp[i\omega t + i\theta(z)]$, $N_i = {n_i}/{n_c}$, $n_i$ is the constant ion density, $n_c = 1.1\times 10^{21}\,(\lambda/\mu\mathrm{m})^2\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ is the critical electron density, $\lambda$ is the laser wavelength, and the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $z$. It is possible to find solitary solutions of Eq. (\[eq:constantsofmotion\]) representing trapped electromagnetic pulses between parallel high density plasma regions [@Kim-etal; @Esirkepov-etal3]. These analytical soliton solutions suggest the possibility to trap laser light between foils. @she02 performed particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations of the system (\[eq:constantsofmotion\]). Using the foil spacing $\Delta = 0.46\lambda$ they showed that such configurations would yield a 100-fold amplification of the initial laser pulse intensities, over a trapping time of $26$ laser cycles, which is in the fs range for $\mu\mathrm{m}$ lasers.
In multidimensional environments, true analytical soliton solutions are not known, but it is a well-established fact, due to approximate and numerical investigations [@Kivshar-Agrawal], that solitary like solutions exists in dimensions $\geq 2$. However, these solutions are unstable, and will suffer either attenuation or self-compression, depending on intensity and pulse width [@Desaix-Anderson-Lisak] (see Fig. \[fig:2D-collapse\]). Thus, in a two-dimensional thin-foil environment, light intensification could take place. The production of high-intensity pulses by these thin-foil amplification also has the valuable property of being realizable in a relatively small scale setting.
#### Laser-plasmas and relativistic flying parabolic mirrors
As we have seen above, the propagation of intense electromagnetic pulses in plasmas yields interesting nonlinear dynamics, and effects such as pulse self-compression can occur. These nonlinear effects act as a very promising tool for, e.g. producing intense ion beams [@Esirkepov-etal; @Bulanov-etal2; @Esirkepov-etal2], which is of importance in laboratory astrophysics [@Chen]. With regards to the nonlinear quantum vacuum, an interesting proposal has been put forward by @Bulanov-etal. The self-compression of laser pulses, towards intensities close to the Schwinger limit, can take place by using relativistic flying parabolic mirrors.
@Bulanov-etal consider a plasma wakefield in the wave-breaking regime. They let a short intense laser pulse create a wakefield in a plasma, such that the wakefield phase velocity equals the laser pulse group velocity (which is close to $c$) in an underdense plasma [@Tajima-Dawson].[^6] Due to the nonlinearity, the resulting wake field will experience wave steepening entering the wavebreaking regime, together with a local electron density spike approaching infinity. With such a set-up, a sufficiently weak counter-propagating laser pulse will be partially reflected from the electron density maximum. The relativistic dependence of the Langmuir “mirror” on the driving laser pulse intensity will cause bending of the surfaces of constant phase, thus creating a parabolic plasma mirror [@Bulanov-Sakharov]. This curvature of the plasma mirror will focus the counterpropagating (weak) pulse to a spot size $\lambda/4\gamma^2$ along the mirror paraboloid axis in the laboratory frame, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the source of the reflected pulse and $\gamma$ is the relativistic gamma factor of the wakefield. Similarly, the focal spot width is $\lambda/2\gamma$ in the transverse direction. With this, @Bulanov-etal showed that the intensity gain will be roughly $64(D/\lambda)^2\gamma^3$, where $D$ is the width of the pulse effectively reflected by the mirror. The focal spot intensity of the reflected pulse can then be estimated to $$\label{eq:focusintensity}
I_{\text{focal}} \approx 8\left(\frac{\omega_d}{\omega}\right)^2\left(\frac{D}{\lambda}\right)^2\gamma^3 I,$$ where $\omega_d$ is the frequency of the pulse driving the Langmuir wave, $\omega$ is the frequency of the source of the reflected pulse, and $I$ is the intensity of the source of the reflected pulse. @Bulanov-etal gave the following example of light intensification through Eq. (\[eq:focusintensity\]). A $1\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ pulse generate the Langmuir mirror in a plasma where $n_e \sim 10^{17}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$. The estimate $\gamma \approx \omega_d/\omega_p$ then gives $\gamma \sim 100$. The pulse to be reflected is assumed to have $I \sim 10^{17}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, and $D = 400\,\mu\mathrm{m}$. Then $I_{\text{focal}} \sim 10^{29}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, to be compared with the critical intensity $I_c = c\epsilon_0E_{\mathrm{crit}}^2 \approx
3\times 10^{29}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$. The estimated focal intensity thus seems to reach the Schwinger limit. However, with the given value on $I$ it is likely that the backreaction on the Langmuir wave has to be taken into account, thus altering the estimate.
@Bulanov-etal also presented numerical results using a fully relativistic code, see Figs. \[fig:bul1\] and \[fig:bul2\]. Using a three-dimensional PIC code, an intense laser pulse drives the Langmuir wave along the $x$-axis, while the counterpropagating source pulse for the reflected wave has an intensity $\sim 10^{15}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ in the $\mu\mathrm{m}$ wavelength range. The value of the of the source pulse intensity is chosen in order to avoid degradation of the Langmuir mirror. Figure \[fig:bul1\] shows the electron density profile of the Langmuir wave. Using a Langmuir laser driver with intensity $4\times 10^{18}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ and $\mu\mathrm{m}$ wavelength, the plasma waves move with with a phase velocity $0.87c$, and the gamma-factor is $2$. The density profile is shown along the $x$-axis, and a steep gradient can be seen. Figure \[fig:bul2\] shows the electric field components of the source pulse and its reflection ($y = 0$ plane) and the Langmuir driver ($z = 0$ plane). The focusing of the reflected can be seen. The intensity increase in the focal spot is $256$ times the source intensity, i.e. $I_{\text{focal}} \sim 10^{17} - 10^{18}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ for a $\mu\mathrm{m}$ source laser. This is similar to the intensification obtained for the thin foil setup in Sec. \[sec:thinfoil\].
![Typical electron density profile in the wake field, where the isosurfaces represents densities $n = 0.15 n_{\text{crit}}$, and $n_{\text{crit}}$ denotes the density at which the plasma goes from underdense to overdense. (Reprinted with permission from @Bulanov-etal.)[]{data-label="fig:bul1"}](fig21.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
![The electric field components at different times. (Reprinted with permission from @Bulanov-etal.)[]{data-label="fig:bul2"}](fig22.eps){width="0.7\columnwidth"}
#### Electromagnetic wave localization
The nonlinear interaction of high-intensity ultrashort electromagnetic waves with hot plasmas is of primary interest for the fast ignitor concept of inertial confinement fusion and for the development of high power sources of hard EM radiation, as well as for laser-plasma particle and photon accelerators, and compact astrophysical objects containing intense electromagnetic bursts. Recent progress in the development of super strong electromagnetic pulses with intensities $I \sim 10^{21}$–$10^{23}$ W/cm$^2$ has also made it possible to create relativistic plasmas in the laboratory by a number of experimental techniques. At the focus of an ultraintense short electromagnetic pulse, the electrons can acquire velocities close to the speed of light, opening the possibility of simulating in laboratory conditions, by using dimensionless simulation parameters, phenomena that belong to the astrophysical realm. In the past, several authors presented theoretical [@kozlov79b; @Kaw; @Esirkepov-etal3; @Farina] and particle-in-cell simulation [@bulanov99; @naumova] studies of intense electromagnetic envelope solitons in a cold plasma, where the slow plasma response to the EM waves is modeled by the electron continuity and relativistic momentum equations, supplemented by Poisson’s equation. Assuming beam-like particle distribution functions, relativistic electromagnetic solitons in a warm quasi-neutral electron-ion plasma have been investigated [@lontano]. Experimental observations [@borghesi] show bubble-like structures in proton images of laser-produced plasmas, which are interpreted as remnants of electromagnetic envelope solitons.
@Shukla-Eliasson2 presented fully relativistic nonlinear theory and computer simulations for nonlinearly coupled intense localized circularly polarized EM waves and relativistic electron hole (REH) structures [@Eliasson-Shukla2006] in a relativistically hot electron plasma, by adopting the Maxwell-Poisson-relativistic Vlasov system that accounts for relativistic electron mass increase in the electromagnetic fields and relativistic radiation ponderomotive force [@Shukla-etal; @bob2], in addition to trapped electrons which support the driven REHs. Such a scenario of coupled intense EM waves and REHs is absent in any fluid treatment [@kozlov79b; @Kaw; @Esirkepov-etal3; @Farina] of relativistic electromagnetic solitons in a plasma. Electromagnetic wave localization is a topic of significant interest in photonics [@Mendonca], as well as in compact astrophysical objects, e.g. gamma-ray bursts [@Piran].
The electromagnetic wave equation accounting for the relativistic electron mass increase and the electron density modification due to the radiation relativistic ponderomotive force [@Mendonca] $F=-m_e c^2 \partial \gamma/\partial z$, where $ \gamma= (1+ p_z^2/m_e^2 c^2 +e^2 |\mathbf{A}|^2/m_e^2c^2)^{1/2}$ is the relativistic gamma factor, are included. Here, $p_z$ is the $z$ component of the electron momentum, $\mathbf{A}$ is the perpendicular (to $\hat {\bf z}$, where $\hat {\bf z}$ is the unit vector along the $z$ axis) component of the vector potential of the circularly polarized EM waves. The dynamics of nonlinearly coupled EM waves and REHs is governed by $$\label{eq:vecpotential-localization}
\frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{A}}{\partial t^2}-
\frac{1}{\alpha^2}\frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{A}}{\partial z^2}+
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{f}{\gamma}\,dp_z\,\mathbf{A}=0,$$ $$\label{eq:vlasov-localization}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+\frac{p_z}{\gamma}\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}
+\frac{\partial(\phi-\gamma/\alpha^2)}{\partial z}\frac{\partial f}{\partial p_z}=0,$$ and $$\label{eq:poisson-localization}
\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial z^2}=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f\,dp_z -1,$$ where $\mathbf{A}$ is normalized by $m_e c/e$, $\phi$ by $k_BT_e/e$, $p_z$ by $m_e V_{Te}$ and $z$ by $r_D$. Here $\gamma=(1+\alpha^2 p_z^2+|{\bf A}|^2)$, $V_{Te}=(k_BT_e/m_e)^2$, $\alpha=V_{te}/c$, and $r_D=V_{Te}/\omega_p$. In Eq. (\[eq:vecpotential-localization\]), we used the Coulomb gauge $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} =0$ and excluded the longitudinal ($z$-) component $\partial^2\phi/\partial t\partial z=j_z$, where $j_z$ is the parallel current density, by noticing that this component is equivalent to Poisson’s equation (\[eq:poisson-localization\]) [@Shukla-Eliasson2].
Shukla and Eliasson have discussed the stationary as well as time dependent solutions of Eqs. (\[eq:vecpotential-localization\])–(\[eq:poisson-localization\]) in the form of REH which traps localized electromagnetic wave envelopes. Typical profiles for the amplitude of the localized EM vector potential $W$ and potential and density of the REH, as well as the local electron plasma frequency squared ($\Omega^2$) including the relativistic electron mass increase, are depicted in Fig. \[fig:loc1\]. We observe that for large electromagnetic field the REH potential becomes larger and the REH wider, admitting larger eigenvalues $\lambda$ that are associated with the nonlinear frequency shift. This is due to the relativistic ponderomotive force of localized EM waves pushes the electrons away from the center of the REH, leading to an increase of the electrostatic potential and a widening of the REH. We see that the depletion of the electron density in the REH is only minimal, while the local electron plasma frequency $\Omega$ is strongly reduced owing to the increased mass of the electrons that are accelerated by the REH potential; the maximum potential $\phi_{\text{max}} \approx 15$ in Fig. \[fig:loc1\] corresponds in physical units to a potential $\alpha^2\phi_{\text{max}}\times0.5\times 10^6\approx 1.2\times 10^6\,\mathrm{V}$, accelerating the electrons to gamma factors of $\approx 6$.
![ Large-amplitude trapped EM wave envelope (upper panel), the potential (second panel), the electron number density (third panel), and the square of the local electron plasma frequency (lower panel) for large amplitude EMWwaves with a maximum amplitude of $W_{\text{max}}=1.5$ (solid lines) and $W_{\text{max}}=1.0$ (dashed lines), and as a comparison a REH with small-amplitude EM waves which have $W_{\text{max}}\ll 1$ (dotted lines). The parameters are: the normalized speed $v_0=0.7$, $\alpha=0.4$ and the trapping parameter $\beta=-0.5$ (corresponding to a vortex distribution presented by @bajurbarua and @schamel involving an equilibrium Synge–Jüttner distribution function [@deGroot]). The selected value of $\beta$ are related to the maximum REH potential according to a specific relation similar to one in @bajurbarua and @schamel. (Reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson2.)[]{data-label="fig:loc1"}](fig23.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
![Phase space plots of the electron distribution function (left panels) and the modulus of the electromagnetic field (right panels) for $t=0$, $t=50$, $t=125$ and $t=162$. (Reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson2.) []{data-label="fig:loc3"}](small_fig24.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
![The electromagnetic field (upper left panel), potential (upper right panel), squared local plasma frequency (lower left panel) and electron density (lower right panel) for two colliding REHs. (Reprinted with permission from @Shukla-Eliasson2.) []{data-label="fig:loc4"}](small_fig25.eps){width=".75\columnwidth"}
In order to study the dynamics of interacting solitary structures composed of localized REHs loaded with trapped EM waves, @Shukla-Eliasson2 numerically solved the time-dependent, relativistic Vlasov equation (\[eq:vlasov-localization\]) together with the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, that is deduced from Eq. (\[eq:vecpotential-localization\]) in the slowly varying envelope approximation. The results are displayed in Figs. \[fig:loc3\] and \[fig:loc4\]. As an initial condition to the simulations, Shukla and Eliasson used solutions to the quasi-stationary equations described above, where the left REH initially has the speed $v_0=0.7$ (normalized by $c$) and is loaded with EM waves with $W_{\text{max}}=1.5$, while the right REH has the speed $v_0=-0.3$, and is loaded with EM waves with $W_{\text{max}}=2.5$. Furthermore, @Shukla-Eliasson2 used $k_0=v_g=0$ in the initial condition for $A$ and in the solution of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation [@Shukla-Eliasson2]. Figure \[fig:loc3\] displays the phase space distribution of the electrons and the electromagnetic field amplitude at different times. We see that the REHs loaded with trapped EM waves collide, merge and then split into two REHs, while there are two strongly peaked EM wave envelopes at $z\approx 30$ and $z\approx 70$ remaining after the splitting of the REH. A population of electrons has also been accelerated to large energies, seen at $z=100$ in the lower left panel of Fig. \[fig:loc3\]. The time development of the EM wave amplitudes, REH potential, the squared local plasma frequency and the electron number density is shown in Fig. \[fig:loc4\]. Collision and splitting of the REHs can be observed, as well as creation of the two localized EM envelopes at $z\approx 70$; clearly visible in the left two panels at $t>150$.
### Photon–photon scattering within plasmas
#### Charged particle effects and Cherenkov radiation
As presented by @Dremin and @NJP, similar to a charged particle moving in a isotropic dielectric, a charged particle can suffer Cherenkov losses when propagating through a intense gas of photons. The main difference compared to the case of a regular medium is the frequency spectrum of the emitted radiation. Since the natural cut-off in the quantum vacuum is given by the Compton frequency, $\gamma$-rays may be emitted by such a particle.
In 1934, Cherenkov observed the type of radiation now bearing his name [@Cerenkov]. His experimental result was explained by @Tamm-Frank. In an isotropic dielectric medium, a charged particle in rectilinear motion satisfying the so called Cherenkov condition, i.e. its velocity exceeds the (parallel) phase speed in the medium in which it moves, will radiate [@Chefranov]. The radiation shock-front, called the Cherenkov cone, is analogous to the Mach cone formed as objects move with supersonic speeds through air. In quantum mechanical terms, the Cherenkov condition corresponds to energy and momentum conservation. Cherenkov radiation has technological uses, e.g. in determining particle velocities.
The dispersion relation for electromagnetic waves in an isotropic and homogeneous photon gas with refractive index $n$ is $\omega = kc/n$, where $n^2 = 1 + \delta$ and $\delta = 4\lambda\mathscr{E}/3$ [@Bialynicka-Birula; @Marklund-Brodin-Stenflo] (see Eq. (\[eq:weakgas\])). Thus, the refractive index in this case is always larger than one, and a particle may therefore have a speed $u$ exceeding the phase velocity in the medium. The Cherenkov condition $u \geq c/n$ for emission of radiation can thus be satisfied. This condition can also be expressed in terms of the relativistic gamma factor $\gamma = (1 - u^2/c^2)^{-1/2}$, namely $\delta\gamma^2 \geq 1 $. We will here assume that a particle with charge $Ze$, satisfying the Cherenkov condition, moves through an equilibrium radiation gas. The energy loss at the frequency $\omega$ per unit length of the path of the charged particle is then $$\frac{dU_{\omega}}{ds}d\omega = \frac{Z^2\alpha}{c}\frac{(\delta\gamma^2 - 1)}{(\gamma^2 - 1)}
\hbar\omega \,d\omega ,$$ and the number of quanta $N$ emitted per unit length along the particles path is $$\frac{dN}{ds} d\omega= \frac{Z^2\alpha}{c} \frac{(\delta\gamma^2 - 1)}{(\gamma^2 - 1)} \, d\omega .$$ Since $\delta$ is normally much less than one, we need a large gamma factor to satisfy the Cherenkov condition. Subsequently, for $\delta \gamma^2 =1$, we have $$U = N\hbar\omega_e, \quad \text{ and } \quad N = Z^2L\alpha\delta/\lambda_e ,$$ respectively, where we have used the Compton frequency as a cut-off. Here $L$ is the distance traveled by the charge.
At the present time, the cosmic microwave background has an energy density of the order $\mathscr{E} \sim 10^{-15}\,\mathrm{J}/\mathrm{m}^3$, i.e.$\delta \sim 10^{-42}$, i.e. the gamma factor has to be $\gamma \geq 10^{21}$ for the Cherenkov condition to be satisfied. Thus Cherenkov radiation is not likely to occur in todays radiation background. In fact, it is well known that the cosmic rays contain non-thermal hadrons, of which some are protons, that can reach gamma factors $10^{11}$, but larger values are improbable due to the GZK cut-off [@Greisen; @Zatsepin-Kuzmin]. As a comparison, we may consider the situation at the time of matter–radiation decoupling. Since $\mathscr{E}_{\text{emitted}} = \mathscr{E}_{\text{received}}(T/2.7)^4$, where the temperature $T$ is given in Kelvin, we have $\mathscr{E} \sim 10^{-2} \, \mathrm{J/m^3}$ at the time of decoupling ($T \approx 8000\, \mathrm{K}$), implying $\delta \sim 10^{-28}$. Thus, the limiting value on the gamma factor for the Cherenkov condition to be satisfied is $\gamma \geq 10^{14} - 10^{15}$, still out of reach for high energy cosmic rays. However, as we demonstrate below, the situation changes drastically for earlier processes at even higher $T$. In particular, we will focus on the era with $10^9\,\mathrm{K} \leq T \leq 10^{11}\,\mathrm{K}$ when the required $\gamma$-factors range from $\gamma \sim 10^4$ to $\gamma >3$.
The effect presented above is naturally compared with inverse Compton scattering. Setting $Z = 1$, the cross-section for this scattering is $\sigma \approx \pi r_e^2m_e^2/M^2\gamma$, where $r_e$ the classical electron radius and $M$ is the charged particle mass. We thus obtain a collision frequency $\nu = c\mathscr{N}\sigma$, where $\mathscr{N}$ is the number density of the photons. Comparing this frequency with the frequency $\nu_{\mathrm{ch}} = (\gamma Mc)^{-1}dU/dt$, we note that fast particles are mainly scattered due to the Cherenkov effect when $\nu < \nu_{\mathrm{ch}}$, i.e. $$\label{eq:cherenkov}
1 < \frac{\delta}{\alpha\pi(m_e/M)\mathcal{N}\lambda_e^3} = \frac{M}{m_e}\frac{T}{T_{\mathrm{ch}}}.$$ Here $T$ is the temperature of the photon gas, $\mathcal{N} = [30\zeta(3)a/k_B\pi^4]T^3$, $\mathscr{E} = aT^4$, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $a = \pi^2k_B^4/15\hbar^3c^3 \approx 7.6\times 10^{-16}\,\mathrm{J/m^3K^4}$ and $T_{\mathrm{ch}}= (2025\zeta(3)/44\pi^3\alpha)m_ec^2/k_B \approx 10^{12}\,\mathrm{K}$ using the polarization averaged effective action charge $\bar{\lambda} = (8\kappa + 14\kappa)/2 = 11\kappa$. Thus, for a single fast proton to be scattered mainly due to the Cherenkov effect, we need $T > T_{\mathrm{ch}}\times 10^{-3} \sim 10^9 \, \mathrm{K}$, well within the limit of validity of the theory for photon–photon scattering. We note that at radiation gas temperatures around $10^{12}\,\mathrm{K}$ the quantum vacuum becomes truly nonlinear, and higher order QED effects must be taken into account.
For the early universe considered above, a moderately relativistic plasma is also present, which means that collective charged particle interactions can play a role. We take these plasma effects into account by introducing the plasma frequency $\omega_p$. The photon dispersion relation is $\omega
^{2}\approx k^{2}c^{2}(1-\delta )+\omega _{p}^{2}$. Thus, the Cherenkov condition is satisfied for charged particles with relativistic factors $\gamma \geq 1/\sqrt{\delta -\omega _{p}^{2}/k^{2}c^{2}}$. For the temperatures where the Cherenkov radiation starts to dominate over inverse Compton scattering, $T\sim
10^{9}-10^{10}\,\mathrm{K}$, we have $\omega _{p}\sim 10^{15-16}\,\mathrm{rad/s}$, and thus Cherenkov radiation is emitted in a broad band starting in the UV range, $\omega\sim 10^{17}\, \mathrm{rad/s}$, and continuing up to the Compton frequency $\sim 8\times 10^{20} \,\mathrm{rad/s}$.
The Cherenkov radiation emitted during the era when $T \sim 10^9\,\mathrm{K}$ will be redshifted due to the cosmological expansion. Thus, the present value of the cut-off frequency will be approximately $2\times 10^{12}\,\mathrm{rad/s}$, i.e. in the short wavelength range of the microwave spectrum. However, we do not expect direct detection of this radiation in the present universe, since the process is only expected to be of importance long before the time of radiation decoupling. Still, there are possible important observational implications due to the Cherenkov mechanism presented here. As shown by the inequality (\[eq:cherenkov\]), the effect will be more pronounced for massive particles with a given gamma factor, and protons are therefore expected to be more constrained than electrons by the QED Cherenkov emission. In particular, (\[eq:cherenkov\]) puts stronger limits than Compton scattering for supra-thermal protons observed today to be relics of the early universe. In fact, it seems rather unlikely, given the inequality (\[eq:cherenkov\]), that such protons could survive during the $T = 10^9 - 10^{10}\,\mathrm{K}$ era.
#### Unmagnetized plasmas
Pair production and pair plasmas play an important role in the dynamics of the environments surrounding pulsars (see, e.g. @Beskin-etal [@Arendt-Eilek; @Asseo]). Charged particles will attain relativistic energies close to the pulsar magnetic poles and radiate $\gamma$-ray photons. This, together with the super-strong magnetic field present around these objects [@Beskin-etal], is believed to produce a pair plasma [@Tsai-Erber]. Thus, nonlinear QED effects are already known to be an important ingredient for pulsar physics. Since the pair plasma gives rise to radio wave emissions, and because of the large energy scales involved, pulsar atmospheres are likely to host other QED effects as well, such as vacuum nonlinearities in the form of photon–photon scattering.
As presented by @Stenflo-etal, for circularly polarized electromagnetic waves propagating in a cold multicomponent plasma rather than in vacuum, the wave operator on the left-hand sides of Eqs. (\[WaveE\]) and (\[WaveB\]) is replaced by $$\square \rightarrow \frac{1}{c^{2}}\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial t^{2}}
-\nabla ^{2}+\frac{\omega _{p}^{2}}{c^{2}}\rightarrow \frac{-\omega
^{2} + \sum_j\omega _{pj}^{2}/\gamma_j}{c^{2}}+k^{2}, \label{substitution}$$ where the sum is over particle species $j$, we have assumed that the EM-fields vary as $\exp(ikz-i\omega t)$, the relativistic factor of each particle species is $\gamma_j = (1 + q_j^2 E_0^2/m_j^2 c^2 \omega^2)^{1/2}$, where $E_0$ denotes the absolute value of the electric field amplitude [@Stenflo; @Stenflo-Tsintsadze]. Due to the symmetry of the circularly polarized EM waves, most plasma nonlinearities cancel, and the above substitution holds for arbitrary wave amplitudes. Here $\omega_{pj} = (n_{0j}q_{j}^{2}/\epsilon_{0}m_{j})^{1/2}$ is the plasma frequency of particle species $j$ and $n_{0j}$ denotes the particle density in the laboratory frame.
Next, we investigate the regime $\omega^2 \ll k^2 c^2$. From Faraday’s law and the above inequality we note that the dominating QED contribution to Eq. (\[WaveB\]) comes from the term proportional to $B^{2}
{\bf B}$. Combining Eqs. (\[WaveB\]) and (\[eq:magnetization\]), noting that $B^2 = B_0^2 = k^2 E_0^2/\omega^2 $ is constant for circularly polarized EM waves, and using $\omega^2 \ll k^2 c^2$, i.e. ${\bf M} \approx 4\kappa\epsilon_0^2c^4B^{2}{\bf B}$ and $|{\bf M}| \gg \omega |{\bf P}|/k$, we obtain from (\[WaveB\]) the nonlinear dispersion relation $$\omega^2 = \frac{2\alpha}{45\pi}\left(
\frac{E_0}{E_{\text{crit}}} \right)^2 \frac{k^4 c^4}{\sum_j\omega_{pj}^2/\gamma_j + k^2
c^2} .
\label{Dispersion-relation}$$ This low-frequency mode makes the particle motion ultra-relativistic even for rather modest wave amplitudes. For electrons and positrons in ultra-relativistic motion ($\gamma _{j}\gg 1$) with equal densities $n_{0}$ and elementary charge $\pm e$, we thus use the approximation $\sum_j\omega_{pj}^2/\gamma_j \approx 2en_0 c\omega /\epsilon_0E_0 = 2\omega_{p}^2
(\omega/\omega_e) (E_{\text{crit}}/E_0)$ (see (\[eq:criticalfield\]) and (\[eq:constraint1\])), where $\omega_{p} = (e^2 n_0/\epsilon_0 m_e)^{1/2}$. The dispersion relation (\[Dispersion-relation\]) then reduces to $$\omega^3 = \frac{\alpha}{45\pi}\left( \frac{\omega_e}{
\omega_{p}} \right) \left(
\frac{E_0}{E_{\text{crit}}} \right)^3\frac{k^4 c^4}{\omega_{p} +
(E_0/E_{\text{crit}})(kc\omega_e /2\omega\omega_{p})kc} .
\label{Relativistic-DR}$$ We note that the ratio $\omega_e/\omega_{p}$ is much larger than unity for virtually all plasmas, i.e. for electron densities up to $\sim 10^{38}$ m$^{-3}$. In some applications, such as in pulsar astrophysics, it is convenient to re-express the dispersion relation in terms of the relativistic gamma factor using $E_0/E_{\text{crit}} \approx
(\omega/\omega_e)\gamma$. Thus, we obtain $$\lambda = \gamma\lambda_e\left( \frac{4\alpha}{45\pi} \right)^{1/2}\left[
1 + \sqrt{1 + \frac{16\alpha}{45\pi}\left(
\frac{\omega_{p}}{\omega_e} \right)^2\gamma } \right]^{-1/2}
\label{wavelength}$$ from (\[Relativistic-DR\]) for the wavelength $\lambda = 2\pi/k$.
#### Magnetized plasmas
Following @Marklund-Shukla-Stenflo-Brodin-Servin (see also @Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-StenfloC), for a circularly polarized wave $\mathbf{E}_0 = E_{0}
(\hat{\mathbf{x}} \pm i\hat{\mathbf{y}})\exp(ikz
- i\omega t)$ propagating along a constant magnetic field ${\bf B}_0 =
B_{0}\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, the electromagnetic invariants satisfy $$F_{cd}F^{cd} = -2E_0^2\left( 1 - \frac{k^2c^2}{\omega^2}\right)
+ 2c^2B_0^2
\, \text{ and } \,
F_{cd}\widehat{F}^{cd} = 0 .$$ Thus, Eq. (\[eq:maxwell\]) can be written as $$\Box A^a = -4\epsilon_0\kappa\left[ E_0^2\left( 1 - \frac{k^2c^2}{\omega^2}\right)
- c^2B_0^2 \right]\Box A^a - \mu_0 j^a
\label{eq:wave-A}$$ in the Lorentz gauge, and $\Box = \partial_a\partial^a$. For circularly polarized electromagnetic waves propagating in a magnetized cold multicomponent plasma, the four current can be ‘absorbed’ in the wave operator on the left-hand side by the replacement (as in the previous section) $\Box \rightarrow -D(\omega, k) $, where $D$ is the plasma dispersion function, given by (see, e.g. @Stenflo [@Stenflo-Tsintsadze]) $$D(\omega,k) = k^2c^2 - \omega^2 +
\sum_j\frac{\omega\omega_{pj}^2}{\omega\gamma_j \pm \omega_{cj}} .
\label{eq:dispersionfunction}$$ Here the sum is over the plasma particle species $j$, $\omega_{cj} = {q_jB_0}/{m_{j}}$ and $\omega_{pj} = ({n_{0j} q_j^2}/{\epsilon_0 m_{j}})^{1/2} $ is the gyrofrequency and plasma frequency, respectively, and $\gamma_j = (1 + \nu^{2}_j)^{1/2}$ is the gamma factor of species $j$, with $\nu_j$ satisfying $$\nu^{2}_j = \left(
\frac{eE_0}{cm_{j}} \right)^2\frac{1 + \nu^{2}_j}{[\omega(1 +
\nu^{2}_j)^{1/2} \pm \omega_{cj}]^2} .
\label{eq:nu}$$ Here $n_{0j}$ denotes particle density in the laboratory frame and $m_{j}$ particle rest mass.
The dispersion relation, obtained from Eq. (\[eq:wave-A\]), reads $$D = \frac{4\alpha}{45\pi}(\omega^2 - k^2c^2)
\left[\left( \frac{E_0}{E_{\text{crit}}}
\right)^2\frac{\omega^2 - k^2c^2}{\omega^2} - \left(\frac{cB_0}{E_{\text{crit}}}\right)^2
\right] .
\label{eq:qeddisp}$$ We note that as the plasma density goes to zero, the effect due to photon–photon scattering, as given by the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:qeddisp\]), vanishes, since then $\omega^2 - k^2c^2 = 0$
Next, we focus on low-frequency ($\omega \ll kc$) mode propagation in an ultra-relativistic electron–positron plasma ($\gamma_{e} \gg 1$), where the two species have the same number density $n_{0}$. Then, Eq. (\[eq:qeddisp\]) gives $$\frac{k^{2} c^{2} }{\omega^{2} } \approx \frac{4\alpha}{45\pi}\left[\left(
\frac{E_0}{E_{\text{crit}}} \right)^2 \frac{k^{2} c^{2} }{\omega^{2} }
+ \left(\frac{cB_0}{E_{\text{crit}}}\right)^2 \right]\frac{k^2c^2}{\omega^2} \mp
\frac{\omega_{p}^{2}}{\omega\omega_e}\frac{E_{\text{crit}}}{E_0} .
\label{eq:transverse3}$$
For background magnetic field strengths $B_0$ in the pulsar range $\sim 10^6 - 10^{10}\,\mathrm{T}$, $cB_{0}\ll E_{\text{crit}}$, and we therefore drop the term proportional to $B_{0}^{2}$ in Eq. (\[eq:transverse3\]). Next, using the normalized quantities $\Omega = \omega \omega _{e}/\omega _{p}^{2}$, $K=(4\alpha /45\pi
)^{-1/2}kc\omega _{e}/\omega _{p}^{2}$ and $\tilde{E}=(4\alpha /45\pi
)E_{0}/E_{\text{crit}}$, the dispersion relation (\[eq:transverse3\]) reads $$\label{eq:norm}
\Omega^{2} = \tilde{E}^{2}K^{2}\mp \frac{\Omega^{3}}{\tilde{E}K^{2}} .$$ The dispersion relation (\[eq:norm\]) describe three different modes, two with $+$ polarization and one with $-$ polarization. We note that for $K \ll 1$, the dispersion relation (\[eq:norm\]) agrees with that of @Stenflo-Tsintsadze, whereas in the opposite limit $K \gg 1$, the QED term in (\[eq:norm\]) dominates. For the given density, the latter regime applies, except for extremely long wavelengths ($>10^{8}\,\mathrm{m}$), and thus we note that QED effects are highly relevant for the propagation of these modes in the pulsar environment. For small $K$ there is only one mode, but two new modes appear for $K \gtrsim 2.6$. Thus for large $K$, applicable in the pulsar environment, there are three low-frequency modes ($\omega \ll kc$) that depend on nonlinear QED effects for their existence.
The effects of the quantum vacuum on electromagnetic wave dispersion also allows for nonlinear effects, such as wave steepening, shock front formation, and soliton propagation [@Marklund-etal2005].
#### Magnetohydrodynamic plasmas
When analysing low frequency magnetised plasma phenomena, magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) gives an accurate and computationally economical description. Specifically, a simple plasma model is obtained if the characteristic MHD time scale is much longer than both the plasma oscillation and plasma particle collision time scales, and the characteristic MHD length scale is much longer than the plasma Debye length and the gyroradius. These assumptions will make it possible to describe a two-component plasma in terms of a one-fluid description. The one-fluid description means a tremendous computational simplification, especially for complicated geometries. Moreover, if the mean fluid velocity, the mean particle velocity, and the Alfvén speed are much smaller than the speed of light in vacuum, the description becomes non-relativistic and simplifies further.
@Heyl-Hernquist3 considered the propagation of MHD modes, including the effects of photon–photon scattering and an axion field. Following @Thompson-Blaes, Heyl and Hernquist start with the Lagrangian \[see Eq. (\[eq:lagrangian2\])\] $$\mathscr{L} = \mathscr{L}_{\text{QED}} + \tfrac{1}{2}\alpha\epsilon_0\theta\mathscr{G}
= \mathscr{L}_0 + \mathscr{L}_c
+ \tfrac{1}{2}\alpha\epsilon_0\theta\mathscr{G},
\label{eq:mhd-lagrangian}$$ where the field invariant $\mathscr{G}$ is defined by (\[eq:invariants\]), and $\theta$ is the axion field, that acts as a Lagrange multiplier for the MHD condition $\mathscr{G} = 0$. The modified Maxwell’s equations can be derived from Eq. (\[eq:mhd-lagrangian\]). They become \[cf. Eq. (\[eq:exact-evol1\])\] $$\begin{aligned}
&& \partial_aF^{ab}
= -4\left( \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}_{\text{QED}}}{\partial\mathscr{F}} \right)^{-1}
\Bigg[ \widehat{F}^{cb}\partial_c\left( 2\alpha\epsilon_0\theta +
8\mathscr{G}\frac{\partial\mathscr{L}_{c}}{\partial\mathscr{G}^2} \right)
\nonumber \\ &&\quad
+ 4F^{cb}\partial_c\left( \frac{\partial\mathscr{L}_{c}}{\partial\mathscr{F}}
\right)
\Bigg] .\end{aligned}$$ Given a background magnetic field, these equations allow for both fast and Alfvén modes. The fast modes will suffer the same type of shock wave formation as presented by @Heyl-Hernquist2, in the absence of the MHD effects. A single Alfvén mode will not experience the effects of photon–photon scattering due to the absence of self-interactions. This is not true for the case of counter-propagating Alfvén modes for which photon–photon scattering introduces higher order corrections to their propagation.
Applications
============
Measuring photon–photon scattering
----------------------------------
Classically, electromagnetic waves only interact indirectly, via scattering, by passing through a suitable medium such as a nonlinear optical fibre [@Kivshar-Agrawal; @Hasegawa]. To some extent, this is still true in QED. One may view the quantum vacuum as a medium through which photons scatter off virtual charged particles, predominantly electron–positron pairs, producing nonlinear effects similar to the ones found in nonlinear optics. However, since the nonlinear effects enter the effective Lagrangian through the Lorentz invariants, a plane wave will not self-interact, and more sophisticated techniques are needed in order to excite the nonlinear quantum vacuum. In this section, such means will be reviewed with the aim of establishing methods for direct detection of low energy elastic real photon–photon scattering.
The concept of elastic photon–photon scattering is theoretically well-established. Furthermore, the scattering of virtual photons is routinely observed in particle accelerator environments, and is thus well confirmed in experiments. Moreover, inelastic photon–photon scattering is also experimentally well-confirmed, but this is not the case for elastic photon–photon scattering (although experiments have been made where it in principle would have been possible to make modification such that a direct measurement of elastic photon–photon scattering could have been made [@Bamber-etal]). Thus, as a fundamental test of QED and its predictions about the properties of the quantum vacuum, an experiment on the latter type of scattering may be considered an important issue.
Closely related to photon–photon scattering is Delbrück scattering [@Delbruck] and photon splitting [@Adler-etal; @Adler; @Chistyakov-etal], see Fig. \[fig:feynman2\] (cf. Fig. \[fig:weak\] for a comparison with photon–photon scattering). Delbrück scattering is the elastic scattering of photons in a Coloumb field, e.g. an atomic nucleus, mediated by virtual electron–positron pairs, while photon splitting is the down conversion of a photon into two photons of lower frequency through an external field, e.g. a strong magnetic field. These processes contain external fields mediating the interaction between the photons, making the cross section larger than for pure photon–photon scattering. In fact, using high-$Z$ atomic targets, Delbrück scattering for high energy photons has been detected [@Jarlskog-etal], and photon splitting, although not detected in a laboratory environment, is assumed to be prominent component of many astrophysical environments, such as magnetars and soft $\gamma$-ray repeaters [@Adler-Shubert; @Baring-Harding2; @Baring-Harding; @Harding-etal]. In fact, the splitting of photons in the atomic Coulomb field has been reported by @Akhmadaliev-etal, where good agreement with the calculated exact Coulomb field cross-section was obtained.
The effects of photon scattering also manifest themself in the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and the muon [@Berestetskii-etal; @Calmet-etal; @Bailey-etal; @Rodionov]. Even so, the detection of direct light-by-light scattering of real photons remains elusive, even though considerable efforts have been made in this area. The possibility to detect low energy photon–photon scattering would open up for new tests of QED, since fermion loop diagrams could give gauge invariant tests of the fermion propagator, as well discerning between QED and other theories predicting or postulating photon properties. Thus, photon–photon scattering can both produce interesting effects, as described in previous sections, as well as produce important tests for fundamental physical theories.
### Pair production in external fields
The case of inelastic photon–photon scattering deserves some attention in this context. Here the aim is, to some extent, anti-matter production on a large scale (see Fig. \[fig:paircreation\]). There are a number of ways, both experimentally confirmed as well as schemes suggested on numerical or theoretical grounds, to produce and store [@Oshima-etal] positronium and antimatter, e.g. laser generated relativistic superthermal electrons interacting with high-$Z$ materials [@liang98], the trident process in conjunction with ultra-intense short laser pulses in plasmas [@ber92], pair production by circularly polarized waves in plasmas [@Bulanov1], laser-thin foil interactions [@Shen-MeyerterVehn; @she02], using Bose–Einstein condensation traps [@Surko-etal; @Greaves-etal] (see @Surko-Greaves for an overview), and using fullerenes [@Oohara-Hatakeyama]. The formation of anti-plasmas and long lifetime trapping of antimatter is currently intensely studied, and could shed light on the fundamental laws of nature, e.g. giving new CPT and Lorentz invariance tests [@Bluhm-etal; @Bluhm], or producing an annihilation laser [@Mills]. Since electron-positron pairs also constitute a unique type of plasma, prominent in e.g. the pulsar magnetosphere, the formation of large collections of pairs in the laboratory will further enable the study of astrophysical conditions [@Greaves-Surko2], which we so far have only been able to observe over astronomical distances, and without control over the physical parameter range. The anti-matter production in most laboratory applications rely on the plasma being cold. However, as laser powers approach the Schwinger critical regime, we will see an increased interest in using these for producing high temperature pair plasmas as well, and for exciting the quantum vacuum.
![Feynman diagram for the pair creation process.[]{data-label="fig:paircreation"}](fig27.eps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
After the laser was introduced, it was realized that future laser systems could be tools for fundamental physics research, and the pair creation process was reconsidered by @Reiss, @Nikishov-Ritus1 [@Nikishov-Ritus2; @Nikishov-Ritus3; @Nikishov-Ritus4], and @Narozhny-etal. Thus, the mechanism behind the production of electron–positron pairs from electromagnetic fields and photons is well-known, and was first directly observed by @bur97 at the SLAC facility. Since this observation, schemes making use of the next generation laser systems has therefore been in the focus of research efforts by using the immense laser intensities for producing, not necessarily cold, pair plasmas in the laboratory. Indeed, as reported by @gahn00, femtosecond table-top lasers can indirectly create positrons due to electron acceleration in plasma channels.
Since the pair production from the nonlinear quantum vacuum formally depends crucially on the invariant $|\mathbf{E}|^2 - c^2|\mathbf{B}|^2$ being positive [@Schwinger], schemes with strong pure electric fields have been also attracted interest [@Sauter; @Schwinger; @Narozhny-Nikishov; @Marinov-Popov; @Brezin-Itzykson; @Casher-etal; @Kluger-etal; @Popov1; @Popov2; @Popov3; @Popov4; @Popov-Marinov; @Mostepanenko-Frolov; @Grib-etal; @Ringwald] (by the same argument, strong static magnetic fields does not excite the quantum vacuum, unless perturbed). The pair production rate per unit volume at the one-loop level is given by [@Schwinger] $$w = \frac{\omega_e^4}{(2\pi c)^3}\left(\frac{|\mathbf{E}|}{E_{\text{crit}}}\right)^2 \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^2} \exp\left( -n\pi\frac{E_{\text{crit}}}{|\mathbf{E}|} \right)
\label{eq:paircreation}$$ for a uniform electric field $\mathbf{E}$. Here the sum is over the real poles in the imaginary part of the integral (\[eq:lagrangian2\]). Thus, the pair creation rate is vanishingly small in most circumstances. The electron–nucleus electric field (although not uniform) requires a nucleus charge of the order $\alpha^{-1}$ for vacuum breakdown, and such nuclei are unlikely to exist in any other state than a transient one [@Reinhardt-Greiner; @Greiner; @Milonni]. However, the situation may be different for laser fields, where ultra-short high intensity fields are available. @Brezin-Itzykson derived the pair creation rate for varying fields and generalized the pair creation rate (\[eq:paircreation\]). In the low frequency limit (i.e. $\omega \ll \omega_e$, where $\omega_e$ is the Compton frequency), their expression coincides with Eq. (\[eq:paircreation\]), taking into account only the first term in the sum. Thus, Eq. (\[eq:paircreation\]) can be used, with good accuracy, to predict the pair production efficiency of different processes, even if the fields are alternating.
In all the cases above, the derivations of the pair creation rate rely on the assumption of an electric field dominating over the magnetic field. In plasmas, the phase velocity $v$ can exceed the velocity of light. This was used by @Bulanov1 to analyze pair production in the field of a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave in an underdense plasma. Since for a circularly polarized wave $c|\mathbf{B}| = (kc/\omega)|\mathbf{E}|
= (c/v)|\mathbf{E}|$, we see that $|\mathbf{E}|^2 - c^2|\mathbf{B}|^2 > 0$. Thus, the condition for pair creation according to @Schwinger is satisfied, and positrons are therefore predicted to be produced in a laser-plasma environment. Moreover, @Avetisyan-etal solved the Dirac equation perturbatively to find the production of electron–positron pairs by inelastic multi-photon scattering in a plasma. They found the probability distribution for transverse electromagnetic perturbations in the plasma, and used this [@Avetissian-etal] to investigate pair production due to nonlinear photon–photon scattering from oppositely directed laser beams. Analytical results for the number of particles created on short interaction time scales were found. @Fried-etal investigated the possibility for pair production via crossing laser beams, and concluded that laser intensities has to reach $10^{29}\,\mathrm{W/m^2}$ before this could be used as a means for electron–positron generation.
Pair production may possibly also be achieved without the intervention of a plasma or other dispersive media. According to @Narozhny-etal1 [@Narozhny-etal2], focused and/or counter-propagating laser pulses can interact via the nonlinear quantum vacuum as to produce real electron–positron pairs. The prediction of @Narozhny-etal2 is that pair creation for colliding pulses is expected for intensities of the order $10^{26}\,\mathrm{W/cm}^2$, which is two orders of magnitude lower than for single pulse generation. Moreover, @Narozhny-etal1 claim that the effect of pair creation puts an upper theoretical limit on laser focusing, since the electromagnetic energy will be dissipated into fermionic degrees of freedom for high enough intensities.
As intense fields create electron–positron pairs, the particle density increases. If intense photon beams can be sustained for long enough times, this will create a pair plasma. In this case, the effects of this plasma on the electromagnetic field need to be taken into account. The back-reaction of pair creation on the electromagnetic field was considered by @Kluger-etal in $1+1$ dimensions. Starting from a semi-classical approximation, a kinetic model taking pair production into account using an emissive term in the electron equation of motion was presented. From a numerical analysis of the governing equations it was found that high enough field intensities will induce plasma oscillations. Due to the realization that the right conditions for pair creation by lasers could soon be at our disposal, the problem of back-reaction and the dynamics of the interaction of the electron–positron plasma on the photons has produced an increasing number of publications over the years. @alk01, @proz00, and @Roberts-etal have similarly developed self-consistent schemes where a collisionless plasma is coupled to the time-dependent electric field, via Maxwell’s equations and the pair creation source term. In their application to the X-ray free electron laser, they arrived at plasma behaviour reminiscent of a modulational instability, and suggested necessary and sufficient conditions to generates a pair plasma using the XFEL. Collisions in the plasmas created due to intense electromagnetic fields may also be taken into account using a quantum kinetic description with a pair creation source term [@Bloch-etal2; @Bloch-etal].
A somewhat different scheme using intense lasers was suggest by @liang98. Letting two intense laser pulses impinge on the surface of a thin foil made of a suitable material, e.g. gold, plasma formation takes place. The jitter energy for a large fraction \[$\sim$ 50% [@Wilks-etal]\] of the produced plasma electrons is suggested to exceed the pair creation threshold $2m_ec^2$. Thus, in this scheme the pair creation is a result of the thermal plasma, instead of direct laser interaction with the quantum vacuum. Similarly, @Helander-Ward suggested that runaway electrons in tokamak plasmas could have the same effect. Since electrons with sufficient energy experience a decreasing plasma friction force as the energy increases, such particles will in effect be accelerated to very high energies until direct collisions with plasma particles occur. The typical runaway electron energy is $\gtrsim 3m_ec^2$, and these collisions could therefore trigger positron production, as the electrons loose their energy via brehmsstrahlung in the Coulomb field, the so called Bethe–Heitler process. The number of positrons in a facility such as JET was estimated to $\sim 10^{13}
- 10^{14}$, a very large number compared to other laboratory positron production methods.
The predicted pair production rates normally assume spatially uniform electromagnetic fields, which is often in good agreement with experimental parameters. However, recently oriented crystals have become an important tool in studying effects of quantum electrodynamics in strong fields, such as spin effects in electron energy loss and crystal assisted pair production (see @Kirsebom-etal and references therein). In these experiments, the fields may not be considered uniform, and the models described above can therefore only partially account for the observed effects. @Nitta-etal remedied this shortcoming by using the trial trajectory method [@Khokonov-Nitta], based on the method developed by @Baier-Katkov. Previous attempts to analyze the experimental results were based on numerical schemes, but @Nitta-etal found an analytical expression for the pair creation rate in a inhomogeneous field, in good agreement with the observed pair creation rate. Furthermore, the inhomogeneous case also displayed pair creation for low amplitude fields, where the uniform field treatment effectively gives a zero pair creation rate. This result could be of interest in the case of strongly magnetized stars, which have a characteristic dipole behavior.
Since waves in vacuum are described in terms of their behavior along the null coordinates $u = z - ct$ and $v = z + ct$, it is of interest to generalize the Schwinger results of pair creation to the case of fields depending on $u$ and/or $v$. This was done by @Tomaras-etal, and later generalized by @Avan-etal to a more complicated coordinate dependence. Furthermore, the momentum spectrum of the produced pairs was derived for arbitrary time dependent gauge fields by @Dietrich, via the exact solution of the equation of motion for the Dirac Green’s function.
### Laser induced pair creation
The production of anti-matter is of great importance for a variety of experimental tests of fundamental issues in physics, e.g. Lorentz invariance tests, as well as being of interest in its own right. Moreover, there can also be a test of the nonlinear properties of QED, since high energy photons may create matter and anti-matter out of the quantum vacuum. This process is well established as a model for pair production in the vicinity of neutron stars, and corresponds to the imaginary part of the full Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian, and can thus be interpreted as energy being dissipated from bosonic to fermionic degrees of freedom.
The implications of pair creation was understood very early on in the history of QED, but the direct creation of electron–positron plasmas from photons has long escaped experimental efforts. Thus, an important piece in our view of the quantum vacuum had long eluded the attempts of detection. However, with the rapid advances in laser intensity, the prospects for performing a successful experiment in pair creation using laser sources took a turn for the better. As described below, inelastic photon–photon scattering, where two real photons gives rise to a real electron–positron pair, has now been experimentally confirmed [@bur97; @Bamber-etal], and holds the promise of further elucidating our picture of the nonlinear quantum vacuum (see also @Meyerhofer).
In nonlinear Compton scattering, multi-photon absorption by an electron results in the emission of a single high-energy photon according to (see Fig. \[fig:nlincompton\]) $$\label{eq:nlin-compton}
e + n\omega \rightarrow e' + \gamma .$$ The effect (\[eq:nlin-compton\]) was first measured by @Bula-etal, using a GeV electron beam and a terawatt laser source, obtained by chirped-pulse amplification. In the experiment, up to four laser photons interacted with a single electron. The high-energy photons produced by nonlinear Compton scattering can be used in the laser assisted production of a pair plasma. The usage of laser produced photons for the electron–positron pair production was suggested long before lasers reached the necessary intensities [@Reiss; @Nikishov-Ritus1; @Nikishov-Ritus2; @Nikishov-Ritus3; @Nikishov-Ritus4; @Narozhny-etal] (the direct production of pairs by photons requires $\hbar\omega \gtrsim 2m_ec^2$ in the center-of-mass system). By re-colliding the high-frequency photons with the original laser photons, according to the Breit–Wheeler[^7] process [@Breit-Wheeler; @Bethe-Heitler] $$\label{eq:multiphoton}
\gamma + n\omega \rightarrow e^+ e^- ,$$ the production of electron–positron pairs can be achieved in a laboratory environment. This can be compared to the trident process $$\label{eq:trident}
e + n\omega \rightarrow e' e^+ e^- .$$ While the multi-photon process (\[eq:multiphoton\]) requires $n \geq 4$ with experimental values used by @bur97, the trident process requires $n \geq 5$ with the same experimental data. The two-step process (\[eq:nlin-compton\]) and (\[eq:multiphoton\]) was used by @bur97 in the first reported laser production of electron–positron pairs.
![Nonlinear Compton scattering, as given in (\[eq:nlin-compton\]). (Reprinted with permission from @Bamber-etal.)[]{data-label="fig:nlincompton"}](fig28.eps){width=".8\columnwidth"}
@Bula-etal reported on the observation of the effect of nonlinear Compton scattering (\[eq:nlin-compton\]), where the scattered electrons were detected using a $46.6\,\mathrm{GeV}$ electron beam in conjunction with a $1054\,\mathrm{nm}$ and a $527\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser with focal intensity $\sim 10^{18}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$. This process can also be understood in terms of a plane wave interaction with an electron. For a weak electromagnetic field with amplitude $E$, the maximum speed attained by an electron (initially at rest) due to the passing of a plane wave is $$v_{\text{max}} = \frac{eE}{m_e\omega},$$ where $m_e$ is the rest mass of the electron and $\omega$ is the frequency of the plane wave. As the field strength increases, higher order radiation effects becomes important as $v_{\text{max}} \rightarrow c$, which in terms of light quanta can be interpreted as multi-photon absorption by the electron, with the release of a single distinguishable light quanta as a result, i.e. the process (\[eq:nlin-compton\]). In this sense, nonlinear Compton scattering becomes important as the parameter $$\label{eq:eta}
\eta = \frac{v_{\text{max}}}{c} = \frac{eE}{m_ec\omega} = \frac{e|A_bA^b|^{1/2}}{m_ec^2}$$ approaches unity. Here, the four-vector potential $A^b$ satisfies the Lorentz gauge.
![Calculated positron energy spectra for a $30\,\mathrm{GeV}$ photon interacting with a $527\,\mathrm{nm}$ laser beam. In panel (a) the polarization is parallel while in panel (b) the polarization is perpendicular. $n$ gives the number of photons involved in the interaction. (Reprinted with permission from @Bamber-etal.)[]{data-label="fig:nopositrons"}](fig29.eps){width=".6\columnwidth"}
![Positron production rate per Compton scatterer as a function of the intensity parameter $\eta$, as given by (\[eq:eta\]). The solid line is the numerical estimate from the two-step process (\[eq:nlin-compton\]) and (\[eq:multiphoton\]), while the dashed line represents the trident process (\[eq:trident\]). The measurements performed by @bur97 are given by the dots in the plot. (Reprinted with permission from @bur97.)[]{data-label="fig:positronrate"}](fig30.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
For an electron with initial energy $\mathcal{E}_0$, the absorption of $n$ photons of the frequency $\omega$ at an angle $\theta$ between the electron and laser beam, results in the minimum electron energy $$\mathcal{E}_{\text{min}} = \frac{\mathcal{E}_0}{1 + ns/m_{\text{eff}}^2c^4} ,$$ where $s = 2\mathcal{E}_0\omega(1 + \cos\theta)$ is the scattering parameter and $m_{\text{eff}} = m(1 + \eta^2)^{1/2}$ gives the effective mass. With the experimental parameters used by @Bula-etal, the intensity parameter becomes $\eta \approx 0.6$. Linear Compton scattering ($\eta \ll 1$, $n = 1$) would then result in $\mathcal{E}_{\text{min}}
\approx 25.6 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ at $\theta = 17^{\circ}$. Since the spectrum of multi-photon Compton scattered electrons extends below $25.6\,\mathrm{GeV}$, it was possible to identify the nonlinear effects [@Bula-etal].
In the same way, as the intensity parameter $\eta$ approaching unity signifies the onset of the nonlinear Compton effect, the parameter [@bur97; @Bamber-etal] $$\label{eq:upsilon}
\Upsilon = \frac{|F_{ab}p^b|}{m_ec^2E_{\text{crit}}}$$ characterizes the strength of the vacuum polarization, as it contains both information of the photon frequency as well as the background field strength, the two important parameters for vacuum breakdown. Here, $F_{ab}$ is the Maxwell tensor of the background electromagnetic field, and $p_a$ is the four-momentum of the probe photon. As $\Upsilon$ approaches unity, the pair production rate according to the process (\[eq:multiphoton\]) becomes significant [@Nikishov-Ritus1; @Nikishov-Ritus2; @Nikishov-Ritus3; @Nikishov-Ritus4; @Narozhny-etal; @bur97]. For the case of single particle ($n = 1$) Breit–Wheeler scattering, laser wavelengths of $527\,\mathrm{nm}$ would require single photon energies of $111\,\mathrm{GeV}$ in order for significant pair production to occur, while for the multi-photon Breit–Wheeler process the photons of the same wavelength colliding with backscattered photons with energies $29\,\mathrm{GeV}$ gives $\Upsilon \approx 0.5\eta$ [@bur97]. Thus, for large enough $\eta$, the pair production rate would yield a detectable level of electrons and positrons (see Figs. \[fig:positronrate\] and \[fig:pairrate\]), with a well-defined energy spectrum (Fig. \[fig:nopositrons\]).
![Pair production rate, as compared between the multi-photon Breit–Wheeler process (\[eq:multiphoton\]) and the trident process (\[eq:trident\]), as a function of $\Upsilon$ given by (\[eq:upsilon\]). (Reprinted with permission from @Bamber-etal.)[]{data-label="fig:pairrate"}](fig31.eps){width=".7\columnwidth"}
@bur97 for the first time presented the results of a successful measurement along the lines presented above. The signal consisted of $\sim 100$ positrons above the background value using a $46.6\,\mathrm{GeV}$ electron beam and a $527\,\mathrm{nm}$ Nd:glass laser with focal intensity $\sim 10^{18}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ [@Meyerhofer].
### Other mechanisms for pair production
@Narozhny-etal1 considered pair production in an electromagnetic field created by two counter propagating laser pulses, and showed that pair production can be experimentally observed when the intensity of each beam is similar to $10^{26}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, three orders of magnitude lower than that of a single pulse. However, the cross-section for the Schwinger process at optical frequencies (or below) is so small at any laser intensity that this effect is insignificant [@Mittelman].
Production of pairs is also possible in the Coulomb field of a nucleus via virtual photons (“tridents”), which is a dominant energy loss mechanism at high energies. In a trident Bahba process, high energy electrons, with kinetic energies exceeding the pair production threshold $2m_ec^2$, can produce electron–positron pairs by scattering in the Coulomb potential of the nucleus. In the past, some authors [@Bunkin1970; @Scharer1973] had presented a preliminary discussion about pair production by relativistic electrons accelerated by intense laser, while others [@ber92] presented a detailed investigation of pair production due to scattering of high energy electrons produced in strong wake fields driven by intense short laser pulses. This was found to be an efficient mechanism for a “pair factory”. Recently, @ber2005 carried out computer simulations of laser plasma dynamics in overdense plasmas and showed that an intensive production of pairs by the drive motion of plasma electron takes place due to the trident process. Furthermore, @Bulanov-etal2005 have shown that electromagnetic waves could be damped due to electron–positron pair production (see also @Mikheev-Chistyakov for a discussion on the process in a strong magnetic field).
### Laser experiments on photon–photon scattering
The evolution of laser intensity is truly astounding [@mou98; @Perry-Mourou; @taj02; @mou05] (see Fig. \[fig:laserevol\]), and with the event of the X-ray free electron laser, a new domain in experimental physics will open up. There have been an interesting set of both suggested and performed experiments using lasers of previous and current intensities. Note that one of the major obstacles in these investigations have been residual gas components in the vacuum environment. However, depending on the problem of study, the means for inhibiting the residual gas to have a detrimental effect on the measurement varies. In high intensity laser experiments on elastic photon–photon scattering, the electron expulsion at the leading edge of the laser pulses will in fact make the generation of background radiation weaker (at a vacuum of $10^{-9}$torr), and particle effects would therefore have a negligible effect in these experiments [@Lundstrom-etal]. This is contrast to weak field experiment, such as cavity environments, where the effects due to residual gas may be significant. However, it is possible to design the mode interaction such as to produce a unique signature of photon–photon interaction, thus making it possible, in principle, to detect the scattering by the proper filtering techniques [@Eriksson-etal].
#### Vacuum birefringence
The concept of vacuum birefringence is well known and has been theoretically explored in many publications [@Klein-Nigam1; @Klein-Nigam2; @Erber; @Adler; @Adler-Shubert; @Heyl-Hernquist]. The birefringence of the vacuum manifests itself as the difference in the refractive index between the propagating ordinary and extraordinary modes [@Rikken-Rizzo1]. Thus, although a very difficult high precision experiment, this difference may in principle become measurable in strong enough background magnetic (or electric) fields. This idea has been exploited in the PVLAS set-up [@Bakalov-etal2; @Melissinos], for which the difference [@Bakalov-etal] $$\Delta n = n_{\|} - n_{\perp} = 3\kappa\epsilon_0c^2|\mathbf{B}_0|^2
\approx 4\times10^{-24} |\mathbf{B}_0|^2 ,$$ is to be measured. Here $|\mathbf{B}_0|$ is given in Tesla.
A linearly polarized laser beam is sent through the static field $\mathbf{B}_0$, with $\mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{B}_0 = |\mathbf{E}||\mathbf{B}_0|\cos\theta$. Due to the birefringence of the magnetized vacuum, as given by $\Delta n$, the beam will attain an ellipticity $$\Psi = \frac{\pi L}{\lambda}\Delta n\sin(2\theta)$$ over a propagation distance $L$, where $\lambda$ is the wave length of the radiation. The change in ellipticity is proposed as a measurement of the birefringence of vacuum. @Bakalov-etal also presented a detailed discussion of noise sources as well as a rather detailed description of the actual experimental setup. Current superconducting magnets can reach field strength up to $5 - 25\,\mathrm{T}$, and could in principle yield detectable changes in the polarization state of a laser beam traversing it. Unfortunately, the strong magnetic fields generate forces within the detection equipment which may interfere with the ellipsometric measurement. Moreover, magnetic fields cannot be shielded in any efficient way, and this is therefore a problem that is likely to persist [@Cameron-etal].
Another approach towards measuring vacuum birefringence is by using laser interferometry. This technique can reach astonishing accuracy and sensitivity, and is currently the most promising method of choice in gravitational wave detection [@Saulson]. Using laser interferometry for detecting light-by-light scattering through vacuum birefringence rests on the same principle as described above, but replacing the strong magnetic field by ultra-short laser pulses [@Partovi2; @Boer-vanHolten; @Luiten-Petersen]. Since laser beams, i.e. laser light with typical pulse length much larger than its wavelength, has a very low energy density compared to the strongest laboratory magnetic fields, one has instead to resort to ultra-short highly focused laser pulses. Such configurations could indeed result in magnetic field components of the order $10^5\,\mathrm{T}$, orders of magnitude larger than quasi-stationary magnetic fields produced by superconducting coils [@Lee-Fairbanks]. Due to the degree of focusing of the pulse, interaction of the strong field with the detector can be almost eliminated. On the other hand, the ultra-short time- and length scales require a very high resolution in the detection. An experimental suggestion along these lines was put forward by @Luiten-Petersen2 [@Luiten-Petersen], using a high precision birefringence measuring technique [@Hall-etal]. @Luiten-Petersen argue that this technique may be used to construct a table-top detector of vacuum polarization using current state-of-the-art optical techniques. The set up consists of two concentric resonant cavities with an interaction cross-section. One of the cavities acts as the vacuum polarizer, while the other cavity supplies the test photons for which the ellipticity is to be detected (see Fig. \[fig:skew\]). Depending on the Fabry–Perot resonator reflectivity, the integration time was estimated. With a reflectivity $R=99.97\,\%$ the necessary operation time of the device would be $2.6$ years, $R=99.994\,\%$ yields $1.7$ days, and $R = 99.997\,\%$ gives $2.5\,\mathrm{h}$, using a $20\,\mathrm{W}$ $200\,\mathrm{fs}$ laser and a resonator of length $3\,\mathrm{m}$.
![The interferometric set up for detection of vacuum birefringence. The figure reference in the above set up is figure 1 in @Luiten-Petersen. (Reprinted with permission from @Luiten-Petersen.)[]{data-label="fig:skew"}](fig32.eps){width=".75\columnwidth"}
@Jeah-Sheng-etal have built and tested a $3.5\,\mathrm{m}$ Fabry–Perot inteferometer with a precision ellipsometer for QED tests and axion search, along the lines of the vacuum birefringence test presented above. Note that the results presented by @Jeah-Sheng-etal are for a prototype detector, and, although promising, a measurement of the vacuum polarization has not been performed (see also @Sheng-Jui-etal). Moreover, the PVLAS collaboration has recently claimed [@Zavattini-etal] to have measured the dichroism of a magnetized vacuum, an effect possible due to interaction between light pseudoscalars and photons.
#### Harmonic generation
@Ding suggested that the nonlinear vacuum could be given measurable properties by the possible harmonic generation of radiation in an external field. The work attracted lots of attention, and some questions as to whether the result was correct or not was raised [@Raizen-Rosenstein; @Ford-Steel; @Ding-Kaplan2]. While some of the critiques were flawed, the main problem in the work of Ding and Kaplan was the assumption of a constant background field [@Ford-Steel]. It is well-known that a homogeneous and time-independent background field cannot transfer momentum to the photons, and such a field is therefore not capable of driving a frequency upshift as suggested by Ding and Kaplan (see @McKenna-Platzman). However, @Ding-Kaplan showed that a spatially inhomogeneous background field could indeed result in higher harmonics. This idea was further developed by @Kaplan-Ding, where Maxwell’s equations were analyzed with a weakly varying background magnetic field.
Using the slowly varying amplitude approximation [@Hasegawa], @Kaplan-Ding showed that the envelope of the electromagnetic field satisfies the second harmonic generation equation $$\label{eq:kaplan-ding}
4ik\frac{\partial \mathbf{a}}{\partial t} + \nabla_{\perp}^2\mathbf{a}
= -2ik\kappa\mathbf{F} ,$$ where $$\mathbf{F} = \frac{1}{\kappa}\left( \frac{\partial\mathbf{D}^{(2)}}{\partial t}
+ \nabla\times\mathbf{H}^{(2)}
\right)\exp(2ikz - 2i\omega t)$$ is the second harmonic generation background source term. Here $\mathbf{D}^{(2)}$ and $\mathbf{H}^{(2)}$ are derived from the Heisenberg–Euler Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]) from the nonlinear field combinations giving rise to terms proportional to $\exp(2i\omega t)$. @Kaplan-Ding use Eq. (\[eq:kaplan-ding\]) to study the evolution of 2-D Gaussian beams propagating in an external non-constant magnetic field, giving the estimated output power. Moreover, a discussion of more complicated background magnetic field geometries, e.g. the magnetic quadrupole case, was given. Considering $\mu\mathrm{m}$ lasers with focal intensities $\sim 10^{22}\,\mathrm{W/cm}^2$ generating a pulse propagating through the background magnetic field strengths $10^3\,\mathrm{T}$ \[which in the paper by @Kaplan-Ding is suggested to be produced by explosive mechanisms\], a rough estimate gives a production of $85$ photons$/$day by second harmonic generation. However, in this estimate, temporal effects, which may be of importance in the next generation ultra-short intense lasers, have been omitted, and could yield alterations in their estimates.
#### Four-wave interactions
In the second harmonic generation presented above, the interaction of photons is mediated by a background magnetic field. However, crossing electromagnetic waves would similarly interact and yield new modes of different frequencies. One of the more prominent modes in such a mechanism is given by the four-wave interaction mediated mode satisfying resonance condition between the frequencies and wavevectors (i.e. photon energy and momentum conservation) [@Rozanov93]. It is therefore not a surprise, given the evolution of laser powers and frequencies, that the search for photon–photon scattering using resonant four-wave interactions has caught the attention of researchers in this area. This approach has also come furthest in the experimental attempts to detect elastic scattering among photons [@Bernard; @Moulin-Bernard; @Bernard2; @Bernard-etal; @Bernard3].
@Moulin-etal presented experiments on light-by-light scattering performed in the optical regime. With this, they managed to put new experimental upper limits on the photon–photon scattering cross-section. Unfortunately, no scattering was detected, but stimulated the continued research along the lines of four-wave interactions as an experimental tool for probing the quantum vacuum. Using the resonance conditions[^8] $\omega_4 = \omega_1 + \omega_2 - \omega_3$ and $\mathbf{k}_4 = \mathbf{k}_1 + \mathbf{k}_2 - \mathbf{k}_3$, one may, in general, derive a set of wave interaction equations for slowly varying amplitudes $a_i, \, i = 1, \ldots, 4$, of the form [@Weiland-Wilhelmsson] $$\frac{da_i}{dt} = Ca_ja_ka^{\ast}_l ,$$ given any type of media through which the waves may interact. Here the coupling constants $C$ depend on the the interaction in question, as well as on the physical parameters of the system around which the waves are modulated. In the case of a nonlinear quantum vacuum, the coupling constant will depend on $\kappa$ of the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\]).
The coupling constants may be interpreted in terms of the nonlinear susceptibility of the vacuum. @Moulin-Bernard considered the interaction of three crossing waves, characterized by their respective electric field vectors $\mathbf{E}_i$, producing a fourth wave $E_4$. Starting from Maxwell’s equations with the usual weak field limit Heisenberg–Euler third order nonlinear corrections (see the Lagrangian (\[eq:lagrangian1\])), they derive the equation $$i\left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} + c\frac{\partial}{\partial z}
\right)E_4 + \frac{c^2}{2\omega_4}\nabla^2_{\perp}E_4 =
-\frac{\omega_4}{2}\chi^{(3)} E_1E_2E_3^{\ast}$$ for the driven wave amplitude $E_4$, where the overall harmonic time dependence $\exp(-i\omega t)$ has been factored out. Here $\chi^{(3)}$ is the third order nonlinear susceptibility given by $$\chi^{(3)} = \frac{\alpha}{45\pi}\frac{K}{E_{\text{crit}}^2}
\approx 3\times 10^{-41}\times K \, \mathrm{m^2/V^2} ,$$ where $K$ is a dimensionless form factor of order unity. The value of $K$ depends on the polarization and propagation directions of the pump modes, and reaches a maximum of $K = 14$ for degenerate four-wave mixing [@Moulin-Bernard]. @Moulin-Bernard furthermore discuss the influence of a non-perfect vacuum, where the susceptibility of the gas will introduce a threshold, in terms of a critical gas pressure, for the nonlinear QED effect to be detected. @Bernard-etal and @Bernard3 recently presented experiments on four-wave mixing in vacuum, improving previous attempts by nine orders of magnitude, although no direct detection of photon–photon scattering was achieved. Experiments along the same lines as described for four-wave mixing above can also be used for a large number of other, non-QED, test, such as axion[^9] search [@Bernard; @Dupays-etal; @Bradley-etal]. Thus, progress of low-energy QED experiments could also prove to be useful for, e.g. dark matter searches. There are more recent proposals for detection of photon–photon scattering using four-wave interactions. @Lundstrom-etal has done more detailed calculations concerning experimental constraints, in particular for the Astra Gemini laser (operational in 2007) at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory [@RAL], as well as non-perfect vacuum problems etc., and concluded that it will be feasible to detect elastic scattering among photons if using a high repetition rate high intensity laser system.
### Cavity experiments {#sec:cavityexp}
As mentioned in Sec. \[sec:cavity\], the effects of photon–photon scattering on cavity EM fields is to produce new wave modes. The new modes excited in the cavity will (approximately) satisfy the cavity dispersion relation. Thus, by varying the cavity cross-section, the pump modes may be filtered out, leaving the new modes for detection. The treatment of cavity mode interaction in the quantum vacuum was described by @Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo [@Brodin-Marklund-Stenflo2] and @Eriksson-etal.
If no damping or dissipation is present, Eqs. (\[Evolution2\]) yield a linear growth of the vector potential amplitude $A_3$ of mode 3. In order to gain an understanding of the saturation level, we make the following modification to Eq. (\[Evolution2\]). Let $d/dt\rightarrow d/dt-(\omega _{3}/2\pi
Q)$, where $Q$ is the cavity quality factor. A steady state amplitude $$A_{3}=\frac{\mathrm{i}\pi QK_{\text{cyl}}}{4}\frac{\alpha}{90\pi}\frac{\omega _{3}^{2}A_{1}^{2}}{E_{\text{crit}}^{2}}A_{2}^{\ast } .
\label{Saturated-amp}$$ is thus obtained. Here $\omega_3$ is the frequency of the mode generated by the third order QED nonlinearities. The number of excited photons in the cavity mode can be described by $N\approx (\epsilon _{0}\int |E_{3}|^2\, d^{3}r)/\hbar \omega _{3}$. Using the saturation value (\[Saturated-amp\]) for the vector potential of mode 3, the number of photons generated by the nonlinear interaction of two cavity modes is given by the expression $$N_{\text{QED}}=\frac{\epsilon_0\alpha^2
V Q^2\omega_3^5 K_{\text{cyl}}^2 J_0^2(\beta_3) |A_1|^4 |A_2|^2 }{129600\,\hbar E_{\text{crit}}^4} ,
\label{photon-numb}$$ where the coupling constant $K_{\text{cyl}}$ can be found in @Eriksson-etal, $V = \pi a^2z_0$, $a$ is the cylindrical cavity radius, $z_0$ is the cavity length, and $\beta_3$ is a zero for the Bessel function $J_1$ corresponding the the generated mode satisfying the resonance condition (\[frequency-matching\]). We note that the number of generated photons depends on a large number of parameters, and one thus needs to specify the cavity geometry etc. in order to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of the effects. @Eriksson-etal choose the following wave mode numbers: $(\ell_{1},\ell_{2},\ell_{3})=(3,15,21)$ (fulfilling $\ell_{3}=2\ell_{1}+\ell_{2}$), $\beta _{2}=$ $\beta _{3}=3.83$, corresponding to the first zero of $J_{1}$, and $\beta _{1}=7.01$ corresponding to the second zero. This gives $z_{0}/a=9.53$ through the frequency matching condition (\[frequency-matching\]) and determines the frequency relations to $\omega _{3}/\omega _{2}=1.26$ and $\omega
_{3}/\omega _{1}=1.12$. Substituting these values gives $K_{\text{cyl}}=3.39$ (see @Eriksson-etal). The remaining key parameters are the quality factor and the pump field strength. @Q-factor2 has shown that it is possible to reach intense cavity surface fields, of the order $|A_1|, |A_2| \sim 0.01 - 0.03$ $\mathrm{Vs/m}$, with quality factors as high as $Q=4\times
10^{10}$ at temperatures of $1\,\mathrm{K}$. Thus, in this case Eq. (\[photon-numb\]) gives $$N_{\text{QED}} \approx 18 . \label{Photon-numb2}$$ For a cavity wall temperature of $0.5\,\mathrm{K}$, the number of thermal photons is $N_{\text{thermal}}=1/[\exp (\hbar \omega
_{3}/k_BT)-1]\approx 7$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, which is thus lower than $N_{\text{QED}}$. In order to reach further accuracy in the measurement, a cavity filtering system can be set up, so that the pump modes may be reduced or eliminated. It can furthermore be shown that the nonlinearities of the cavity walls will not generate modes swamping the QED photons [@Eriksson-etal].
Laser-plasma systems and the X-ray free electron laser
------------------------------------------------------
The X-ray free electron laser promises new and exciting applications for a coherent electromagnetic source. The applications range from probing astrophysical conditions in the laboratory to new possibilities to do molecular biology. Could the XFEL also provide insight into quantum electrodynamical nonlinearities, such as photon–photon scattering? If affirmative, this would enhance our understanding of the quantum vacuum, as well as providing new prospects of testing fundamental properties of physical laws, such a Lorentz invariance and symmetry breaking. Indeed, it has been stated that the facilities at DESY and SLAC would be able to produce electron–positron pairs directly from the vacuum [@Ringwald; @Ringwald1; @Ringwald2], due to the estimated focal intensities at these sources. If this scenario is demonstrated, it is likely that the effects of elastic photon–photon scattering would come into play at an even earlier stage. Due to the possible effects of scattering amongst photons, such as photonic self-compression and collapse, it is therefore of interest to include such effects into the analytical and numerical models used in predicting the behaviour of these systems. Furthermore, the creation of a pair plasma in the laboratory could be affected by new low-frequency modes from nonlinear quantum vacuum effects, thus altering the properties of energy transfer within such plasmas, as well as providing indirect tests for QED. XFEL will also gives the opportunity to do laboratory astrophysics in a new parameter regime, making the quantum vacuum more accessible.
However, it is not necessary to enter the new regime of XFEL in order to facilitate tests of QED and Lorentz invariance, as well as doing laboratory astrophysics. Such effects as Unruh radiation [@Unruh] and the related Hawking effect [@Hawking] can hopefully be investigated using the next generation laser-plasma systems [@bob], such as the high repetition-rate Astra Gemini laser (to be operational 2007) [@RAL]. In such regimes, it will also be of interest to investigate QED effects, such as photon–photon scattering. As seen in the previous sections, the introduction of plasma dispersion allows for new electromagnetic wave modes in both unmagnetized and magnetized plasmas [@Marklund-Shukla-Brodin-StenfloC; @Marklund-Shukla-Stenflo-Brodin-Servin], when nonlinear quantum vacuum effects are included. For example, at the laboratory level, current high laser powers are able to accelerate particles to highly relativistic speeds. Furthermore, pulse self-compression in laser-plasma systems may play an important role in attaining power levels well above current laser limits (see, e.g. @Bulanov-etal [@puk03]). As the intensities approach the Schwinger limit in future laser-plasma setups, effects of pair-creation and photon–photon scattering have to be taken into account [@Bulanov-etal; @Bulanov1]. Laser-plasma systems can have electron densities of the order $10^{26}$ m$^{-3}$, and laser intensities can be close to $10^{23}-10^{25}$ W/cm$^2$ [@mou98; @bob]. Moreover, as stated by @Bulanov-etal, laser self-focusing in plasmas could come close to $E_{\text{crit}}$, at which pair creation is likely to follow. In fact, it has been estimated that the National Ignition Facility would be able to produce pairs by direct irradiation of a deuterium pellet [@nif]. On the other hand, the creation of laboratory electron–positron plasmas is already a feasible task [@Surko-etal; @Greaves-etal], as is the usage of these plasmas for making pair plasma experiments [@Greaves-Surko]. Thus, the possibility to study laser-plasma interactions in pair plasmas could be a reality in the nearby future. The currently available positron densities in the laboratories are well below those of regular laser plasma systems, but according to @nif there is a possibility of reaching densities of order $10^{27}$ m$^{-3}$. Using $n_0 \sim 10^{26}$ m$^{-3}$, and the field intensity $10^{16}$ V/m (due to laser self-compression [@Bulanov-etal]) at the wavelength $0.3\times 10^{-6}$ m, we find from Eq. (\[Relativistic-DR\]) that $\omega \approx 7.8 \times 10^5$ rad/s, i.e. the frequency is in the LF band, as an example of QED effects in laboratory plasmas. In combination with plasma particle expulsion due to electromagnetic wave trapping, the possibility of catastrophic collapse due to photon–photon collisions arises [@Bulanov-etal; @r1]. This scenario it highly interesting, since it would make 3-dimensional ultra-intense solitonic structures possible in vacuum bounded by a plasma or wave-guide structure, a truly exciting prospects. This may even prove a valuable tool for intense pulse storage, if a successful cavity nonlinear QED experiment is performed.
Astrophysical importance
------------------------
The implications of the QED vacuum is well-known within astrophysics, and the pair plasma in pulsar surroundings is partly dependent on mechanisms which has no classical counterpart [@Asseo]. Furthermore, photons splitting [@Bialynicka-Birula; @Adler-etal; @Adler] supports the notion that strongly magnetized objects, such as neutron stars and magnetars, could be used as probes of nonlinear QED effects.
However, most of the effects discussed within astrophysical applications concerning QED deals with single-photon effects, and thus do not take collective effects into account. It is well-known from plasma physics that collective effects alter the charged particle behaviour in non-trivial and important ways. In fact, it would not be possible to understand most plasma effects without resorting to a collective description. The analogy between the quantum and a plasma system has been stated before [@Dittrich-Gies], and is both useful and imaginative. Thus, in line with this, it is likely that collective quantum vacuum effects could yield crucial information about astrophysical systems, where extreme energy levels are reached. Even kinetic effects, such as Landau damping, could play a role in the dynamics of photons in the vicinity of strongly magnetized objects. This could prove a new realm of photon kinetics, and the applications to astrophysical sources, such as magnetar quakes [@Kondratyev], are of interest for future research directions.
Especially strong magnetic field effects due to the quantum vacuum is of great interest in astrophysical applications. Since the earth-based magnetic field strengths are very limited, and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, magnetars and similar objects offers a unique perspective on the quantum vacuum [@Erber; @Baring-Harding]. Pulsar magnetospheres exhibit extreme field strengths in a highly energetic pair plasma. Ordinary neutron stars have surface magnetic field strengths of the order of $10^{6}-10^{9}\,\mathrm{T}$, while magnetars can reach $10^{10}-10^{11}\,\mathrm{T}$ [@magnetar], coming close to, or even surpassing, energy densities $\epsilon_0E_{\text{crit}}^2$ corresponding to the Schwinger limit. Such strong fields will make the vacuum fully nonlinear, due to the excitation of virtual pairs. Photon splitting can therefore play a significant role in these extreme systems [@Harding; @Baring-Harding].
Neutron stars have surface magnetic field strengths of the order of $10^{6}-10^{9}\,\mathrm{T}$, while magnetars can reach $10^{10}-10^{11}\,\mathrm{T}$ [@magnetar], coming close to energy densities corresponding the Schwinger critical limit $\epsilon_0E_{\text{crit}}$; here, the quantum vacuum becomes fully nonlinear. Single-particle QED effects, such as photon splitting can play a significant role in the understanding and interpretation of observations from these extreme systems [@Baring-Harding; @Harding]. In fact, the pair plasma creation in pulsar environments itself rests on nonlinear QED vacuum effects. The emission of short wavelength photons due to the acceleration of plasma particles close to the polar caps results in a production of electrons and positrons as the photons propagate through the pulsar intense magnetic field [@Beskin-etal]. The precise density of the pair plasma created in this fashion is difficult the estimate, and the answer is model dependent. However, given the Goldreich–Julian density $n_{GJ} = 7\times 10^{15} (0.1\,\mathrm{s}/P)(B/10^8\,\mathrm{T})$ m$^{-3}$, where $P$ is the pulsar period and $B$ the pulsar magnetic field, the pair plasma density is expected to satisfy $n_0 = M n_{GJ}$, $M$ being the multiplicity [@Beskin-etal; @Luo-etal]. The multiplicity is determined by the model through which the pair plasma is assumed to be created, but a moderate estimate is $M = 10$ [@Luo-etal]. Thus, with these pre-requisites, the density in a hot dense pair plasma is of the order $10^{18}$ m$^{-3}$, and the pair plasma experiences a relativistic factor $\sim 10^2 - 10^3$ [@Asseo]. We may use these estimates to obtain estimates for particular QED processes in plasmas. For example, inserting the above values in (\[wavelength\]), we obtain $\lambda \sim
10^{-12} - 10^{-11}$m. On the other hand, the primary beam will have $n_0 \sim n_{GJ}$ and $\gamma \sim 10^6 -10^7$ [@Asseo], at which (\[wavelength\]) yields $\lambda \sim 10^{-8} - 10^{-7}$m. Thus, in this case we obtain short wavelength effects.
The field of laboratory astrophysics ties the experimental domain of laser–plasma systems to areas of research where we so far have been restricted to observations [@HEDLA]. Interesting studies, such as shock front formation relevant to supernova explosions, could in principle be achieved in facilities such as NIF. However, the scales of the astrophysical event and the laboratory setup differs by orders of magnitude. Thus, it is reasonable to ask if it is possible to apply laboratory findings to astrophysical events. @Ryutov-etal consider the prospects of investigating MHD phenomena of relevance for supernova hydrodynamics. From self-similarity in the governing system of equations and boundary conditions, as well as from dimensionless variables (such as the magnetic Reynolds number $Re_M$) they argued that the laboratory results could be translated to astrophysical settings (however, $Re_M$ in the laboratory cannot reach the extreme values of supernova ejecta but can reach values much larger than $1$). Similarly, @Budil-etal discussed the applicability of peta-watt lasers to radiative-hydrodynamics relevant to, e.g. supernova remnant evolution. The testbed experimental results presented by @Budil-etal indicated that the results could be useful in calibrate models of radiation hydrodynamics in supernova remnants (see also @Shigemori-etal). Thus, the use of high intensity lasers for probing astrophysical phenomena, in particular as tool for testing and calibrating simulations of certain events, has undergone rapid development over the last decade. For testing QED effects within astrophysical systems the relevant dimensionless parameters are the frequency compared to the Compton frequency, the field strength over the Schwinger critical field strength (\[eq:criticalfield\]), as well as the sign of the relativistic invariant $c^2{\bf B}^2 - {\bf E}^2$. As can be seen by the second of these requirements, the laboratory experiments of today will at most be weakly nonlinear, whereas the effects in astrophysical systems, such as magnetars, can be strongly nonlinear. However, the combined effect of laser–plasma dynamics and vacuum nonlinearities would yield unique signatures, and could be probes of more exotic phenomena in astrophysical plasmas. One such example in the testing of the Unruh effect [@Unruh; @Chen-Tajima] as a means of understanding the Hakwing effect [@Hawking].
Conclusion and outlook
======================
The possibility of simulating astrophysical events in a laboratory environment has, during the last decade, progressed [@Remington; @Chen]. Apart from the astrophysical tests, laser-plasma systems also provide an opportunity to test certain aspects of fundamental physics, e.g. the properties if the quantum vacuum, via strong fields. Strong ($\sim 10-100\, \mathrm{MV/m}$) coherent electromagnetic fields can nowadays be produced in superconducting cavities [@Graber], and fields within plasmas could come close to the Schwinger limit (\[eq:criticalfield\]). Moreover, QED effects are part of many astrophysical phenomena, such as pair cascading, and thus laboratory astrophysics has a natural connection to investigations of the quantum vacuum.
Here, we have reviewed the implications of QED corrections to classical electrodynamics and the propagation of electromagnetic waves and pulses. In particular, QED corrections on photon–plasma interactions were described. The modifications introduced by the nonlinear quantum vacuum were considered for, e.g. coherent and incoherent pulse propagation. Analytical, perturbative, and numerical ways of analyzing the governing equations were presented. Moreover, the properties of nonlinear collective effects were presented, such as three-dimensional pulses collapse and the formation of light bullets. The application of the results can be seen both in an astrophysical context as well as in a laboratory setting. For example, in magnetar environments [@magnetar] photon splitting [@Adler] is important and it is believed to give a plausible explanation for the radio silence of magnetars [@Harding]. On the other hand, collective effects, such as the ones presented here, could give valuable insight of QED phenomena in astrophysical environments. In the laboratory, the formation of ultra-high intensity pulse trains, due to self-compression and pulse splitting, is a truly exiting prospect. The fact that such configurations are within laboratory reach, using the next generation laser-plasma facilities, makes the predicted effects and their connection to astrophysical events even more interesting and may open up new possibilities for basic and applied research in the future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are grateful to G. Brodin, L. Stenflo, B. Eliasson, J.T. Mendonça, R. Bingham, D.D. Tskhakaya, J. Collier, and P.A. Norreys for valuable comments, collaboration, and stimulating discussions. We are indebted to D.D. Meyerhofer for going through our manuscript and offering valuable suggestions for its improvements.
This research was supported by the Swedish Research Council Contract No. 621-2004-3217.
[^1]: Casimir considered particle–particle and particle–plate [@Casimir1], and plate–plate systems [@Casimir2], since the problem stemmed from research on colloidal solutions, but is most clearly represented by the parallel plate example. The Casimir effect has since been confirmed by many different experiments (see, e.g., @Sukenik-etal [@Mostepanenko-Trunov; @Lamoreaux; @Bordag-Mohideen-Mostepanenko; @Bressi-etal; @Harber-etal] and references therein).
[^2]: Here it should be noted that the paper by @Bakalov-etal is a progress report to one of the few actual experimental setups within photon–photon scattering, and their detection techniques are based on the work by @Iacopini-Zavattini and @Bakalov-etal2.
[^3]: We note that [@Rozanov] obtained a the NLSE (\[eq:rozanov\]) with the dispersive correction.
[^4]: The complex amplitude $F(\tau)$ and the phase function $b(\tau)$ can be expressed in terms of the pulse width $f(\tau)$ [@Desaix-Anderson-Lisak]. Here $\gamma = 4(\ln 4 + 1)/(27\zeta(3)) \approx 0.29$, $I(\tau) =
f^2(\tau)|F(\tau)|^2 = f^2(0)|F(0)|^2 = I_0$, and $I_c = (2\ln2 + 1)/(4\ln2 - 1) \approx 1.35$.
[^5]: The dispersive correction, due to the variations in the photon-field, will give rise to higher order effects in the final fluid equation for the energy density of the radiation gas. Thus, we may at this stage neglect the dispersive term from the fluid equations.
[^6]: We note that the formation of sub-cycle intense solitary waves could penetrate into a highly overdense plasma [@Shen-Yu-Li], transferring energy between low- and high-density regions of the plasma, which could be of importance in, e.g. laser fusion.
[^7]: @Breit-Wheeler considered the single photon scattering $\omega_1 + \omega_2 \rightarrow e^+e^-$, thus somewhat different from the multi-photon process discussed here.
[^8]: The interaction between modes of different frequencies gives rise to several new modes, but the resonance conditions and time averaging, mimicking the act of detection over certain timescales, yield the desired equations.
[^9]: Axions are bosons which were introduced in order to explain the absence of CP symmetry breaking in QCD [@Peccei-Quinn; @Weinberg; @Wilczek], and the axion is still to be detected.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Kristoffer Bergman, Oskar Ljungqvist, Torkel Glad and Daniel Axehill'
bibliography:
- 'myrefs.bib'
title: '**An Optimization-Based Receding Horizon Trajectory Planning Algorithm** '
---
\[1\][ \#1 ]{}
***Abstract —*This paper presents an optimization-based receding horizon trajectory planning algorithm for dynamical systems operating in unstructured and cluttered environments. The proposed approach is a two-step procedure that uses a motion planning algorithm in a first step to efficiently find a feasible, but possibly suboptimal, nominal solution to the trajectory planning problem where in particular the combinatorial aspects of the problem are solved. The resulting nominal trajectory is then improved in a second optimization-based receding horizon planning step which performs local trajectory refinement over a sliding time window. In the second step, the nominal trajectory is used in a novel way to both represent a terminal manifold and obtain an upper bound on the cost-to-go online. This enables the possibility to provide theoretical guarantees in terms of recursive feasibility, objective function value, and convergence to the desired terminal state. The established theoretical guarantees and the performance of the proposed algorithm are verified in a set of challenging trajectory planning scenarios for a truck and trailer system.**
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
In recent decades, an extensive amount of research has been conducted in the area of motion planning for autonomous vehicles [@lavalle2006planning; @paden2016survey]. However, the problem of computing locally optimal trajectories for dynamical systems in confined and unstructured environments is still considered as a difficult task. In this paper, the optimal motion planning problem is defined as the problem of finding a feasible and collision-free trajectory that brings the system from its initial state to a desired terminal state while a performance measure is minimized. The computed trajectory is then intended to be used as reference to a trajectory tracking or path following controller [@LjungqvistCDC2018; @paden2016survey; @ljungqvist2019path]. The optimal motion planning problem is in general hard to solve by directly applying optimal control techniques, since the problem in general is nonconvex due to obstacle-imposed constraints and nonlinear system dynamics. Therefore, approximate methods in terms of motion planning algorithms are commonly used [@lavalle2006planning]. One commonly used approach for dynamical systems is to apply sampling-based planners, which are either based on random or deterministic exploration of the vehicle’s state space [@lavalle2006planning]. One approach based on random sampling is RRT$^{\star}$ which is a popular motion planning algorithm for dynamical systems where an efficient steering function is available [@karaman2013sampling; @banzhaf2018g]. Unless an efficient steering function is available, the RRT$^{\star}$ algorithm becomes computationally inefficient as multiple optimal control problems (OCPs) have to be solved online at each tree expansion [@stoneman2014embedding].
A popular deterministic sampling-based motion planner is the lattice-based motion planner, which uses a finite set of precomputed motion segments, or motion primitives, online to find an optimal solution to a discretized version of the motion planning problem [@pivtoraiko2009differentially]. A benefit with this method is that efficient graph-search algorithms can be used online such as A$^{\star}$ [@hart1968formal], making it real-time applicable [@pivtoraiko2009differentially; @ljungqvist2019path]. However, since the lattice-based planner uses a discretized search space, the computed solution can be noticeably suboptimal and a latter post-optimization step is often desirable to use [@dolgov2010path; @andreasson2015fast]. A related technique is proposed in our previous work in [@bergman2019bimproved], where an optimization-based improvement step is added, aiming at locally improving the solution from a lattice-based planner without being limited to a discrete search space. Compared to previous work, a tight integration between the motion planner and the optimization step was introduced. This new approach was shown to have significant benefits over existing related methods in terms of solution quality and reliability. However, the introduced improvement step increases the motion planner’s latency time and hence, the time before the trajectory can start being executed. To reduce the computation time of the improvement step, and thus enable a faster start of the execution phase, a receding horizon trajectory planning approach is proposed in this paper where the nominal trajectory from the motion planning algorithm is improved iteratively during the execution phase.
Optimization-based receding horizon planning (RHP) is commonly used in on-road applications, where the structure of the road environment is utilized to evaluate several candidates with different terminal states centered around the vehicle’s lane. In [@werling2012optimal], these candidates are efficiently computed using quintic polynomials. In unstructured environments, optimization-based RHP has mainly been applied on unmanned areal vehicles (UAVs) [@schouwenaars2004receding; @kuwata2005robust; @liu2017planning]. The RHP approach is motivated in many applications due to limited sensing range, which makes it unnecessary to optimize the full horizon trajectory to the terminal state [@liu2017planning]. Common for these methods are that outside the vehicle’s planning range, a geometric planning algorithm is used to compute a simplified trajectory to the goal, e.g., a shortest distance trajectory that avoids known obstacles but disregards the system dynamics. The simplified trajectory is then used to estimate the cost-to-go, which enables a trade-off between short term and long term trajectory selection. This technique has been shown to work well for agile systems such as quadcopters. However, for systems that are less agile (such as truck and trailer systems), using, e.g., a geometric algorithm to estimate the cost-to-go can in worst case lead to infeasibility [@pivtoraiko2009differentially; @bergman2019bimproved].
To avoid potential infeasibility caused by using a simplified cost-to-go estimate when solving the RHP problem, the main contribution in this work is to use a nominal trajectory computed by a motion planning algorithm in a novel way to define a terminal manifold and an upper bound on the optimal cost-to-go. This result is utilized to provide theoretical guarantees on feasibility during the entire planning horizon, objective function value improvement and convergence to the terminal state. These theoretical results are used to define a practical RHP algorithm, whose performance is verified in a number of challenging motion planning problems for a truck and trailer system.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. The optimal motion planning problem is posed in Section \[sec:prob\]. In Section \[sec:rhi\], the RHP problem is defined and theoretical guarantees presented. These results are used in Section \[sec:alg\] to present an algorithm to iteratively improve the nominal trajectory using RHP. A simulation study for a truck and trailer system is presented in Section \[sec:Res\], followed by conclusions and future work in Section \[sec:conc\].
Problem formulation {#sec:prob}
===================
In this paper, continuous-time nonlinear systems in the form $$\label{eq:system}
\dot{\bm{x}}(t) = f(\bm{x}(t), \bm{u}(t)), \quad \bm{x}({t_{0}}) = {\bm{x}_{0}},$$ are considered, where $\bm{x} \in \mathbf{R}^n$ and $\bm{u} \in \mathbf{R}^m$ denote the state and control signal of the system, respectively. These are subject to the following constraints: $$\bm{x} \in \mathcalOld{X} \subseteq \mathbf{R}^n, \quad \bm{u} \in \mathcalOld{U} \subseteq \mathbf{R}^m.$$ Furthermore, the system should not collide with obstacles, where the obstacle region is defined as . Thus, in motion planning problems, the state space is constrained as: $$\label{eq:obst_av}
\bm{x} \in \mathcalOld{X}_{\text{free}} = \mathcalOld{X} \setminus \mathcalOld{X}_{\text{obst}}.$$ This constraint is in general non-convex since $\mathcalOld{X}_{\text{free}}$ is defined as the complement set of $\mathcalOld{X}_{\text{obst}}$.
The motion planning problem can now be defined as the problem of computing a feasible (i.e. satisfying -) state and control signal trajectory $(\bm{x}(\cdot), \bm{u}(\cdot) )$ that moves the system from ${\bm{x}_{0}}\in \mathcalOld{X}_{\text{free}}$ to a desired terminal state, ${\bm{x}_{f}}\in \mathcalOld{X}_{\text{free}}$, while a performance measure $J_{\text{tot}}$ is minimized. This problem can be posed as a continuous-time OCP: $${\begin{array}{rl}
{\underset{\bm{u}(\cdot), \;{t_{f}}}{\textrm{minimize}}} & \begin{aligned}[t]
J_{\mathrm{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bm{u}(\cdot)) = \int_{{t_{0}}}^{{t_{f}}} \ell (\bm{x}(t), \bm{u}(t)) \mathrm{d}t
\end{aligned} \\[15pt]
\textrm{subject to} &
\begin{aligned}[t]
&\bm{x}({t_{0}}) = {\bm{x}_{0}},
\quad \bm{x}({t_{f}}) = {\bm{x}_{f}}, \\ &\dot{\bm{x}} (t) = f(\bm{x}(t),\bm{u}(t)), \\ &\bm{x}(t) \in \mathcalOld{X}_{\mathrm{free}}, \; \bm{u}(t) \in \mathcalOld{U}&&\hspace*{-2ex}t \in [{t_{0}},{t_{f}}].
\end{aligned}
\end{array}} \label{eq:cctoc}$$ Here, the decision variable ${t_{f}}$ represents the time when the terminal state is reached. Furthermore, $\ell(\bm{x}, \bm{u})$ forms the cost function that is used to define the objective functional $J_{\mathrm{tot}}$.
\[ass:ell\] $\ell: \mathbf{R}^n \times \mathbf{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbf{R}^1$ is continuous, and $\ell(\bm{x},\bm{u}) \geq \varepsilon > 0$ for all $(\bm{x}, \bm{u}) \in \mathcalOld{X} \times \mathcalOld{U}$.
Assumption \[ass:ell\] provides an explicit penalty on the terminal time. Hence, $J_{\mathrm{tot}} \rightarrow \infty$ as ${t_{f}}\rightarrow \infty$.
One commonly used cost function for motion planning and optimal control problems can be written in the form: $$\label{eq:obj_ref}
\ell(\bm{x}, \bm{u}) = 1 + ||\bm{x} ||_Q^2 + ||\bm{u} ||_R^2,$$ in which the weight matrices $Q \succeq 0$ and $R \succeq 0$ are used to determine the trade-off between time duration (captured by the first term in ) and other measures such as smoothness of a motion [@ljungqvist2019path].
As discussed in Section \[sec:intro\], the problem in is hard to solve by applying direct optimal control techniques due to the non-convex obstacle avoidance constraints and the nonlinear dynamics. Hence, a good initialization strategy is required to enable the possibility of computing efficient and reliable solutions [@bergman2019bimproved]. In this work, it is assumed that a motion planning algorithm (such as the ones described in Section \[sec:intro\]) has provided a nominal trajectory that moves the system from ${\bm{x}_{0}}$ to ${\bm{x}_{f}}$ and is at least a feasible solution to . This trajectory is represented by $(\bar{\bm{x}}(\tau), \bar{\bm{u}}(\tau)), \; \tau \in [{t_{0}}, \; {\bar{t}_{f}}]$, where $\bar{\bm{x}}(\tau)$ satisfies: $$\label{eq:lat_sol}
\bar{\bm{x}}(\tau) = {\bm{x}_{0}}+ \int_{{t_{0}}}^{\tau} f(\bar{\bm{x}}(t), \bar{\bm{u}}(t)) \mathrm{d}t$$ This nominal trajectory $(\bar{\bm{x}}(\cdot), \bar{\bm{u}}(\cdot), {\bar{t}_{f}})$ is used computationally to warm-start the second RHP step, but also theoretically to guarantee convergence to the terminal state. A detailed description of this procedure is given in the next section.
Receding horizon planning {#sec:rhi}
=========================
In this section, it will be shown how to use an optimization-based receding horizon planner to optimize a nominal trajectory already computed by a motion planning algorithm. The nominal trajectory is used in the RHP approach to represent a terminal manifold, which ensures the existence of a feasible trajectory to the terminal state beyond the current receding planning horizon.
Receding horizon planning formulation
-------------------------------------
The problem of optimizing the nominal trajectory is solved using an iterative receding horizon approach. At each RHP iteration $k$ at time $t_k = t_0 + k\delta, \; {\delta > 0}, \; {k \in \mathbf{Z}_0}$, an OCP is solved over a sliding time window $[{t_k}, {t_k}+ T]$, where $T \in (\delta, T_{\text{max}}]$ denotes its length in time. This optimization-based RHP problem is defined as: $${\begin{array}{rl}
{\underset{\bm{u}_k(\cdot), \;\tau_k}{\textrm{minimize}}} & \begin{aligned}[t]
&J(\bm{x}_{\text{cur}}, \bm{u}_k(\cdot), \tau_k) = \\ &\Psi_k(\tau_k) + \int_{{t_k}}^{{t_k}+T} \hspace{-1.5em} \ell (\bm{x}_k(t), \bm{u}_k(t)) \mathrm{d}t
\end{aligned} \\[15pt]
\textrm{subject to} &
\begin{aligned}[t]
&\bm{x}_k({t_k}) = {\bm{x}_{\mathrm{cur}}},
\; \; \bm{x}_k({t_k}+ T) = \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau_k) \\ &\dot{\bm{x}}_k (t) = f(\bm{x}_k(t),\bm{u}_k(t)), \\ &\bm{x}_k(t) \in \mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{free}}, &&\hspace{-17.8ex}t \in [{t_k},{t_k}+T] \\
& \bm{u}_k(t) \in \mathcal{U}.
\end{aligned}
\end{array}} \label{eq:mpc}$$ Here, ${\bm{x}_{\mathrm{cur}}}= \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t_k)$ is the predicted state of the system at time ${t_k}$, $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$ the previously optimized state trajectory at time $t_k$ (with $\bar{\bm{x}}_{-1}(\cdot) = \bar{\bm{x}}(\cdot))$ and $\Psi_k(\tau_k)$ the cost-to-go function. Compared to , a subindex $k$ has been added to the state and control signal to clarify that it is related to the $k$:th RHP iteration. Furthermore, an additional decision variable $\tau_k$ has been added. This variable can be seen as a timing parameter and is used in the terminal constraint to select at what time instance the state at the end of the horizon is connected to the previously optimized state trajectory $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$, which defines the terminal manifold. From this state on the terminal manifold, an open-loop control law is known that moves the system from $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau_k), \tau_k \in [{t_{0}}, {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}]$ to ${\bm{x}_{f}}$. Note that if the previous solution is already locally optimal, the optimal solution to $\eqref{eq:mpc}$ is given by (${\bm{u}^{\star}}_k(\cdot), {\tau^{\star}}_k$), where ${\bm{u}^{\star}}_k(t) = \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t), \; t \in [t_k, t_k + T]$ and ${\tau^{\star}}_k = t_k + T$. Otherwise, a time shift to connect to the previous solution might occur, which is defined as $$\Delta t_k = {\tau^{\star}}_k - (t_k + T).$$ Hence, a new optimized solution $\bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)$ is available in the end of each RHP iteration and is given by $$\label{eq:tot_control}
\bar{\bm{u}}_k(t) = \begin{cases}
\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t), &t \in [t_0, t_k) \\
{\bm{u}^{\star}}_k(t) \in \mathcal{U}, &t \in [t_k, t_k + T) \\
\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t + \Delta t_k) , &t \in [t_k + T, {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1} - \Delta t_k],
\end{cases}$$ where $\bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot) = \bar{\bm{u}}(\cdot)$ which is the nominal control trajectory. Furthermore, the new terminal time is updated according to ${\bar{t}_{f}}^k = {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1} - \Delta t_k$ and the new optimized state trajectory $\bar{\bm{x}}_k(\cdot)$ is defined analogously as in .
In order to be able to select the optimal choice of $\tau_k$, i.e., where to connect onto the terminal manifold given by $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$, a terminal cost $\Psi_k(\tau_k)$ is added that represents the cost to transfer the system from $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau_k)$ to ${\bm{x}_{f}}$ using the previously optimized solution. This cost-to-go function is given by $$\label{eq:term_cost}
\Psi_k (\tau_k) = \int_{\tau_k}^{{\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}} \hspace{-1em} \ell (\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1 }(t), \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t)) \mathrm{d}t, \tau_k \in [{t_{0}}, {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}],$$ which represents an admissible overestimate of the optimal cost-to-go, obtained from the previous solution.
Feasibility, optimality and convergence {#sec:theory}
---------------------------------------
It will now be shown that the RHP problem in possesses the following properties: i) recursive feasibility, ii) the total objective function value will be non-increasing at every RHP iteration, and iii) convergence to the terminal state. The reasoning behind most of the results are inspired by stability analysis for nonlinear model predictive control (MPC) [@mayne2000constrained].
\[lem:rec\]\
Assume that the nominal trajectory $(\bar{\bm{x}}_{-1}(\cdot), \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot) )$ is feasible in . Then, at all RHP iterations $k$ satisfying $t_k + T \leq {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$, there exists a feasible solution to .
Assume that $\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$ is feasible in at RHP iteration $k-1$. Then, at any RHP iteration $k$, , one choice of feasible decision variables in is: $$\label{eq:feas_init}
\begin{aligned}
\tau^i_k &= t_k + T, \\
\bm{u}^i_k(t) &= \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t), \; t \in [t_k, t_k + T).
\end{aligned}$$ After solving , an updated full horizon open-loop control law feasible in at RHP iteration $k$ is obtained from as $\bar{\bm{u}}_{k}(\cdot)$. The desired result follows from induction by noting that at RHP iteration 0, $\bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot)$ is feasible.
\[thm:noninc\] Assume that the nominal trajectory $(\bar{\bm{x}}_{-1}(\cdot), \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot) )$ is feasible in . Then, the result in the end of each RHP iteration $k$ satisfying $t_k + T \leq {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$ is a full horizon open-loop control law $\bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)$ that is feasible in and satisfies $$J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)) \leq J_{\mathrm{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)) \leq \hspace{-2pt}\ldots\hspace{-2pt} \leq J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot)).$$
From Lemma \[lem:rec\], it is known that $\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$ is feasible in $\eqref{eq:cctoc}$. Furthermore, the objective function value is $J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot))$, which can be equivalently expanded as $$\label{eq:obj_val}
\begin{aligned}
J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)) &= \Psi_{ctc}(t_{k-1}) \\ &+ J(\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t_{k-1}),\bm{u}^{\star}_{k-1}(\cdot), {\tau^{\star}}_{k-1}),
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi_{ctc}(t) $ is the cost-to-come function, i.e., the accumulated cost up until $t$, with $\Psi_{ctc}({t_{0}}) = 0$, while $J$ and (${\bm{u}^{\star}}_{k-1}(\cdot), {\tau^{\star}}_{k-1}$) are the objective function and the solution to $\eqref{eq:mpc}$ at RHP iteration $k-1$, respectively. By using , , , in , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&\hspace{-0.5em}J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)) = \\
&\hspace{-0.5em}\underbrace{\Psi_{ctc}(t_{k-1}) + \int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_{k}} \hspace{-1em} \ell(\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t),\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t)) \mathrm{d}t}_{\Psi_{ctc}(t_k)} \\
&\hspace{-0.5em}+\underbrace{\int_{t_{k}}^{t_{k}+T} \hspace{-1.5em}\ell(\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t),\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t)) \mathrm{d}t + \Psi_k(t_k + T)}_{\text{Using \eqref{eq:feas_init} in \eqref{eq:mpc} : }J(\bar{\bm{x}}_k(t_k),\bm{u}^i_k(\cdot), \tau^i_k)} = \\
&\hspace{-0.5em}\Psi_{ctc}(t_k) + J(\bar{\bm{x}}_k(t_k),\bm{u}^i_k(\cdot), \tau^i_k) \geq \\
&\hspace{-0.5em}\Psi_{ctc}(t_k) + J(\bar{\bm{x}}_k(t_k),\bm{u}^{\star}_k(\cdot), {\tau^{\star}}_k) = J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)). \\
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using induction, it is possible to conclude that: $$\begin{aligned}
J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)) \leq J_{\mathrm{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)) \leq \hspace{-2pt}\ldots\hspace{-2pt} \leq J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot)).
\end{aligned}$$ which holds $\forall k : t_k + T \leq {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$. When $t_k + T > {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$, an optimal solution within the current planning horizon already exists and no re-planning is required.
Note that Assumption \[ass:ell\] on the cost function $\ell(\bm{x},\bm{u})$ is not required in Lemma \[lem:rec\] nor in Theorem \[thm:noninc\].
\[rem:poo\] When $t_k + T > {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$, one possibility is to perform re-planning by iteratively decreasing the planning horizon $T$. However, the optimal solution will stay the same during these last $T/\delta$ RHP iterations using arguments from principle of optimality.
\[thm:finite\]\
Under Assumption \[ass:ell\], the maximum number of RHP iterations $k_{\text{max}}$ is upper bounded by $$\label{eq:kmax}
k_{\text{max}} \leq \frac{J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot))}{\varepsilon \delta},$$ where $\delta$ is the time between two consecutive RHP iterations.
At RHP iteration $k$, Assumption \[ass:ell\] and give $$\label{eq:lower_bound}
\begin{aligned}
&J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)) \geq \Psi_{ctc}(t_k) = \\
&\int_{{t_{0}}}^{{t_{0}}+\delta k} \hspace{-1em} \underbrace{\ell(\bar{\bm{x}}_k(t), \bar{\bm{u}}_k(t) )}_{\geq \varepsilon} \mathrm{d}t \geq \varepsilon \delta k.
\end{aligned}$$ From Theorem \[thm:noninc\], it holds that $$J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot)) \leq J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot) ), \forall k : \; t_k + T \leq {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$$ which combined with gives $$\varepsilon \delta k \leq J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot)) \iff k \leq \frac{J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}(\cdot))}{\varepsilon\delta },$$ which completes the proof.
\
Under Assumption \[ass:ell\], the terminal state ${\bm{x}_{f}}$ will be reached in finite time.
Using Theorem \[thm:finite\], the terminal time ${t_{f}}$ when the terminal state ${\bm{x}_{f}}$ is reached is upper bounded by $${t_{f}}\leq {t_{0}}+ \delta k_{\text{max}} + T,$$ where $k_{\text{max}}$ is upper bounded in and $T$ is the user-defined RHP horizon length in .
A practical algorithm {#sec:alg}
=====================
In this section, a reformulation of the RHP problem in the previous section is introduced to handle a piecewise continuous nominal control trajectory. The new formulation is connected to the theory in Section \[sec:rhi\] to show that recursive feasibility, non-increasing objective function value and convergence to the terminal state still can be guaranteed. Finally, an algorithm is outlined which summarizes all steps in the proposed RHP approach.
Solving the receding horizon planning problem {#sec:problems}
---------------------------------------------
A common approach to solve OCPs such as the RHP problem in is to use direct methods for optimal control. In these methods, the continuous problem is discretized and cast as a standard NLP. This is typically achieved by using a piecewise continuous control signal [@diehl2006fast]. The discretized problem can then be solved using standard methods for nonlinear optimization such as SQP or nonlinear interior point methods [@nocedal2006numerical]. These solvers can be interfaced through a standard solver interface such as CasADi [@andersson2018casadi], which can be used when all involved functions in are (at least) continuously differentiable everywhere.
In practice, it is desirable to use nominal trajectories in where the control signal is piecewise continuous. As an example, this is the case when a lattice-based motion planner is used to compute a nominal trajectory using motion primitives computed by applying direct optimal control techniques [@bergman2019improved]. The problem of using a piecewise continuous nominal control signal trajectory is that the terminal manifold, defined by $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau)$, and the cost-to-go function $\Psi_k(\tau)$ in are piecewise continuously differentiable with respect to the timing variable $\tau$. This follows from that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}}{\mathrm{d}\tau} &= \dot{\bar{\bm{x}}}_{k-1}(\tau) = f(\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau), \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\tau)), \\
\frac{\mathrm{d}\Psi_k}{\mathrm{d}\tau} &= - \ell(\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau) , \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\tau) ),
\end{aligned}$$ explicitly depend on the piecewise continuous control signal trajectory $\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\tau)$. Hence, in this case it is not possible to directly use standard solver interfaces. One possibility is to modify the solver and/or solver interface, which is out of scope in this work. Another possibility, which is used in this paper and will further be described in the next sections, is to adjust the problem formulation while aiming at preserving the theoretical guarantees proved in Section \[sec:theory\].
Adjusted receding horizon planning formulation {#sec:rvmpc}
----------------------------------------------
One approach to deal with a piecewise continuous nominal control trajectory is to use a variable horizon length $T_k$ in each RHP iteration, and select the value of the timing parameter $\tau_k$ in in a separate step. This means that the RHP problem in can be reformulated as: $${\begin{array}{rl}
{\underset{\bm{u}_k(\cdot), \;T_k}{\textrm{minimize}}} & \begin{aligned}[t]
J = \int_{{t_k}}^{{t_k}+T_{k}} \ell (\bm{x}_k(t), \bm{u}_k(t)) \mathrm{d}t
\end{aligned} \\[15pt]
\textrm{subject to} &
\begin{aligned}[t]
&\bm{x}_k({t_k}) = {\bm{x}_{\mathrm{cur}}}, \\ &
\bm{x}_k({t_k}+ T_k) = \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\tau_k) \\ &\dot{\bm{x}}_k (t) = f(\bm{x}_k(t),\bm{u}_k(t)), \\ &\bm{x}_k(t) \in \mathcal{X}_{\mathrm{free}},
&& \hspace{-10ex} \bm{u}_k(t) \in \mathcal{U}.
\end{aligned}
\end{array}} \label{eq:mpc_variable_T}$$ Here, the difference compared to is that $T_k$ is added as a decision variable, and $\tau _k$ is removed from being a decision variable and is instead considered as a parameter to the RHP problem. Since $\tau_k$ is no longer a decision variable, it is not an issue with using piecewise continuously differentiable functions $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$ and $\Psi_k(\cdot)$. This new problem formulation reduces the terminal state manifold to a single state. Furthermore, the cost-to-go function $\Psi_k(\cdot)$ does not need to be explicitly taken into account since the terminal state, and hence also the cost along the remaining nominal solution, is already selected before is solved. By assuming a piecewise continuous input over each planning interval $[t_k, t_{k+1}]$, the problem can thus be discretized using direct optimal control methods and solved using standard NLP interfaces.
Feasibility, optimality and convergence {#feasibility-optimality-and-convergence}
---------------------------------------
The theoretical results in Section \[sec:theory\] neglected that the RHP problem is to be discretized when solved using direct optimal control techniques. This discretization introduces the possibility of loosing recursive feasibility (in contrast to the theoretical setup in Lemma \[lem:rec\]) since it is not guaranteed that the time-shifted input in is possible to represent in the discretized version. Even if the problem turns out to be feasible, it could be the case that Theorem \[thm:noninc\] does not hold, i.e., the new solution has a higher objective function value than the previously optimized solution. Here, we show how to obtain a practical implementation with the properties already guaranteed for the somewhat simplified theoretical setup in Section \[sec:rhi\].
At RHP iteration $k-1$, $(\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t),\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t))$ is executed during the time interval $t \in [t_{k-1}, t_{k}]$. Since both model errors and external disturbances are assumed to be zero, the state at $t_{k}$ will be $\bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t_{k})$. By setting ${\bm{x}_{\mathrm{cur}}}= \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t_{k})$ and a desired value of $\tau_{k}$ in , the solution at RHP iteration $k$ (if any exists) will be given by (${\bm{u}^{\star}}_{k}(\cdot), {T^{\star}}_{k})$. If the problem is feasible, a new candidate nominal control is to use: $$\label{eq:new_cand}
\bar{\bm{u}}_{\text{can}}(t) = \begin{cases}\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t), & \hspace{-0.7em}t \in [t_0, t_k) \\{\bm{u}^{\star}}_{k}(t), &\hspace{-0.7em}t \in [t_{k}, t_{k}+{T^{\star}}_k) \\ \bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(t+\Delta t_{k}), & \hspace{-0.7em}t \in [t_{k} + {T^{\star}}_k, {\bar{t}_{f}}^{\text{can}} ] \end{cases}$$ where $\Delta t_{k} = \tau_{k} - (t_{k} + {T^{\star}}_{k})$. In order to guarantee a result similar to Theorem \[thm:noninc\], the candidate solution is explicitly benchmarked against the old one $\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$. If the total objective function value is improved by using the new candidate, i.e. $$\label{eq:cand_comp}
J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_{\text{can}}(\cdot)) < J_{\text{tot}}({\bm{x}_{0}},\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot))$$ the nominal trajectory is updated: $$\left(\bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot), \bar{\bm{x}}_k(\cdot), {\bar{t}_{f}}^k \right) = \left( \bar{\bm{u}}_{\text{can}}(\cdot), \; \bar{\bm{x}}_{\text{can}}(\cdot), \; {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1} - \Delta t_{k} \right),$$ where $\bar{\bm{x}}_{\text{can}}(\cdot)$ can be computed analogously to $\bar{\bm{u}}_{\text{can}}(\cdot)$ in . Otherwise, the previously optimized solution $\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}(\cdot)$ is reused, which still represents a feasible solution to ${\bm{x}_{f}}$. Hence, a practically useful approach that provides similar guarantees as in Lemma \[lem:rec\] and Theorem \[thm:noninc\] is obtained using and . Another required property is to ensure that the approach converges to the terminal state ${\bm{x}_{f}}$. Since the timing variable $\tau _k$ is updated before and kept fixed during each RHP iteration (as described in Section \[sec:rvmpc\]), progress towards ${\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1}$ is required for convergence. A sufficient condition for progress is $$\label{eq:update_policy}
\tau_{k+1} \geq \tau_k + \varepsilon_\tau,$$ which means that $\tau_k = {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1} < \infty$ will be selected after a finite number of RHP iterations, implying that ${\bm{x}_{f}}$ is used as terminal state in and hence eventually reached.
Algorithm
---------
**Input**: ${\bm{x}_{0}}, {\bm{x}_{f}}$, $T$, $\delta$, $\mathcal{X}_{\text{free}}$ ($\bar{\bm{x}}_{-1}, \bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}, {\bar{t}_{f}}) \leftarrow$ Motion planner(${\bm{x}_{0}}, {\bm{x}_{f}}, \mathcal{X}_{\text{free}}$) $\tau_0 \leftarrow t_0 + T$, $T_0^{\text{init} } \leftarrow \tau_0 - t_0$ ($\bm{x}^{\text{init}}_0, \bm{u}^{\text{init}}_0) \leftarrow $ resample($\bar{\bm{u}}_{-1}, \bar{\bm{x}}_{-1}, \delta $ ) Set ${\bm{x}_{\mathrm{cur}}}= \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t_k)$ in (${\bm{u}^{\star}}_k, {T^{\star}}_k) \leftarrow $ Solve using $\bm{u}^{\text{init}}_k, \bm{x}^{\text{init}}_k , T_k^{\text{init}}$ and $\tau_k$ $\Delta t_k \leftarrow \tau_k - (t_k + {T^{\star}}_k)$ ($\bar{\bm{u}}_{\text{can}}, \bar{\bm{x}}_{\text{can}}) \leftarrow$ get\_cand($\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}, \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}, {\bm{u}^{\star}}_k, \Delta t_k $) Update solution:
($\bar{\bm{u}}_k, \bar{\bm{x}}_k) \leftarrow (\bar{\bm{u}}_{\text{can}}, \bar{\bm{x}}_{\text{can}})$
${\bar{t}_{f}}^k \leftarrow {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1} - \Delta t_k$ ($\bar{\bm{u}}_k, \bar{\bm{x}}_k,{\bar{t}_{f}}^k) \leftarrow (\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}, \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}, {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1})$ ($\bar{\bm{u}}_k, \bar{\bm{x}}_k, {\bar{t}_{f}}^k) \leftarrow (\bar{\bm{u}}_{k-1}, \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}, {\bar{t}_{f}}^{k-1})$ Send nominal trajectory to controller :
send\_reference($\bar{\bm{u}}_k, \bar{\bm{x}}_k$) Update receding horizon terminal constraint:
$\tau_{k+1} \leftarrow $ update\_timing($t_{k+1}, T, {\bar{t}_{f}}^k$) Initialization for next iteration:
$T_{k+1}^{\text{init}} \leftarrow \tau_{k+1} - t_{k+1}$
$\bm{x}^{\text{init}}_{k+1}, \bm{u}^{\text{init}}_{k+1} \leftarrow $ resample($\bar{\bm{u}}_k, \bar{\bm{x}}_k, T^{\text{init}}_{k+1}/N $ ) Set $ k \rightarrow k+1$
The resulting RHP algorithm for motion planning is outlined in Algorithm \[alg:rhi\]. Before explaining the steps, note that state and control signal trajectories, i.e. $\bm{x}(\cdot)$ and $\bm{u}(\cdot)$ in Algorithm \[alg:rhi\], are written as $\bm{x}$ and $\bm{u}$ for notational brevity.
The inputs to the algorithm are given by the initial and terminal states, a desired planning horizon $T$, the time between two consecutive RHP iterations $\delta$ (which together define the number of discretization points $N = T/\delta)$, and the current representation of $\mathcal{X}_{\text{free}}$. A motion planner is then used on Line 2 to compute a nominal trajectory. To obtain the best overall performance, the nominal trajectory should also be computed while minimizing the same objective function value as in [@bergman2019bimproved], since the RHP iterations only perform local improvements of the nominal trajectory.
For each RHP iteration $k$, the problem in is solved from ${\bm{x}_{\mathrm{cur}}}= \bar{\bm{x}}_{k-1}(t_k)$ starting from a provided initialization (discussed further down in this section) and a selected value of $\tau_k$. If this problem is feasible, a new candidate solution is found using . If this candidate has a lower full horizon objective function value (i.e. the inequality in holds), the current candidate is selected as solution. Otherwise, the previous solution is reused. The selected solution is sent on Line 19 to a trajectory-tracking controller.
The timing variable $\tau_k$ is updated at Line 20 in Algorithm \[alg:rhi\]. The result in only requires an update policy such that $\tau_{k+1} \geq \tau_k + \varepsilon_\tau$. One policy that satisfies this requirement is: $$\tau_{k+1} = \min \left({\bar{t}_{f}}^k, t_{k+1} + T \right),$$ since $t_{k+1}+T = \tau_k + \delta$. This means that the terminal state at the next RHP iteration is selected using the user-defined desired planning horizon $T$ in Algorithm \[alg:rhi\].
Finally, the solver initialization for the next RHP iteration is done on Line 21 in Algorithm \[alg:rhi\]. First, $T_k$ is initialized according to the predicted length, i.e., $T^{\text{init}}_{k+1} = \tau_{k+1} - t_{k+1}$. Then, the previous full horizon solution is resampled to be compatible with $T^{\text{init}}_{k+1}$. Assuming a piecewise constant control signal and a multiple-shooting discretization strategy, one possible resampling of $(\bar{\bm{x}}_k(\cdot), \bar{\bm{u}}_k(\cdot) )$ is $$\label{eq:init}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{u}_{k+1}^{\text{init}}(t_j) &= \bar{\bm{u}}_k(t_j), \quad \forall j \in [k+1, k+1+N], \\
\bm{x}_{k+1}^{\text{init}}(t_j) &= \bar{\bm{x}}_k(t_j), \quad \forall j \in [k+1,k+2+N],
\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ represents the number of discretization points (given by $T/\delta$), and $t_j = {t_{0}}+ j \delta^{\text{init}}$, with $\delta^{\text{init}} = T^{\text{init}}_{k+1}/N$. The RHP iterations are solved until $\tau_{k} = \tau_{k-1}$, which means that ${\bm{x}_{f}}$ has been used as terminal state in .
Simulation study {#sec:Res}
================
In this section, the proposed optimization-based RHP approach presented in Section \[sec:alg\] is evaluated in two challenging parking problem scenarios for a truck and trailer system. To evaluate the proposed RHP approach, a lattice-based motion planning algorithm is employed in a first step to compute nominal trajectories using a library of precomputed motion primitives. The lattice-based planner is implemented in C++, while the optimization-based RHP approach is implemented in Python using CasADi together with the warm-start friendly SQP solver WORHP [@bueskens2013worhp].
Vehicle model
-------------
The truck and trailer system is a general 2-trailer with car-like truck [@altafini2002hybrid; @ljungqvist2019path]. The system consists of three vehicle segments: a car-like truck, a dolly and a semitrailer. The state vector for the system is given by $$\label{eq:states}
\begin{aligned}
\bm{x} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\bm{q}^T & \alpha & \omega & v_1& a_1
\end{bmatrix}^T \\
\bm{q} &= \begin{bmatrix}
x_3 & y_3 & \theta_3 & \beta_3 & \beta_2
\end{bmatrix}^T
\end{aligned}$$ where $(x_3, y_3)$ and $\theta _3$ represent the position and orientation of the semitrailer, respectively, while $\beta _3$ and $\beta_2$ denote the joint angles between the semitrailer and the truck. Finally, $\alpha$ and $\omega$ are the truck’s steering angle and steering angle rate, respectively, while $v_1$ and $a_1$ are the longitudinal velocity and acceleration of the truck. Assuming low-speed maneuvers, the truck and trailer system can compactly be modeled as [@ljungqvist2019path]: $$\label{eq:truckModel}
\begin{aligned}
&\dot{\bm{q}} = v_1 f(\bm{q}, \alpha), \\
& \dot{\alpha} = \omega, \quad \dot{\omega} = u_{\omega}, \\
& \dot{v}_1 = a_1 \quad \dot{a}_1 = u_a. \\
\end{aligned}$$
\
The control signal to the truck and trailer system is . The vehicle’s geometry coincides with the one used in [@ljungqvist2019path]. The control signal and the vehicle states are constrained as $$\begin{aligned}
&|\beta_3| \leq 0.87, &&|\beta_2| \leq 0.87, &&& |\alpha| \leq 0.73, &&&& |\omega| \leq 0.8, \\
&|v_1| \leq 1.0, &&|a_1| \leq 1.0, &&& |u_\omega| \leq 10, &&&&|u_a| \leq 40,
\end{aligned}$$ and the cost function is chosen as $$\label{eq:cost}
\ell(\bm{x}, \bm{u}) = 1 + \frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha^2 + 10\omega^2 + a_1^2 + \bm{u}^T\bm{u} \right),$$ which is used both in the lattice-based planner *and* the proposed optimization-based RHP approach as suggested in [@bergman2019bimproved].
Lattice-based motion planner
----------------------------
As previously mentioned, a lattice-based planner is used in a first step to compute a nominal trajectory to the terminal state. The lattice-based planner uses a discretized state space $\mathcal{X}_d$ and a library of precomputed motion primitives $\mathcal P$. During online planning, a nominal trajectory to the terminal state is computed using A$^{\star}$ graph search together with a precomputed free-space heuristic look-up table (HLUT) [@knepper2006high]. In this work, we use a similar state-space discretization $\mathcal{X}_d$ as in [@ljungqvist2019path], where the position of the semitrailer is discretized to a uniform grid with resolution $r=1$ m and the orientation of the semitrailer is irregularly discretized $\theta_3 \in \Theta$ into $|\Theta|=16$ different orientations. It is done to be able to compute short straight trajectories from each $\theta_3 \in \Theta$ [@pivtoraiko2009differentially]. One difference compared to [@ljungqvist2019path] is that the longitudinal velocity is here also discretized as . All other vehicle states are constrained to zero for all discrete states in $\mathcal{X}_d$ as was done in [@ljungqvist2019path]. Note, however, that on the trajectory between two states in $\mathcal{X}_d$, the system is free to take any feasible state.
The motion primitive set $\mathcal P$ is computed offline using the framework presented in [@bergman2019improved] and consists of straight, parallel and heading change maneuvers between discrete states in $\mathcal{X}_d$. Velocity changes between discrete states are only allowed during straight motions. At each discrete state with nonzero velocity, heading change maneuvers are computed to the eight closest adjacent headings in $\Theta$, and parallel maneuvers ranging from $\pm 10$ m with $1$ m resolution. The final motion primitive set $\mathcal{P}$ consists of 1184 motion primitives. More details of the lattice-based planner is found in [@bergman2019improved].
Simulation results
------------------
The proposed optimization-based RHP approach is evaluated on a reverse parking scenario (see Fig. \[fig:rv\]) and a parallel parking scenario (see Fig \[fig:pp\]). The obstacles and vehicle bodies are described by bounding circles [@lavalle2006planning]. In all simulations, the time between two consecutive RHP iterations is $\delta=0.5$ s. During the simulations, it is assumed that a trajectory-tracking controller is used to follow the computed trajectories with high accuracy between each RHP iteration, however the controller design is out of the scope in this work.
The results for the reverse parking scenario are presented in Fig. \[fig:rv\] and Table \[tab:rev\_park\]. As shown in Fig. \[fig:rp\_res\], the average difference in objective function value $\Delta J_{\text{tot}}$ increases as the planning horizon grows. The maximum achievable improvement is 26.5% compared to the nominal solution computed by the lattice-based planner. However, extending the planning horizon beyond $T=60$ s only leads to a minor improvement. More precisely, if the full horizon (FH) in is improved in a single iteration as done in [@bergman2019bimproved] (i.e. not using a *receding* horizon approach), only an additional improvement of $3.5$% is obtained. Furthermore, the average computation time for one RHP iteration $\bar{t}_{\text{RHP}}$ grows with longer planning horizon (especially for ), which is mainly due to increased problem dimension of the resulting NLP. Since the time needed to execute the trajectory is included in the cost function , a practically relevant performance measure is the total time to reach the terminal state $t_{\text{tot}}$, which is the computation time before trajectory execution can start, i.e. the latency time, plus the trajectory execution time. When the nominal solution is improved using the RHP algorithm, the additional latency time $\Delta t_{\text{lat}}$ depends only on the computation time for the first RHP iteration, since the remaining improvements are done during execution. In Table \[tab:rev\_park\], it is shown that the average difference in total time $\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{tot}}$ between using and not using the RHP algorithm obtains its minimum at a planning horizon of in this scenario. Using a planning horizon in this interval, the vehicle will in average reach the terminal state more than faster (latency time + motion execution time) than if the nominal trajectory is planned and executed without improvement.
$T$ \[s\] 20 40 60 80 120 FH
------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$\Delta J_{\mathrm{tot}}$ \[%\] -12.5 -14.4 -23.0 -24.1 -26.3 -26.5
$\bar{t}_{\text{RHP}}$ \[s\] 0.05 0.14 0.32 0.64 3.6 14.0
$\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{lat}}$ \[s\] 0.34 0.96 1.8 3.1 7.3 14.0
$\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{tot}}$ \[s\] -16.6 -23.5 -30.2 -30.3 -26.2 -22.8
: Summary of results from the reverse parking scenario in Fig.\[fig:rv\]. See Fig. \[fig:rv\] and Fig. \[fig:pp\] for a description of the variables. []{data-label="tab:rev_park"}
The results for the parallel parking scenario (Fig. \[fig:pp\] and Table \[tab:par\_park\]) are similar to the ones for the reverse parking scenario. The main differences are that the average decrease in total time $\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{tot}}$ and total objective function value $\Delta J_{\text{tot}}$ are even more significant in this scenario, with a maximum objective function value improvement of more than 40%. The reason for this is because the lattice-based planner computes a nominal trajectory that is further away from a locally optimal solution due to the confined environment, which leaves large possibilities for improvement to the RHP algorithm. One illustrative example of this is shown in Fig. \[fig:alphas\], where it can be seen that the terminal time is nearly halved compared to the nominal solution. Moreover, as can be seen in Table \[tab:par\_park\] and Fig. \[fig:pp\_res\], also in this example $\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{tot}}$ and $\Delta J_{\text{tot}}$ are decreasing rapidly with increased planning horizon until . Beyond that, only a minor additional decrease in $\Delta J_{\text{tot}}$ is obtained (full horizon: 2.9%), whereas $\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{tot}}$ starts to increase due to an increased average computation time of the first RHP iteration. As a result, in this scenario the vehicle will in average reach the terminal state faster (latency time + motion execution time) using the proposed RHP approach with planning horizon of compared to when the nominal trajectory is planned and executed.
$T$ \[s\] 20 40 60 80 120 FH
------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
$\Delta J_{\mathrm{tot}}$ \[%\] -24.9 -35.2 -40.8 -41.7 -43.4 -43.7
$\bar{t}_{\text{RHP}}$ \[s\] 0.09 0.29 0.77 2.0 10.4 17.0
$\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{lat}}$ \[s\] 0.35 0.73 2.0 3.5 12.3 17.0
$\Delta \bar{t}_{\text{tot}}$ \[s\] -32.6 -45.7 -53.7 -54.0 -45.9 -44.1
: Summary of results from the parallel parking scenario in Fig.\[fig:pp\]. See Fig. \[fig:rv\] and Fig. \[fig:pp\] for a description of the variables. []{data-label="tab:par_park"}
\
\
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:conc}
===========================
This paper introduces a new two-step trajectory planning algorithm built on a combination of a search-based motion planning algorithm and an optimization-based receding horizon planning (RHP) algorithm. While the motion planning algorithm quickly can compute a feasible, but often suboptimal, solution taking combinatorial aspects of the problem into account, the RHP algorithm based on direct optimal control techniques iteratively improves the solution quality towards the one typically achieved using direct optimal control. The receding horizon setup makes it possible for the user to conveniently trade off solution time and latency against solution quality. By exploiting the nominal dynamically feasible trajectory, a terminal manifold and a cost-to-go estimate are obtained, which make it possible to provide theoretical guarantees on recursive feasibility, non-increasing objective function value and convergence to the terminal state. These guarantees and the performance of the proposed method are successfully verified in a set of challenging trajectory planning problems for a truck and trailer system, where the proposed method is shown to significantly improve the nominal solution already for short receding planning horizons.
Future work includes to modify the proposed receding horizon planner such that it can be applied in dynamic environments. Another extension is to improve real-time performance by using ideas from fast MPC.
Acknowledgments
===============
This work was partially supported by FFI/VINNOVA and the Wallenberg Artificial Intelligence, Autonomous Systems and Software Program (WASP) funded by Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The fluorescent X-ray emission from neutral iron in the molecular clouds (Sgr B) indicates that the clouds are being irradiated by an external X-ray source. The source is probably associated with the Galactic central black hole (Sgr A\*), which triggered a bright outburst one hundred years ago. We suggest that such an outburst could be due to a partial capture of a star by Sgr A\*, during which a jet was generated. By constraining the observed flux and the time variability ($\sim$ 10 years) of the Sgr B’s fluorescent emission, we find that the shock produced by the interaction of the jet with the dense interstellar medium represents a plausible candidate for the X-ray source emission.'
author:
- |
Yun-Wei Yu$^{1,2}$, K. S. Cheng$^1$, D. O. Chernyshov$^3$, and V. A. Dogiel$^3$\
$^1$Department of Physics, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China\
$^2$Institute of Astrophysics, Huazhong Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China\
$^3$I. E. Tamm Theoretical Physics Division of P. N. Lebedev Institute, Leninskii pr, 53, 119991 Moscow, Russia
title: 'A past capture event at Sagittarius A\* inferred from the fluorescent X-ray emission of Sagittarius B clouds'
---
Galaxy: nucleus — X-rays: individual (Sagittarius B) — black hole physics — radiation mechanisms: non-thermal
Introduction
============
The major component in the Galactic center (GC) region is a central molecular zone (Morris & Serabyn 1996), which contains about 10% ($\sim3\times 10^{7} M_{\odot}$) of the total molecular gas of the Galaxy (Dahmen et al. 1998). The most well-known and massive central molecular clouds are Sagittarius (Sgr) B1 and B2. The central molecular zone is bright in diffuse X-rays (Sunyaev et al. 1993; Koyama et al. 2007a), including thermal and non-thermal emission. The thermal component, whose spectrum contains strong K-shell emission lines from highly ionized atoms, such as Fe XXV (6.7 keV), and S XV (2.45 keV), could be associated with a hot plasma in collisional ionization equilibrium with multiple temperatures. This plasma emission decreases monotonically with an increasing distance from the GC, and extends about over 1 degree in longitude (Koyama et al. 1989; Yamauchi et al. 1990). In contrast, the brightest non-thermal emission line from neutral iron, with a strong K-shell transition line at 6.4 keV, was found to be near the Sgr B region (Koyama et al. 1996). After the first discovery of the 6.4-keV line emission by the [*ASCA*]{} satellite, a much deeper observation of the Sgr B region was provided by the [*Suzaku*]{} satellite (Koyama et al. 2007b). Consequently, some remarkable features in the X-ray spectra were observed, such as: a large equivalent width ($\geq$ 1 keV) of the 6.4-keV line, and a deep iron K-absorption edge at 7.1 keV (equivalent neutral hydrogen column density $\sim 10^{23-24}~\rm
cm^{-2}$).
These spectral features suggest that the 6.4-keV line, and the underlying continuum emission, could originate from fluorescence and Thomson scattering in the molecular clouds, which are irradiated by an external X-ray source (Koyama et al. 1996; Sunyaev & Churazov 1998). The detailed morphology of the 6.4-keV line emission of Sgr B2 cloud was investigated by [*Chandra*]{} (Murakami et al. 2001). The line exhibits a concave shape (the peak position of the emitting region is located about $1-2$ arcmin from the cloud center), pointing to the GC direction. This strongly suggests that the external source is loacted in the GC direction. However, no sufficiently bright X-ray source has been detected there. Therefore, Koyama et al. (1996, 2007b) and Murakami et al. (2001) proposed that the supermassive black hole (BH), harbored at the GC (Sgr A\*), probably triggered a bright outburst about one hundred years ago, which is the delayed time in the light travel due to the reflection by Sgr B2. As an alternative to the above X-ray reflection model, Predehl et al. (2003), Yusef-Zadeh et al. (2007), and Dogiel et al. (2009b) proposed that the origin of the 6.4-keV line and X-ray continuum emission could be due to non-relativistic electrons or protons. However, this model is disfavored by the inferred metal abundances of the hot plasma in the GC region (Nobukawa et al. 2010), even that this conclusion cannot be applied to the case of protons, because their estimated abundance depends strongly on the spectral index of the protons (see Dogiel et al. 2010). The most convincing evidence that supports the X-ray reflection model comes from the detection of a similar pattern of emission variability in causally disconnected regions (Inui et al. 2009). This pattern was recently confirmed by the observation of a clear decay, of about 40% during the past 7 years, of the hard X-ray continuum emission from Sgr B2 (Terrier et al. 2010). As reported by Ponti et al. (2010), such a time variability can also be found in other molecular clouds (e.g., G 0.11-0.11). In particular, Ponti et al. (2010) observed an apparent superluminal motion of a light front illuminating a molecular nebula, which cannot be due to low energy cosmic rays, or to a source located inside the cloud.
In this paper, we use the X-ray reflection model, and suggest that the required past outburst could be due to a partial capture of a star by Sgr A\*. During the accretion of the stellar matter onto the BH, an accompanying jet could be generated, as seen in some accreting systems, such as microquasars (e.g. Gallo et al. 2003; Fender 2003; Fender & Maccarone 2004). Then, by considering the deceleration of the jet by the dense interstellar medium, the resulting shock emission could become a plausible X-ray source, which is responsible for the fluorescent emission from the Sgr B region. Such a (partial or full) stellar capture event by a central supermassive BH has perhaps already been observed in some flaring “normal" galaxies (e.g., Renzini et al. 1995; Li et al. 2002; Donley et al. 2002). In our Galaxy, as suggested by Cheng et al. (2006), stellar captures may also be required to provide a positron source for the observed electron-positron annihilation emission from the GC region. Meanwhile, in such a stellar capture scenario, the diffuse hard X-ray and gamma-ray emission from the GC region can also be explained well (Cheng et al. 2007; Dogiel et al. 2009a,b,c,d).
The present paper is organized as follows. In Section \[2\], by using the X-ray reflection model, we derive from the observed 6.4-keV line luminosity the X-ray luminosity of the external source. In Section \[3\], we briefly describe the tidal capture process. In Section \[4\], we investigate the dynamics and the synchrotron radiation of the shock produced by the deceleration of the jet. Then, some basic properties of the jet are inferred from the observations. Finally, we discuss and conclude our results in Section \[5\].
The X-ray reflection model {#2}
==========================
In the following we specifically refer to Sgr B2 cloud as M $0.66-0.02$ (Inui et al. 2009), and a radius of $r_B\sim$3.2 arcmin is adopted for this object. The distance to Sgr B2 is $d_B\approx7.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ kpc (Reid et al. 2009), and consequently $r_B\approx7.3$ pc. Due to their projected offset $\sim
0.09$ kpc and to the offset along the light of sight, $\sim0.13$ kpc, the distance $d_{AB}$ between Sgr B2 and Sgr A\* is about $\sim0.16$ kpc (Reid et al. 2009). Denoting the (isotropically-equivalent) X-ray luminosity of Sgr A\* by $\mathcal L_{A,X}$, and the luminosity of the 6.4-keV line emission from Sgr B2 by $\mathcal L_{B,6.4}$, respectively, their ratio can be roughly estimated as (Murakami et al. 2000) $$\begin{aligned}
\Re&\equiv&{\mathcal L_{B,\rm 6.4}\over \mathcal L_{A,X}}\nonumber\\
& =&{1\over4}\left({r_B\over d_{AB}}\right)^2e^{- \sigma(\geq7.1)
N_{\rm H,c} }\left(1-e^{-0.34\sigma_{\rm Fe}Z_{\rm Fe}N_{\rm
H,c}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times e^{-\sigma(6.4) N_{\rm
H,G}}\approx7.0\times10^{-6},\label{LAB relation}\end{aligned}$$ where the reflection is assumed to be isotropic. In Eq. (\[LAB relation\]) $\sigma(E)$ is the photoelectric absorption cross section per hydrogen atom for standard interstellar matter ($\sigma(\geq7.1)\approx2.4\times10^{-24}\rm~cm^2$ and $\sigma(6.4)\approx1.3\times10^{-24}\rm~cm^2$ (Morrison & McCammon 1983)), $\sigma_{\rm Fe}\approx3.7\times10^{-20}\rm ~cm^{2}$ (for $E\geq7.1$ keV) is the photoelectric absorption cross section of an iron atom (Rakavy & Ron 1967), the factor $0.34$ is the fluorescence probability, and $Z_{\rm Fe}\approx1.6Z_{\rm
Fe,\odot}\approx10^{-5}$ is the abundance of iron (Nobukawa et al. 2010). The Galactic absorption from the cloud to the observer is assumed to be $N_{\rm H,G}\approx6\times10^{22}\rm~H~cm^{-2}$ (Sakano et al. 1997), and from the intensity of the CS emission, which is directly correlated with the cloud mass, the column density of the Sgr B2 cloud can be inferred to be $N_{\rm H,c}\approx8\times10^{23}~\rm H~cm^{-2}$ (Tsuboi et al. 1999; Ponti et al. 2010). The interstellar absorption from Sgr A\* to the cloud is neglected. An improved model for the calculation of $\Re$ can be found in Murakami et al. (2000).
There have been several deep exposure and short survey observations of the Sgr B2 cloud with different satellites or instruments, such as [*ASCA, XMM-Newton, BeppoSAX, Chandra, Suzaku*]{}, and [*INTEGRAL*]{}. Some observational fluxes of the 6.4-keV line emission can be found from the literatures (e.g., Revnivtsev et al. (2004) and Inui et al. (2009)). They are of the order of magnitude of $\sim10^{-4}~\rm photons~s^{-1}~cm^{-2}$. With a distance $d_B\approx7.8^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$ kpc, the luminosity $\mathcal L_{B,6.4}$ can be calculated to be around $\sim10^{34}~\rm
erg~s^{-1}$. The specific observational data are shown in Figure 1. Combining this result with equation Eq. (\[LAB relation\]), we can estimate the order of magnitude of the luminosity of the source as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{A,X}={\mathcal L_{B,6.4}\over \Re}\sim 10^{39}~\rm
erg~s^{-1},\label{lax}\end{aligned}$$ which is much higher than the present luminosity of Sgr A\*, which is of the order of $\sim10^{33-35} \rm ~erg~ s^{-1}$ (Baganoff et al. 2003). Fig. 1 also shows some 6.4-keV line emission data, extrapolated from the $20-60$ keV continuum emission data from Terrier et al. (2010), by assuming that both the 6.4-keV line and the continuum emissions have the same trend, and that the different sets of 6.4-keV line emission data should be joined continuously. The apparent time variation exhibited by the data indicates that the source emission is likely to be a transient. This implies that about one hundred years ago a bright outburst had happened at Sgr A\*. The moment of the outburst can be obtained from the delay in the light travel time, due to the reflection by Sgr B2, given by ${\rm \sim(0.16~ kpc-0.13~
kpc)}/c$ .
Stellar tidal capture by Sgr A\* {#3}
================================
Observations show that at the center of Sgr A\* there is a supermassive BH , with a mass of $4\times10^6~M_{\odot}$ (see the review by Genzel & Karas 2007). In the close vicinity of Sgr A\* (less than 0.04 pc from it), about 35 low-mass stars ($1-3~M_{\odot}$) and about 10 massive stars ($3-15~M_{\odot}$) are present (see Alexander & Livio 2004). Hence, the past outburst probably indicates a (partial) capture of a star by Sgr A\*. When a star gets very close to a supermassive BH, it will experience tidal distortions, and even disruptions. The strength of a tidal encounter can be defined by the square root of the ratio between the surface gravity and the tidal acceleration at the pericenter, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta=\left({R_p^3\over GM_{\bullet}R_{\star}}{GM_{\star}\over
R_{\star}^2}\right)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $G$, $R_p$, $M_{\star}$, $R_{\star}$, $M_{\bullet}$ are Newton’s constant, the pericentric distance, the stellar mass, the stellar radius, and the BH’s mass, respectively. If $M_{\bullet}>10^8~M_{\odot}$, and for a sufficiently small $R_p$, the star would directly fall into the BH’s event horizon, without emitting any significant amount of energy. However, for a BH such as Sgr A\*, the star would disrupt when $\eta< 1$, which corresponds to $$\begin{aligned}
R_{p}&<&R_T= R_{\star}\left({M_{\bullet}\over
M_{\star}}\right)^{1/3}\nonumber\\
&=&7.0\times10^{12}{~\rm cm}~\left({M_{\bullet}\over
10^6M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/3}\left({M_{\star}\over
M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1/3}\left({R_{\star}\over R_{\odot}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $R_T$ is called the tidal radius. On the other hand, for somewhat larger pericentric separations ($\eta>1$), the star avoids total disruption, but it may lose parts of its envelope, which are captured by the BH. The stripped star, having positive energy, escapes from the system. We denote the capture fraction of the total stellar mass by $\xi$.
After the disruption or stripping, the bound material follows a highly eccentric orbit, and after completing one orbit it returns to the central BH. A circular transient accretion disk forms, producing a transient black body emission. The emission reaches a peak when most of the material first returns to the pericenter, after a time $1.5~t_{\min}$, where (Ulmer 1999) $$\begin{aligned}
t_{\min}&=&{2\pi R_p^3\over(GM_{\bullet})^{1/2}(2R_{\star})^{3/2}}\nonumber\\
&=&0.1~{\rm yr}~\left({R_p\over R_T}\right)^{3}\left({M_{\rm
BH}\over 10^6M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/2}\left({M_{\star}\over
M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1}\left({R_{\star}\over
R_{\odot}}\right)^{3/2}.\label{tmin}\end{aligned}$$ We can use this timescale to estimate the accretion rate, and the corresponding bolometric luminosity of the disk, as $\dot{M}=( 2\xi
M_{\star}/3t_{\min})(t/t_{\min})^{-5/3}$, and $\mathcal L_{\rm
disk}=\epsilon\dot{M}c^2$, respectively, where $\epsilon$ is the radiation efficiency, which is usually taken to be $\sim$10%. However, for an accretion rate much lower than the Eddington rate, the accretion flow is likely to be radiatively inefficient (e.g., Yuan, Quataert & Narayan 2003). In this case most of the thermal energy released by viscosity, and increased by compression, will be retained in the gas, and advected to the BH. Therefore we could have a very small $\epsilon\ll$10%. Moreover, since the frequency with which a solar type star passes within a distance $R_T$ is about $10^{-4}-10^{-5}\rm~ yr^{-1}$ (Rees 1988), the capture event that happened one hundred years ago is quite unlikely to be a full capture, i.e., $\xi\ll 1$.
Therefore the peak value of the disk luminosity can be estimated as (Ulmer 1999) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm disk, p}&=&3.4\times10^{44}~{\rm erg~s^{-1}}~\left({\epsilon\over 0.01}\right)\left({\xi\over 0.1}\right)\left({R_p\over R_T}\right)^{-3}\nonumber\\
&&\times \left({M_{\bullet}\over
10^6M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1/2}\left({M_{\star}\over
M_{\odot}}\right)^{2}\left({R_{\star}\over R_{\odot}}\right)^{-3/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Since this bolometric luminosity is very high, the disk emission could be an appropriate source for the X-ray echo emission of Sgr B2. Unfortunately, most of the disk energy will be actually released into an energy band much lower than hard X-rays, as can be seen in some stellar-capture-like flares, found in UV/optical detections (e.g., Gezari et al. 2008, 2009). Moreover, a UV flare detected at the center of a mildly active elliptical galaxy, NGC 4552, even indicates a candidate for a partial capture event (Renzini et al. 1995). Theoretically, we can also give an upper limit for the disk temperature associated with an Eddington luminosity, $\mathcal L_E=1.5\times10^{38}{\rm
erg~s^{-1}}(M_{\bullet}/M_{\odot})$, emitted from the tidal radius (Ulmer 1999), $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm eff}&=&\left({\mathcal L_E\over 4\pi
R_T^2\sigma}\right)^{1/4}\nonumber\\
&=&22~{\rm eV}~\left({M_{\bullet}\over
10^6M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/12}\left({M_{\star}\over
M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/6}\left({R_{\star}\over
R_{\odot}}\right)^{-1/2}\end{aligned}$$ or from the Schwarzschild radius (Ulmer 1999), $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm eff}=\left[{\mathcal L_E\over 4\pi
(5R_s)^2\sigma}\right]^{1/4}=48~{\rm eV}~\left({M_{\bullet}\over
10^6M_{\odot}}\right)^{-1/4},\end{aligned}$$ where we have neglected a factor of the order of unity. The above equations may underestimate the real temperature in the disk, but the luminosity in the partial capture is also lower than the Eddington luminosity. Therefore, it seems difficult for the disk emission to provide sufficient X-ray photons with energy $>7.1$ keV to excite the strong 6.4-keV line emission of the clouds.
The strong UV emission can still influence the environment of Sgr A\*[^1]. Taking Sgr B2 as an example, we can estimate the mean free path of a UV photon with energy $\varepsilon_{\rm UV}\sim k_BT_{\rm eff}\sim 20$ eV in the cloud as $l=(\sigma_a n_H)^{-1}= 2.3\times10^{13}$cm, where the number density of neutral hydrogens is $n_H\sim
N_{H,c}/(2r_B)=1.8\times10^4~\rm cm^{-3}$, and the photoionization absorption cross section can be expressed as $\sigma_a\approx2.5\times10^{-18}(\varepsilon_{\rm UV}/20\rm
eV)^{-3}$ (Lang 1980). This indicates that if the layer is so hot that it can be fully ionized, the UV photons can only penetrate into a very thin surface layer of the cloud. In view of the small thermal capacity of the layer, $\sim10^{41}\rm erg~K^{-1}$, it is indeed very easy to heat the layer to high temperatures, as long as a small fraction of the UV energy is converted into thermal energy. For example, the ionized electrons can lose their kinetic energy to heat the plasma. After being continuously irradiated by the UV flare for a few months, the total mass of the fully ionized envelope of the cloud, exposed to Sgr A\*, can be estimated as $M_{\rm
ion}\sim{N_{UV}}\left({r_B^2/4d_{AB}^2}\right)m_H=25 M_{\odot}$, where $N_{UV}\sim (1.5L_{\rm disk, p}t_{\rm min}/\varepsilon_{\rm UV})$ is the total number of the photons, $m_H$ is the mass of hydrogen atom, and we assume that each UV photon ionizes one hydrogen atom. Consequently, the width of the ionized envelope is about $\Delta\sim M_{\rm ion}/(2\pi r_B^2 n_H m_H)=5.2\times10^{14} {\rm
cm}= 23 ~l$, which means that only an extremely small fraction $\Delta/r_B=2.3\times10^{-5}$ of the cloud can be ionized by the UV flare. Finally, due to the high temperature of the ionized region, the ionized material may be able to ultimately evaporate from the cloud and mix with the surrounding plasmas. What can be the appropriate X-ray source in this stellar-partial-capture model? Similarly to the active galactic nuclei, one may suggest that the Compton up-scattering of the soft disk photons by a hot corona can produce strong hard X-ray emission. This is a reasonable scenario, but unfortunately it is not clear when and how a hot corona can be formed, and even whether there will be a corona, since the disk is very short-lived and strongly time-dependent. Even if a corona accompanying the disk can indeed be formed, the temporal behavior of the corona emission still should basically follow the behavior of the disk emission, whose variability timescale (see Eq. 6) is however much shorter than 10 years. Alternatively, as suggested by Cheng et al. (2006), a jet could be generated during the capture event. This can be suggested from the fact that accreting BHs in microquasars sometimes are accompanied by jet emission. Although in the high/soft state of microquasars the jet formation is highly suppressed (Fender et al. 1999; Gallo et al. 2003), the evidences for jet emission are solid enough in the low state (e.g. Gallo et al. 2003) and in the “very high" state (e.g. Fender 2003; Fender & Maccarone 2004). Therefore, we suggest that the source emission could be produced by the jet.
Shock emission arising from the jet deceleration {#4}
================================================
If a jet was indeed ejected during the past capture event, a shock would be produced from the interaction of the jet outflow with the interstellar medium. Using such a jet shock emission, Wong et al. (2007) explained the transient X-ray and optical data from some nearby normal galactic nuclei, where a capture event may had also occurred. Due to the motion of the jet outflow, the ambient interstellar medium is gradually swept up by the shock, and simultaneously the outflow is decelerated. We denote the deceleration timescale of the outflow by $T_{\rm d}$. Before $T_{\rm d}$, the outflow coasts, and due to the accumulation of the shocked medium the emission of the shock increases. After $T_{\rm d}$, the emission is weakened due to the significant deceleration of the outflow. In other words, the shock emission would arrive at the peak at around $T_{\rm d}$, and the increasing time of the emission roughly reflects the deceleration timescale of the outflow (see Equation (\[nuLnu\])). Therefore, according to the observational data, shown in Fig. 1, it seems acceptable to take decades as a fiducial value for $T_{\rm d}$.
Hence we can use $T_{\rm d}\sim10$ yr to find out whether initially the outflow moves at a relativistic or non-relativistic velocity. For an outflow with an isotropically-equivalent energy $\mathcal
E_{}$,[^2] we first define a critical mass as $\mathcal M_{\rm of,c}=\mathcal
E/c^2=5.6\times10^{-5}M_{\odot}~\mathcal E_{ 50}$. Hereafter, the convention $Q_x=Q/10^x$ is adopted in cgs units, except for the mass that is expressed in units of $M_{\odot}$. Obviously, if the mass of the outflow $\mathcal M_{\rm of}<\mathcal M_{\rm of,c}$, the outflow has initially a relativistic velocity, with a Lorentz factor of $\Gamma_i=\mathcal E_{}/(\mathcal M_{\rm of}c^2)$. In this case, the deceleration time can be defined as $\Gamma_i^2\mathcal M_{\rm
sw,d}c^2=\mathcal E_{\rm}$ with $\mathcal M_{\rm sw,d}={4\over 3}\pi
R_{\rm d}^3 nm_p$ and $R_{\rm d}=2\Gamma_i^2cT_{\rm
d}$,[^3] where $n$ is the number density of the ambient medium, $\mathcal M_{\rm sw}$ is the total mass of the swept-up medium, $R$ is the radius of the shock, $m_p$ is the mass of proton, and $c$ is the speed of light. The above equations yield $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm d}=\left({3\mathcal E_{}\over32\pi
nm_pc^5\Gamma_i^8}\right)^{1/3}= 2.0\times10^4{\rm~ s}~\mathcal E_{
50}^{-7/3}\mathcal M_{\rm of,-5}^{8/3}n_{1}^{-1/3},\end{aligned}$$ where we take $n\sim10~\rm cm^{-3}$ as a fiducial value[^4]. On the other hand, if $\mathcal
M_{\rm of}>\mathcal M_{\rm of,c}$, the outflow would be non-relativistic, with a velocity of $V_i=(2\mathcal E_{}/\mathcal
M_{\rm of})^{1/2}$. In this case, we can obtain $T_{\rm d}$ from the equations ${1\over2}\mathcal M_{\rm sw,d}V_i^2=\mathcal
E_{},~\mathcal M_{\rm sw,d}={4\over 3}\pi R_{\rm d}^3 nm_p$, and $R_{\rm d}=V_iT_{\rm d}$, respectively, as $$\begin{aligned}
T_{\rm d}=\left({3\mathcal E_{}\over2\pi nm_pV_i^5}\right)^{1/3}=
1.4\times10^9{\rm~ s}~\mathcal E_{ 50}^{-1/2}\mathcal M_{\rm
of,-1}^{5/6}n_{1}^{-1/3}.\label{tdec2}\end{aligned}$$ For $T_{\rm d}\sim10{~\rm yr}$, the relativistic case requires $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal E_{}>4.3\times10^{56}{\rm~ erg}~n_1T_{\rm d,8.5}^{3},\end{aligned}$$ a condition which is physically unacceptable. In contrast, the non-relativistic case yields a more reasonable result, $$\begin{aligned}
V_i(\mathcal E_{})&=&2.5\times10^{9}~{\rm cm~s^{-1}}~\mathcal
E_{50}^{1/5}n_1^{-1/5}T_{\rm
d,8.5}^{-3/5},\label{vejh}\\
\mathcal M_{\rm of}(\mathcal
E_{})&=&1.7\times10^{-2}~M_{\odot}~\mathcal E_{
50}^{3/5}n_1^{2/5}T_{\rm d,8.5}^{6/5},\label{mejh}\end{aligned}$$ which is only mildly dependent on the uncertain model parameter $\mathcal E_{}$. The dynamic evolution of the non-relativistic adiabatic shock is determined by the energy conservation law ${1\over2}\mathcal M_{\rm
sw}V^2=\mathcal E$, which gives $$V(t)=V_i\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{t}^0,&\tilde{t}<1, \\
\tilde{t}^{-3/5},&\tilde{t}>1
\end{array}\right.,$$ where $\tilde{t}\equiv (t-t_0)/T_{\rm d}$, with $t_0$ being the initial time of the capture event. The deceleration timescale $T_{\rm d}$ is defined by Eq. (\[tdec2\]). This is the well-known Sedov solution (Sedov 1969). When the shock propagates through the medium, the energy density behind the shock is given by (Lang 1980) $$\begin{aligned}
e={9\over8}nm_pV^2.\end{aligned}$$ By assuming that a fraction $\epsilon_B$ of the internal energy is in form of magnetic energy, the magnetic field strength can be estimated as $B=(8\pi \epsilon_Be)^{1/2}$. The shock-accelerated electrons are assumed to have a power-law distribution of the kinetic energy $(\gamma-1)m_ec^2$, with a minimum Lorentz factor $\gamma_m$ given by (Huang & Cheng 2003) $$\begin{aligned}
{dN_e\over d\bar{\gamma}} \propto {\bar{\gamma}}^{-p},&~{\rm for~}
\bar{\gamma}\geq\bar{\gamma}_m,\end{aligned}$$ where for simplicity $\bar{\gamma}\equiv\gamma-1$ is defined as an effective Lorentz factor, and $p\simeq2.2$ is the spectral index (Gallant et al. 2002). If the internal energy of the electrons is a small fraction $\epsilon_e\sim 0.1$ of the total internal energy (smaller than that of the protons), we can obtain the value of $\bar{\gamma}_m$ as (Dai & Lu 2001) $$\bar{\gamma}_m={9\over32}\epsilon_e{p-2\over p-1}{m_p\over
m_e}\left(V\over c\right)^2 =\bar{\gamma}_{m,\rm d}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{t}^0,&\tilde{t}<1, \\
\tilde{t}^{-6/5},&\tilde{t}>1
\end{array}\right.,\label{gm}$$ where $\bar{\gamma}_{m,\rm d}=0.06~\epsilon_{e,-1}\mathcal E_{
50}^{2/5}n_{1}^{-2/5}T_{\rm d,8.5}^{-6/5}$. Considering the synchrotron cooling[^5] of the electrons with power $P(\gamma)={4\over3}\sigma_Tc(\gamma^2-1){B^2\over8\pi}$, a critical cooling Lorentz factor can be determined by $\bar{\gamma} m_e
c^2=P(\gamma) t$ to be $$\gamma_c={6\pi m_e c\over\sigma_TB^2t}=\gamma_{c,\rm d}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{t}^{-1},&\tilde{t}<1, \\
\tilde{t}^{1/5},&\tilde{t}>1
\end{array}\right.,\label{gc}$$ where $\gamma_{c,\rm d}=8.5\times10^3~\epsilon_{B,-1}^{-1}\mathcal
E_{ 50}^{-2/5}n_{1}^{-3/5}T_{\rm d, 8.5}^{1/5}\gg1$. Within the time $t$ an electron with an initial Lorentz factor $\gamma>\gamma_c$ would quickly cool down below $\gamma_c$. Therefore, the spectral index of the net electron distribution above $\gamma_c$ becomes $p+1$, and a radiation spectrum of the form $\nu^{-p/2}$ can be produced by these radiative electrons (Sari et al. 1998).
The peak spectral power of an electron can be obtained from the ratio of the total power and of the synchrotron characteristic frequency (Sari et al. 1998) $$P_{\nu,
\max}\approx{P(\gamma)\over\nu(\gamma)}={\sigma_Tm_ec^2\over3q}B\beta^2.\label{pnu}$$ $P_{\nu,
\max}$ is independent of $\gamma$. Then, for $\nu>\nu_c$, the normalized radiation spectrum can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm sh}=\nu
{N_{e,>\gamma_c}P_{\nu,\max}}\left({\nu\over\nu_c}\right)^{-p/2},\label{Lshspectrum}
$$ where the characteristic frequency, corresponding to the $\gamma_c$-electrons, is given by $$\nu_c={q\over2\pi m_ec}B\gamma_c^2=\nu_{c,\rm d}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{t}^{-2},&\tilde{t}<1, \\
\tilde{t}^{-1/5},&\tilde{t}>1.
\end{array}\right.\label{nuc}$$ where $\nu_{c,\rm d}=3.5\times10^{12}~{\rm
Hz}~\epsilon_{B,-1}^{-3/2}\mathcal E_{ 50}^{-3/5}n_1^{-9/10}T_{\rm
d, 8.5}^{-1/5}\ll \nu_X\sim10^{18}$ Hz. The spectral index $p/2$ is perfectly consistent with the observational index (Terrier et al. 2010). The number of the electrons above $\gamma_c$ can be obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
N_{e,>\gamma_c}={4\over3}\pi
R^3n\left({\bar{\gamma}_c\over\bar{\gamma}_m}\right)^{-(p-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed frequency $\nu_X\sim 10^{18}$ Hz, Eq. (\[Lshspectrum\]) gives the evolution of the X-ray luminosity as $$\mathcal L_{\rm sh,X}=\mathcal L_{\rm sh,X,d}\times\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\tilde{t}^{2},&\tilde{t}<1, \\
\tilde{t}^{-(3p-4)/2},&\tilde{t}>1
\end{array}\right.,\label{nuLnu}$$ where the peak value at $T_{\rm d}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L_{\rm sh,X,d}&=&7.8\times10^{37}{~\rm
erg~s^{-1}}~\epsilon_{e,-1}^{p-1}\epsilon_{B,-1}^{(p-2)/4}\nonumber\\
&&\times \mathcal E_{
50}^{p/2}n_{1}^{(2-p)/4}\nu_{X,18}^{(2-p)/2}T_{\rm d,
8.5}^{(4-3p)/2}.\label{lxdec}\end{aligned}$$ The fitting to the observational data, obtained by using Eq. (\[nuLnu\]), is shown by the solid line in Fig. 1, where $\mathcal L_{\rm sh,X,d}=(1.1\times10^{34}/\Re) ~\rm erg~s^{-1}$. The confrontation between the model and the observations shows that most of the data can be well explained by this simple jet shock emission model. Only the [*BeppoSAX*]{} data (diamond) do not fit with the fitting line.
Taking into account that the jet may be concentrated within a narrow cone, we introduce a beaming factor $f_b$, and denote the beaming-corrected energy of the jet by $E_{\rm jet}$. Then we can solve the equation $f_b\mathcal L_{\rm sh,X,d}(\mathcal E)=\mathcal
L_{A,X,\rm peak}\sim 10^{39}~\rm erg~s^{-1}$ with $\mathcal E=E_{\rm
jet}/f_b$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\rm
jet}&=&0.8\times10^{51}{\rm erg}~f_{b,-1}^{(p-2)/p}
\epsilon_{e,-1}^{2(1-p)/p}\epsilon_{B,-1}^{(2-p)/2p}\nonumber\\
&& \times\mathcal L_{A,X,\rm
peak,39}^{2/p}n_1^{(p-2)/2p}\nu_{18}^{(p-2)/p}T_{\rm
d,8.5}^{(3p-4)/p},\end{aligned}$$ where the emission from the beamed jet is assumed to be isotropic. Moreover, substituting $\mathcal E=E_{\rm jet}/f_b$ into Eqs. (\[vejh\]) and (\[mejh\]), we further obtain $$\begin{aligned}
V_{i}& =&6.0\times10^{9}{\rm
cm~s^{-1}}~f_{b,-1}^{-2/5p},\\M_{\rm
jet}&=&f_{b}\mathcal M_{\rm of}=0.02~M_{\odot}~f_{b,-1}^{(5p-6)/5p},$$ where $\epsilon_{e,-1}=\epsilon_{B,-1}=\mathcal L_{A,X,\rm
peak,39}=n_1=\nu_{X,18}=T_{\rm d,8.5}=1$. By assuming that a fraction $\zeta$ (typically $1-10$%; Yuan et al. 2005) of the total accreted stellar matter can be ejected into the jet, the mass loss of the star can be estimated to be $\sim0.2~M_{\odot}~f_{b,-1}^{(5p-6)/5p}\zeta_{-1}^{-1}$, which can be reduced if the jet emission is anisotropic. All of the above results show that one can choose the jet as the hard X-ray source.
It should be noticed that the above analytical calculations are some rough approximations. For example, the realistic transition in the light curve from the increasing phase to the decreasing phase would be much smoother. In this case the [*BeppoSAX*]{} data could be understood. Moreover, we do not consider the sideway expansion of the jet. If we take ${c_s={1\over4} V_i}$ as the upper limit of the sound speed of the shocked medium, the timescale of the sideway expansion of the jet can be estimated as $2\sqrt{f_b}R_d/c_s\sim
2T_d$. This timescale indicates that about few decades later the jet will become nearly isotropic diffuse material, which will appear as a new component of the environment of Sgr A\*, within a region of a few tens of arcseconds. Hence, it is nearly impossible to image the jet one hundred years after the capture event. Nevertheless, on much longer timescales, the interaction of these BH-ejected diffuse materials with the initial diffuse surrounding medium could still play an important role in the GC diffuse X-ray, gamma-ray, 511 keV annihilation line emissions, and in the heating of the surrounding plasma, which had been thoroughly studied in Cheng et al. (2006, 2007) and Dogiel et al. (2009a, b, c).
In addition to Sgr B2, the jet emission can, at least in principle, also influence the other molecular clouds around Sgr A\*, but such an influence mostly depends on the distances between the clouds and Sgr A\*. Consequently, some clouds reflect the increasing emission, while some others reflect the decreasing emission. More importantly, the emission from the beamed jet is probably highly anisotropic, at least during the first decades, although for simplicity the isotropic approximation is adopted in our calculations. So the reflection by different clouds could be strongly dependent on their viewing angles with respect to the direction of motion of the jet. In addition, the different properties and environments of the different clouds, can also lead to a great diversity of the reflection emission. To a certain extent, Sgr B2 could have a very particular position, just in front of the jet. The distance of the cloud to Sgr A\* makes it possible to detect both the increasing and the decreasing emission phases.
Conclusion and discussion {#5}
=========================
In the framework of the X-ray reflection model for the 6.4-keV line emission from Sgr B, we propose that the external X-ray source could be associated with a stellar partial capture event at Sgr A\*. A qualitative comparison between the observational and theoretical timescales and luminosities further shows that the source emission is likely to be produced by the shock produced by the jet deceleration (but not by the accretion disk). The inferred energy, mass, and velocity of the jet show that (i) the jet has a low-energy ($\sim10^{51}\rm erg$), and it is non-relativistic ($\sim0.1c$) and (ii) the star could be only partially stripped, rather than totally disrupted, corresponding to a capture fraction of $\xi\sim
0.2~M_{\star,0}^{-1}f_{b,-1}^{(5p-6)/5p}\zeta_{-1}^{-1}$.
It has been suggested for a long time that supermassive BHs in relatively low luminosity active galactic nuclei can be fed by the tidal capture of stars. However, direct observational evidence for such capture processes is lacking. The investigation in this paper shows that, in view of the short distance to the GC, it may be worthwhile and feasible to carefully observe the GC region to find clues to some historical capture events, even though now Sgr A\* is quiescent, with an X-ray luminosity of only $\sim10^{33-34}\rm~erg~s^{-1}$ (Baganoff et al. 2003).
Finally, we would like to point out some alternative scenarios for the X-ray source, e.g., (i) Fryer et al. (2006) suggested that the X-ray source could be due to a supernova shock hitting the $50 \rm km~ s^{-1}$ molecular cloud behind, and to the east, of Sgr A\*. The last vestige of this interaction is visible now as Sgr A East; (ii) Cuadra et al. (2008) found that shocks produced by stellar winds can create cold clumps of gas, the accretion of which onto Sgr A\* would produce for a decade intervals of activity with luminosity as high as $10^{39} ~\rm erg~ s^{-1}$. The wind-clump-capture model may have some similarities to our stellar-partial-capture model. But in the present paper we have considered a more detailed analysis of the physical processes after the matter capture by the black hole, and which could be directly responsible for the X-ray emission.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Dr. Tong Liu for useful discussions, Dr. T. Harko for a critical reading of the manuscript, and the anonymous referee for valuable suggestions that helped us to improve the paper. This work is supported by the GRF Grants of the Government of the Hong Kong SAR under HKU 7011/10P. YWY is also partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 10773004). DOC and VAD are supported by the RFBR grant 08-02-00170-a, the NSC-RFBR Joint Research Project RP09N04 and 09-02-92000-HHC-a.
Alexander, T. 2005, Phys. Rept. 419, 65
Alexander, T. & Livio, M., 2001, [ApJ]{}, 560, L143
Alexander, T., & Livio, M. 2004, [ApJ]{}, 606, 21
Baganoff, F. K., Maeda, Y., Morris, M., et al. 2003, [ApJ]{}, 591, 891
Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F., 1976, Phys. Fluids., 19, 1130
Carr, J. S., Sellgren, K. & Balachandran, S. C., 2000, [ApJ]{}, 530, 307
Cheng, K. S., Chernyshov, D. O., & Dogiel, V. A. 2006, [ApJ]{}, 645, 1138
Cheng, K. S., Chernyshov, D. O., & Dogiel, V. A. 2007, [A&A]{}, 473, 351
Cuadra, J., Nayakshin, S., & Martins, F. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 458
Dai, Z. G., & Lu, T. 2001, A&A, 367, 501
Dahmen, G., Huttemeister, S., Wilson, T. L., & Mauersberger, R. 1998, [A&A]{}, 331, 959
de Vicente, P., Martin-Pintado, J., & Wilson, T. L. 1997, A&A, 320, 957
Dogiel, V. A., Tatischeff, V., Cheng, K. S., Chernyshov, D. O., Ko, C. M., & Ip, W. H. 2009a, [A&A]{}, 508, 1
Dogiel, V.A., Cheng, K.S., Chernyshov, D. O., Bamba, A., Ichimura, A., Inoue, H., Ko, C.M. et al. 2009b, [PASJ]{}, 61, 901
Dogiel, V. A., Chernyshov, D. O., Koyama, K. & Nobukawa, M., 2010, PASJ, submitted
Dogiel, V. A., Chernyshov, D.O., Yuasa, T., Cheng, K. S., Bamba, A., Inoue, H., Ko, C.M., Kokubun, M., et. al. 2009c, [PASJ]{}, 61, 1093
Dogiel, V. A., Chernyshov, D. O., Yuasa, T., Prokhorov, D., Cheng, K.S., Bamba, A., Inoue, H. et al. 2009d, [PASJ]{}, 61, 1099
Donley, J. L., Brandt, W. N., Eracleous, M., & Boller, T. 2002, [AJ]{}, 124, 1308
Fender, R. 2003, \[arXiv:astro-ph/0303339\]
Fender, R., & Maccarone, T. 2004, in Cosmic Gamma-Ray Sources, ed. K. S. Cheng & Romero G. E. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers), 205
Fender, R., Corbel, S., & Tzioumis, T., et al. 1999, ApJ, 519, L165
Fryer, C. L., Rockefeller, G., Hungerford, A., & Melia, F. 2006, ApJ, 638, 786
Gallant, Y. A., van der Swaluw, E., Kirk, J. G., & Achterberg, A. 2002, Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 271, held in Boston, MA, USA, 14-17 August 2001. Edited by Patrick O. Slane and Bryan M. Gaensler. San Francisco: ASP, p.99
Gallo, E., Fender, R. P., & Pooley, G. G. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 60
Genzel, R., & Karas, V. 2007, Black Holes from Stars to Galaxies — Across the Range of Masses. Edited by V. Karas and G. Matt. Proceedings of IAU Symposium \#238, held 21-25 August, 2006 in Prague, Czech Republic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007., pp.173-180 \[arXiv: 0704.1281\]
Gezari, S., Basa, S., Martin, D. C., et al. 2008, ApJ, 676, 944
Gezari, S., Heckman, T., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2009, ApJ, 698, 1367
Huang, Y. F., & Cheng, K. S. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 263
Inui, T., Koyama, K., Matsumoto, H., Tsuru, T. G. 2009, PASJ, 61, S241
Ivanov, Yu. B., Russkikh, V. N., & Toneev, V. D. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 73, 044904
Jean, P., Knödlseder, J., Gillard, W., Guessoum, N., Ferri¨¨re, K., Marcowith, A., Lonjou, V., & Roques, J. P. 2006, A&A, 445, 579
Koyama, K. et al. 2007a, [PASJ]{}, 59, S245
Koyama, K., Awaki, H., Kunieda, H., Takano, S., & Tawara, Y. 1989, [Nature]{}, 339, 603
Koyama, K., Maeda, Y., Sonobe, T., Takeshima, T., Tanaka, Y., & Yamauchi, S. 1996, [PASJ]{}, 48, 249
Koyama, K. et al. 2007b, [PASJ]{}, 59, S221
Lang, K. R. 1980, Astrophysical Formulae. A Compendium for the Physicist and Astrophysicist, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, p302
Li, L. X., Narayan, R., & Menou, K. 2002, [ApJ]{}, 576, 753
Morris, M., & Serabyn, E. 1996, [ARA&A]{}, 34, 645 Morrison, R., & McCammon, D. 1983, [ApJ]{}, 270, 119
Murakami, H., Koyama, K., & Maeda, Y. 2001, [ApJ]{}, 558, 687
Murakami, H., Koyama, K., Sakano, M., Tsujimoto, M., Maeda, Y. 2000, ApJ, 534, 283
Nobukawa, M., et al. 2010, PASJ, arXiv: 1004.3891
Ponti, G., et al. 2010, [ApJ]{}, 714, 732
Predehl, P., Costantini, E., Hasinger, G., & Tanaka, Y. 2003, Astronomische Nachrichten, 324, 73
Rakavy, G., & Ron, A. 1967, Phys. Rev., 159, 50
Rees, M. J. 1988, [Nature]{}, 333, 532
Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Zheng, X. W., Brunthaler, A., & Xu, Y. 2009, [ApJ]{}, 705, 1548
Renzini, A., Greggio, L., di Serego Alighieri, S., Cappellari, M., Burstein, D., & Bertola, F. 1995, Nature, 378, 39
Revnivtsev, M. G., et al. 2004, [A&A]{}, 425, L49
Sakano, M., et al. 1997, in IAU symp. 184, The Central Regions of the Galaxy and Galaxies, ed. Y. Sofue (London: Kluwer), 21
Sari, R., & Esin, A. A, 2001, ApJ, 548, 787
Sari, R., Piran, T., & Narayan, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17
Sedov, L. 1969, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics (New York: Academic), chap. 4
Sunyaev, R. A., Markevitch, M., & Pavlinsky, M. 1993, [ApJ]{}, 407, 606
Sunyaev, R. A., & Churazov, E. 1998, [MNRAS]{}, 297, 1279
Terrier, R., Ponti, G., Bélanger, G., et al. 2010, [ApJ]{}, accepted. arXiv: 1005.4807
Tsuboi, M., Handa, T., & Ukita, N. 1999, ApJS, 120, 1
Ulmer, A. 1999, [ApJ]{}, 514, 180
Wong, A. Y. L., Huang, Y. F., & Cheng, K. S. 2007, A&A, 472, 93
Yamauchi, S., Kawada, M., Koyama, K., Kunieda, H., & Tawara, Y. 1990, [ApJ]{}, 365, 532
Yuan, F., Quataert, E. & Narayan, R. 2003, ApJ, 598, 301
Yuan, F., Cui, W., & Narayan, R. 2005, ApJ, 620, 905
Yusef-Zadeh, F., Muno, M., Wardle, M., & Lis, D. C. 2007, [ApJ]{}, 656, 847
[^1]: We would like to point out in advance that the UV emission could be generated about ten years earlier than the hard X-ray emission, since the latter is probably produced by a jet shock, whose emission reaches its peak about ten years after the capture event (see the next section).
[^2]: $\mathcal E_{}$ represents the total energy of the outflow including its rest energy in the relativistic case, but only the kinetic energy in the non-relativistic case.
[^3]: The subscribe “d" represents the values of the quantities at the deceleration time $T_{\rm d}$. For a relativistic shock, the internal energy of the shocked medium in its comoving frame can be estimated by $E_{\rm in}=(\Gamma_i-1)\mathcal M_{\rm
sw,d}c^2$ according to the shock jump condition (Blandford & Mckee 1976). So the total energy of the shocked medium can be expressed by $\mathcal E=\Gamma_i(E_{\rm in}+M_{\rm sw,d}c^2)=\Gamma_i^2\mathcal
M_{\rm sw,d}c^2$.
[^4]: Actually the gas density distribution in the GC region is complicated. According to Jean et al. (2006), the bulge region inside the radius $\sim230$ pc and height 45 pc contains $7\times10^7~M_{\odot}$. A total of 90% of this mass is trapped in small high density clouds (as high as $10^{3}~\rm cm^{-3}$), while the remaining 10% is homogeneously distributed with an average density $\sim10~\rm cm^{-3}$.
[^5]: Following Sari & Esin (2001), we can estimate the radiation density as $u_{\gamma}=(\gamma_c/\gamma_m)^{2-p}\epsilon_ee$ (representing here an upper limit ), while the energy density of the magnetic fields is $u_{B}=B^2/8\pi=\epsilon_Be$. Then the ratio of the luminosity of the inverse-Compton radiation to the synchrotron luminosity is given by $u_{\gamma}/u_B=(\epsilon_e/\epsilon_B)(\gamma_c/\gamma_m)^{2-p}\sim0.1$, which is much smaller than one. Therefore, in this paper we would not consider the inverse-Compton scattering of the electrons.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper gives a general treatment and proof of the direct conservation law method presented in Part I (see [@partI]). In particular, the treatment here applies to finding the local conservation laws of any system of one or more partial differential equations expressed in a standard / form. A summary of the general method and its effective computational implementation is also given.'
author:
- 'STEPHENC.ANCO$\,^1$'
- 'GEORGEBLUMAN$\,^2$'
title: |
Direct construction method for conservation\
laws of partial differential equations. Part II:\
General treatment
---
\#1[(\[\#1\])]{} \#1\#2[(\[\#1\]) and (\[\#2\])]{} \#1\#2[(\[\#1\]) to (\[\#2\])]{} \#1\#2[(\[\#1\]), (\[\#2\])]{}
\#1[Eq. (\[\#1\])]{} \#1\#2[Eqs. (\[\#1\]) and (\[\#2\])]{} \#1\#2[Eqs. (\[\#1\]) to (\[\#2\])]{} \#1\#2[Eqs. (\[\#1\]), (\[\#2\])]{}
\#1[Sec. \[\#1\]]{} \#1\#2[Sec. \[\#1\] and \[\#2\]]{}
\#1[Appendix \[\#1\]]{}
\#1[Ref. ]{}
\#1[${\mathstrut}^{\cite{#1}}$]{}
\#1[Table \[\#1\]]{}
\#1[Fig. \[\#1\]]{}
\#1
[*[\#1]{}*]{}
\#1\#2[\^\_[\#1]{}\_\^[\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2[\_\^[\#1]{}\^\_[\#2]{}]{} \#1\#2[\^[\#1]{}\_[\#2]{}]{} \#1[\^\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\_\^[\#1]{}]{}
\#1
\#1\#2[ ]{} \#1\#2\#3[ ]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[ ]{} \#1\#2[/]{} \#1\#2[\^[\#1]{}/()\^[\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2\#3\#4[\^[\#1]{}[\#2]{}/]{} \#1[/]{} \#1\#2\#3[\^[\#1]{}/]{}
\#1[x\^[\#1]{}]{} u\#1[u]{} \#1[u]{} \#1 \#1\#2[u]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2\#3[\#1]{} \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3\#4
\#1[D]{} \#1[G]{} \#1\#2\#3[([L]{}\_[\#1]{})]{} \#1\#2\#3[([L]{}\^\*\_[\#1]{})]{} \#1 \#1 \#1 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2
\#1
\#1[g]{} \#1\#2\#3 \#1\#2
\#1[M]{} ¶\#1 §\#1[S]{} \#1 \#1[A]{} \#1[T]{} \#1\#2[C]{}
\#1[w]{} v\#1[v]{} \#1[W]{} \#1[V]{} \#1[W]{} \#1\#2[v]{}
\#1[[U]{}]{} \#1[[u]{}]{} \#1\#2[[u]{}]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2\#3 \#1[u]{} \#1
\#1\#2
\#1[[X]{}\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2[E\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2 \#1\#2[[E]{}\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[E\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[E]{}\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1\#2[D]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1\#2[\^[\#2]{}\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[D]{} \#1[D]{} \#1[[D]{}]{} \#1\#2[[D]{}]{}
\#1[u\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[u]{}\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1 \#1[v\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[[L]{}\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[L]{}\^\*\_[\#1]{}]{}
/[partial differential equation]{} /[differential equation]{} /[conservation law]{} /[adjoint system]{} /[adjoint invariance condition]{} /[extra system]{} /[direct conservation law method]{} /[Cauchy-Kovalevskaya]{}
/[i.e.]{} /[e.g.]{} /[etc.]{}
\#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\_[(\#1)]{}]{} \#1
\#1[[L]{}\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[L]{}\^\*\_[\#1]{}]{}
\#1[\_[(\#1)]{}]{} \#1[\_[(\#1)]{}]{}
ł \#1 \#1 \#1\#2[\_[(\#1)\#2]{}]{}
\#1[[D]{}]{}
\[section\] \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{}
\[theorem\][Definition]{}
Introduction {#introII}
============
In this paper we present a general treatment of the / introduced in Part I (see ). In particular, in we show how to find the local conservation laws for any system of one or more PDEs expressed in a standard / form. We specifically treat $n$th order scalar PDEs in . In we summarize the general method and discuss its effective implementation in computational terms.
In order to make the treatment uniform, it is convenient to work with / systems of PDEs as follows.
\[defnCK\] A PDE system with any number of independent and dependent variables has [*/ form*]{} in terms of a given independent variable if the system is in solved form for a pure derivative of the dependent variables with respect to the given independent variable, and if all other derivatives of dependent variables in the system are of lower order with respect to that independent variable.
Typically, scalar PDEs admit a / form by singling out a derivative with respect to one independent variable, or by making a point transformation (more generally a contact transformation) on the independent variables. For example: the wave equation =0 admits the / form $\Du{tt}=\Du{xx}$ after the point transformation $t\rightarrow t-x$, $x\rightarrow x+t$; the harmonic equation +=0 admits the / form $\Du{yy}=-\Du{xx}$ with respect to $y$. A less trivial example is the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation [@kpeq] +(u)\_x + =0 . This equation admits two obvious / forms: $\Du{yy}= \mp( \Du{tx}+(u\Du{x})_x +\Du{xxxx} )$ which is a second-order PDE with respect to $y$; and $\Du{xxxx}= \mp \Du{yy} -\Du{tx}-(u\Du{x})_x$ which is a fourth-order PDE with respect to $x$.
As examples which are more involved, consider the modified Benjamin-Bona-Mahoney equation [@mbbmeq] +(1+u\^2) -=0 , and the symmetric regularized long wave equation [@srlweq] ++u + +=0 . As it stands the modified Benjamin-Bona-Mahoney equation is not of / form with respect to either $t$ or $x$, since the $t$ derivatives of $u$ appear in both pure and mixed derivative terms, while the highest order $x$ derivative of $u$ appears in a mixed derivative involving $t$ and hence is not in solved form. Nevertheless, if one makes the point transformation $t\rightarrow t$, $x\rightarrow x-t$, then the modified Benjamin-Bona-Mahoney equation becomes $\Du{xxx}-\Du{xxt}+u^2\Du{x} +\Du{t}=0$ which now is of third-order / form with respect to $x$. The situation for the symmetric regularized long wave equation is similar. It is not of / form as it stands, but after one makes the point transformation $t\rightarrow t-x$, $x\rightarrow x+t$ it is of fourth-order / form with respect to $t$ or $x$: $\Du{tttt}+\Du{xxxx} -2\Du{ttxx} +(2-u)\Du{tt}+(2+u)\Du{xx}
+\Du{t}{}^2 -\Du{x}{}^2=0$.
Many PDE systems can be handled similarly to scalar PDEs. For example, the vector nonlinear Schroedinger equation i\_t + \_[xx]{} f(||) =0, =(1,…,n) admits the first-order / form $\vec{u}_t = i\vec{u}_{xx} \pm if(|\vec{u}|) \vec{u}$ with respect to $t$, as well as the second-order / form $\vec{u}_{xx} =-i\vec{u}_t \mp f(|\vec{u}|) \vec{u}$ with respect to $x$. A less obvious example is Navier’s equations of isotropic elasticity, && + + (-) =0,\
&& (-) + + =0, $\kappa=\const,\mu=\const$. This PDE system admits a second-order / form with respect to $x$ or $y$: $\Du{xx} = -\frac{\mu}{\kappa} \Du{yy} +(\frac{\mu}{\kappa}-1) \Dv{xy}$ and $\Dv{xx} = -\frac{\kappa}{\mu} \Dv{yy} +(1-\frac{\kappa}{\mu}) \Du{xy}$.
In general any / form of a system of one or more PDEs can be used with no loss of completeness in finding the /s admitted by the system. Given a / PDE system, we let $t$ denote the independent variable in the derivative which appears in solved form in the PDEs, with the remaining independent variables denoted by $\bdx=(\x{1},\ldots,\x{n})$. In order to obtain the most effective formulation of the /, it is convenient to express the system in its equivalent first-order (evolution) form with respect to $t$.
Hence, we consider a first-order / system of PDEs with $N$ dependent variables $\bdu=(\u{1},\ldots,\u{N})$ and $n+1$ independent variables $(t,\bdx)$, \[uPDE\] = + (t,,,,…,) =0 , =1,…,N with $\bdx$ derivatives of $\bdu$ up to some order $m$. We use $\der{\bdx}\bdu,\nder{\bdx}{2}\bdu,$ / to denote all derivatives of $\u{\sigma}$ of a given order with respect to $\x{i}$. We denote partial derivatives $\partial/\partial t$ and $\partial/\partial \x{i}$ by subscripts $t$ and $i$ respectively. Corresponding total derivatives are denoted by $\D{t}$ and $\D{i}$. We let $\linop{g}{\sigma}{\rho}$ denote the linearization operator of $\g{\sigma}$ defined by \[ling\] = + ++ , and we let $\adlinop{g}{\sigma}{\rho}$ denote the adjoint operator defined by \[adling\] = -( ) ++ (-1)\^m ( ) , acting on arbitrary functions $\V{\rho},\W{\sigma}$ respectively.
Throughout we use the summation convention for [*repeated*]{} lower-case indices; we use an explicit summation sign where needed for summing over non-indices.
General treatment {#method}
=================
We start by considering the determining equations for symmetries and adjoint symmetries. Suppose $\X{}$ is the infinitesimal generator of a symmetry leaving invariant PDE system . We denote $\X{}\u{\sigma} = \symm{\sigma}$, which satisfies \[symmeq\] 0= + ,=1,…,N for all solutions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$ of . This linearization of is the determining equation for symmetries (point-type as well as first-order and higher-order type [@olverbook]) $\symm{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\bdujet{},\ldots,\bdujet{p})$ of the PDE system , where $\bdujet{j}$ denotes all $j$th order derivatives of $\bdu$ with respect to all independent variables $t,\bdx$. The adjoint of is given by \[adsymmeq\] 0=- + ,=1,…,N which is the determining equation for adjoint symmetries $\adsymm{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\bdujet{},\ldots,\bdujet{p})$ of the PDE system . In general, solutions of the adjoint symmetry equation are not solutions of the symmetry equation , and there is no interpretation of adjoint symmetries in terms of an infinitesimal generator leaving anything invariant.
In order to solve the determining equations for $\symm{\sigma}$ and $\adsymm{\sigma}$, one works on the space of solutions of the PDE system. This means we use the PDEs to eliminate $\uder{\sigma}{t}$ in terms of $\u{\sigma}$, $\uder{\sigma}{i}$, / In particular, without loss of generality, we are free to let $\symm{\sigma}$ and $\adsymm{\sigma}$ have no dependence on $\uder{\sigma}{t}$ and its differential consequences. Let = -( +() +) which is the total derivative with respect to $t$ on the solution space of PDE system . (In particular, $\D{t}=\solD{t}$ when acting on all solutions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$.) Then the determining equations explicitly become 0 = && +\
= && -( + ++ )\
&&+ + ++ ,=1,…,N \[jetsymmeq\] for $\symm{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{p}\bdu)$, and 0 = && - +\
= && - +( + ++ )\
&&+ -( ) ++(-1)\^m ( ),=1,…,N\
\[jetadsymmeq\] for $\adsymm{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{p}\bdu)$. The solutions of yield all symmetries and adjoint symmetries up to any given order $p$.
We now consider /s. \[defnconslaw\] A [*local /*]{} of PDE system is a divergence expression \[ucons\] ¶[t]{}(t,,,,…,) + ¶[i]{}(t,,,,…,) = 0 for all solutions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$ of ; $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$ are called the conserved densities.
The conservation equation holds as an identity if, for all solutions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$ of , \[trivialcons\] ¶[t]{}= \^i, ¶[i]{}=- \^i + \^[ij]{} for some expressions $\theta^i(t,\bdx,\bdu,\bdujet{},\ldots,\bdujet{k-1})$, $\psi^{ij}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\bdujet{},\ldots,\bdujet{k-1})$ with $\psi^{ij}=-\psi^{ji}$. Such /s are trivial. Only the nontrivial /s of the PDE system are of interest.
\[defnnontrivial\] A local conservation law is [*nontrivial*]{} iff the conserved densities do not satisfy . Any nontrivial conserved densities that agree to within trivial conserved densities are regarded as defining the same nontrivial /. There is further freedom in the form of conserved densities since we are clearly free to replace $\uder{\sigma}{t}=-\g{\sigma}$ in $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$ on the solution space of PDE system . Thus, without loss of generality we can consider $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$ to depend only on $t,\bdx,\bdu$, and $\bdx$ derivatives of $\bdu$. We refer to this as the [*normal form*]{} of the /, \[normalcons\] ¶[t]{}(t,,,,…,) + ¶[i]{}(t,,,,…,) = 0 for all solutions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$ of PDE system . In normal form, the freedom corresponding to trivial conserved densities is given by \[freedom\] ¶[t]{} ¶[t]{} +\^i, ¶[i]{} ¶[i]{} -\^i +\^[ij]{} where $\theta^i,\psi^{ij}=-\psi^{ji}$ do not depend on $\bdDu{t}$ and differential consequences.
All nontrivial local /s (in normal form) can be shown to arise from multipliers on the PDEs as follows. We move off the solution space of and let $\bdu(t,\bdx)$ be an arbitrary function of $t,\bdx$.
\[defnmult\] [*Multipliers*]{} for PDE system are a set of expressions { (t,,,,…,), …, (t,,,,…,) } satisfying \[multipliereq\] ( +) = + for some expressions $\Phat{t}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\bdujet{},\ldots,\bdujet{k})$ and $\Phat{i}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\bdujet{},\ldots,\bdujet{k})$ for all functions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$.
Given a / , consider $\D{t} \P{t} +\D{i}\P{i}$. Clearly this expression must be proportional to $\uder{\sigma}{t}+\g{\sigma}$ and its differential consequences in order to satisfy . The $\uder{\sigma}{t}$ terms arise only from ¶[t]{} = + + ++ = ¶[t]{} + where $\linop{\P{t}}{}{\sigma}=
( \Parder{\P{t}}{\u{\sigma}} )
+ ( \Parder{\P{t}}{\uder{\sigma}{i}} )\D{i}
+\cdots
+( \Parder{\P{t}}{\uder{\sigma}{i_1\cdots i_k}} )\D{i_1}\cdots\D{i_k}$ denotes the linearization operator of $\P{t}$. To organize these terms we use the identities && = ( + ) -\
&& = ( + ) (¶[t]{}) - + \^i \[linPtids\] where $\Gamma^i$ is given by an expression proportional to $\uder{\sigma}{t}+\g{\sigma}$ (and differential consequences), and where = - + +is a restricted Euler operator. Thus, we have \[Ptid\] ¶[t]{} = ¶[t]{} - + \^i + ( + ) (¶[t]{}) . In order for the conservation equation to hold, the terms $\der{t}\P{t} -\linop{\P{t}}{}{\sigma} \g{\sigma}$ which do not involve $\uder{\sigma}{t}+\g{\sigma}$ must cancel $\D{i}\P{i}$, and therefore we have \[Piid\] ¶[i]{} = -¶[t]{} + . Then combining expressions we obtain \[conseq\] ¶[t]{} +(¶[i]{}-\^i) = ( + ) with \[factoreq\] = (¶[t]{}),=1,…,N . When $\bdu(t,\bdx)$ is restricted to the solution space of PDE system , then $\Gamma^i$ vanishes and the divergence expression reduces to the conservation equation .
Hence, the expressions $\{ \ELophat{u}{\sigma} (\P{t}) \}$ define multipliers $\{ \factor{\sigma} \}$ yielding a / . Furthermore, since $\P{t}$ does not depend on $\bdDu{t}$ and its differential consequences, we see that each multiplier expression $\factor{\sigma}$ is a function only of $t,\bdx,\bdu$, and $\bdx$ derivatives of $\bdu$. Most important, these expressions $\factor{\sigma}$ are invariant under a change in $\P{t}$ by a trivial conserved density since $\ELophat{u}{\sigma}$ annihilates divergences $\D{i}\theta^i$ where $\theta^i$ depends on $t,\bdx,\bdu$ and $\bdx$ derivatives of $\bdu$. (In particular, if $\P{t}$ in normal form is trivial, then $\factor{\sigma}$ is identically zero, and conversely.) Thus we have the following result.
\[thmmult\] For the / PDE system , [every]{} nontrivial / in normal form is uniquely characterized by a set of multipliers $\{ \factor{\sigma} \}$ with no dependence on $\bdDu{t}$ and differential consequences, satisfying the relations holding for all functions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$. From this result it is natural to define the [*order*]{} of a / as the order of the highest $\bdx$ derivative of $\bdu$ in its multipliers .
Theorem \[thmmult\] is the starting point for an effective approach to find /s of PDE system by use of multipliers. The standard determining condition [@olverbook] for multiplier expressions $\factor{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{p}\bdu)$ arises from the definition by the well-known result that divergence expressions are characterized by annihilation under the full Euler operator \[elop\] = - - + + +. This yields (by a straightforward calculation) \[multiplierdeteq\] 0= ( + ) = - + + ( +),=1,…,N where $\adlinop{\factor{}}{}{\sigma\rho}$ is the adjoint operator of the linearization operator $\linop{\factor{}}{}{\sigma\rho}$ defined by = + ++ and = -( ) ++(-1)\^p ( ) acting on arbitrary functions $\V{\rho},\Wt{\sigma}$. Here the determining condition is required to hold for all functions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$, /, this is necessary and sufficient for $\uder{\rho}{t}\factor{\rho} + \g{\rho}\factor{\rho}$ to be a divergence expression. We give a simple direct proof in .
We now show how to convert the determining condition for $\factor{\sigma}$ into a system of determining equations that allow one to work entirely on the space of solutions of PDE system to find $\factor{\sigma}$. Furthermore, we show that the resulting determining system consists of the adjoint symmetry determining equation augmented by extra determining equations giving necessary and sufficient conditions for an adjoint symmetry to be a set of multipliers yielding a /.
Conservation law determining system {#multiplierdetsys}
-----------------------------------
In the determining condition for $\factor{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{p}\bdu)$ of order $p$ consider the terms involving $\uder{\sigma}{t}$. These terms arise just from $\D{t}\factor{\sigma}$ and $\adlinop{\factor{}}{}{\sigma\rho} \uder{\rho}{t}$, and so it follows that is a linear polynomial in $\uder{\sigma}{t}$ and differential consequences of $\uder{\sigma}{t}$ with respect to $\bdx$. Since $\u{\sigma}$ is required to be an arbitrary function of $t$ and $\bdx$, splits into separate equations given by the coefficients of $\uder{\sigma}{t}$, $\uder{\sigma}{ti}$, / It is convenient to organize this splitting in terms of $\uder{\sigma}{t}+\g{\sigma}=\G{\sigma}$ and differential consequences $\uder{\sigma}{ti}+ \D{i}\g{\sigma}= \D{i}\G{\sigma}$, /, which we refer to as the [*leading terms*]{} (all other terms in the splitting are then referred to as [*non-leading*]{}). Then the leading and non-leading terms in the splitting must vanish separately.
To carry out the splitting of $\D{t}\factor{\sigma}$, we use the identity = + (+) +(+) +which yields $\D{t}\factor{\sigma} =
\solD{t}\factor{\sigma} +\linop{\factor{}}{}{\sigma\rho} \G{\rho}$.
Consequently, the non-leading terms in are given by 0 =&& - +\
=&& - +( + ++ )\
&&+ - ( ) ++ (-1)\^m ( ) ,\
&& =1,…,N . \[adsymmsys\] This is the adjoint symmetry equation with $\adsymm{\sigma}=\factor{\sigma}$.
The leading terms in are given by \[adinv\] 0= - + ,=1,…,N . which we call the [*adjoint invariance condition*]{} on $\factor{\sigma}$. Now since $\u{\sigma}$ is required to be an arbitrary function of $t$ and $\bdx$, we observe that splits into separate equations given by the coefficients of $\G{\sigma}$, $\D{i}\G{\sigma}$,$\ldots$,$\D{i_1}\cdots\D{i_p}\G{\sigma}$: && 0= (-1)\^[p+1]{} + ,\
&& 0= (-1)\^[q+1]{} + - +\
&&+ (-1)\^[p-q]{} , q=1,…,p-1\
&& 0= - + - + + (-1)\^p , \[helmholtzsysc\]\
&& =1,…,N; =1,…,N \[splitsys\] where $\C{q}{r}=\frac{r!}{q!(r-q)!}$. This establishes the following important splitting result.
\[lemsplit\] For $\factor{\sigma}$ with no dependence on $\bdDu{t}$ and differential consequences, the Euler operator equation is equivalent to the split system of equations , which are required to hold for all functions $\bdu(t,\bdx)$.
Consequently, by combining Lemma \[lemsplit\] and Theorem \[thmmult\], we see that constitute a necessary and sufficient determining system for finding multipliers $\{\factor{\sigma}\}$. The number of equations in this system is $\frac{N^2 (n+p-1)!}{n!(p-1)!}
+\frac{N(N-(-1)^p)}{2}\frac{(n+p)!}{n!p!}$.
\[thmdeteq\] For the / PDE system , the multipliers for [all]{} nontrivial /s in normal form up to any given order $p$ are the solutions $\factor{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{p}\bdu)$ of the determining system consisting of the adjoint symmetry determining equation augmented by the extra determining equations . In particular, gives necessary and sufficient conditions for an adjoint symmetry to be a set of multipliers.
In deriving the determining system for $\factor{\sigma}$, we have eliminated $\bdDu{t}$ and its differential consequences. As a result, one is able to work equivalently on the space of solutions of the PDE system in order to solve the determining system to find $\factor{\sigma}$. In particular, the same algorithmic procedures which one uses to solve determining equations for symmetries can be used to solve the determining system for multipliers. Moreover, there is freedom in mixing the order of solving the determining equations in this system. A direct (naive) approach is to solve the adjoint symmetry determining equation first, then check which of these adjoint symmetries satisfy the extra determining equations. As illustrated in the examples in Part I, a more effective approach is to use the extra determining equations first.
There is a simple interpretation of the extra determining equations . From relation between multipliers and conserved densities, we observe that $\factor{\sigma}$ is a variational expression (/ it arises as an Euler-Lagrange expression from $\P{t}$). The well-known necessary and sufficient (Helmholtz) conditions [@olverbook] for an expression to be variational are that its linearization operator is self-adjoint, and thus $\factor{\sigma}$ is a variational expression if and only if it satisfies [@fokas; @fuchssteiner] \[selfadjointfactor\] = ,, =1,…,N . The operator equation is a linear polynomial in $\D{i}$ of degree $p$. We easily find that if it is decomposed into separate equations given by the coefficients of the polynomial, then the resulting equations are the same as the determining equations .
\[thmvaradsymm\] Multipliers for any first-order / PDE system are completely characterized as adjoint symmetries with a variational form.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that the determining equations take the same form regardless of $\g{\sigma}$ for all first-order / PDE systems .
Conservation law construction formula {#formula}
-------------------------------------
We now give an integral formula that constructs the conserved densities $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$ for any nontrivial / in normal form in terms of its multipliers $\{ \factor{\sigma} \}$. The formula makes use of the identities [@prlpaper] && - = §[i]{}\[,;\], \[lingid\]\
&& - = §[i]{}\[,;\], \[linfactorid\] where && §[i]{}\[,;\] = \_[=0]{}\^[m-1]{} \_[k=0]{}\^[m--1]{} (-1)\^k ( ) ( ),\
&& \[Sg\]\
&& §[i]{}\[,;\] = \_[=0]{}\^[p-1]{} \_[k=0]{}\^[p--1]{} (-1)\^k ( ) ( ),\
&& \[Sfactor\] which are trilinear expressions derived by manipulation of the linearization operators and adjoint operators. (Note, the terms in with $\ell=0$ or $k=0$ are understood to involve no derivatives of $\V{}$ and $\W{}$, respectively.)
To set up the formula, we first let =u +(1-) where $\{ \tu{\sigma} \}$ are any functions of $t,\bdx$. This defines a one-parameter $\lambda$ family of functions with $\uparm{\sigma}{1}=\u{\sigma}$ and $\uparm{\sigma}{0}=\tu{\sigma}$. Then we let && \[\] = (t,,,,…,) ,\
&& \[\] = (t,,,,…,) ,\
&& (t,) = ( ( + \[\]) \[\] )|\_[=0]{} .
\[thmformula\] For the / PDE system , the conserved densities of any nontrivial conservation law in normal form are given in terms of the multipliers by && ¶[t]{} = \_0\^1 d(u-) \[\] + t\_0\^1 d(t,) , \[Pt\]\
&& ¶[i]{} = \_0\^1 d\^n (t,) + \_0\^1 d( §[i]{}\[ -,;\]\
&& +§[i]{}\[ -,-+(1-); \] ) . \[Pi\]
In applying the construction formula , we must fix a choice for the functions $\{ \tu{\sigma} \}$. If the expressions $\factor{\sigma}$ and $\g{\sigma}$ are nonsingular for $\u{\sigma}=0$, then we can choose $\tu{\sigma}=0$ and this simplifies the integrals. Moreover, if $\tu{\sigma}=\u{\sigma}=0$ satisfies the PDE system , then the $\K$ integrals vanish.
In the case when the expressions $\factor{\sigma}$ and $\g{\sigma}$ are singular at $\u{\rho}=0$ (for some $\rho=1,\ldots,N$), we must choose $\tu{\rho}\neq 0$ such that the expressions $\factor{\sigma}[\bdtu]$ and $\g{\sigma}[\bdtu]$ are nonsingular. It is sufficient to fix a simple choice of $\tu{\rho}$ such that the integrals converge. Any change in the choice of $\tu{\rho}$ changes the conserved densities only by a trivial conserved density .
A simple proof of Theorem \[thmformula\] is given in .
Proofs of Main Equations {#proofs}
------------------------
Recall that, for first-order / PDE systems , the proof of the determining system for / multipliers in Theorem \[thmdeteq\] reduces, by Lemma \[lemsplit\], to the determining condition involving the Euler operator. To conclude this section, we present a simple, direct proof of this determining condition together with the construction formula for corresponding conserved densities in Theorem \[thmformula\]. The proof of is based on an identity for linearization of the multiplier equation .
We let =(-1)v + u be a one-parameter family of functions with $\uparm{\sigma}{1}=\u{\sigma}$ being an arbitrary function, and with $\Parder{\uparm{\sigma}{\lambda}}{\lambda}=\v{\sigma}$ for any functions $\v{\sigma}(t,\bdx)$.
\[propid\] For any given expressions $\factor{\sigma}[\bdu]=
\factor{\sigma}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{p}\bdu)$, $\Phat{t}[\bdu]=
\Phat{t}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{k}\bdu)$ and $\Phat{i}[\bdu]=
\Phat{i}(t,\bdx,\bdu,\der{\bdx}\bdu,\ldots,\nder{\bdx}{k}\bdu)$, the following identities hold by direct calculation: (i) && ( ( + \[\]) \[\] )\
&& = ( + v) \[\] + ( + \[\]) v\
&& = v ( -\[\] +\[\] + ( + \[\]) )\
&& +( v\[\] ) +( §[i]{}\[ ,;\]\
&& +§[i]{}\[ ,+;\] ) \[linRS\] where $\S{i}$ denotes the trilinear expressions given by ; (ii) ( \[\] +\[\] ) = ( v ) +( v ) \[linLS\] where $\linop{\Phat{t}}{}{\sigma}$ and $\linop{\Phat{}}{i}{\sigma}$ denote the linearization operators of $\Phat{t}$ and $\Phat{i}$ respectively.
Suppose $\P{t},\P{i}$ are conserved densities of a / in normal form . From Theorem \[thmmult\] the multipliers for the / are given by $\factor{\sigma}=\ELophat{u}{\sigma} (\P{t})$ satisfying the multiplier equation with $\Phat{t}= \P{t}, \Phat{i}= \P{i}-\Gamma^i$.
Since the multiplier equation holds for all functions $\u{\sigma}(t,\bdx)$, it must hold for the one-parameter family $\uparm{\sigma}{\lambda}$. We now take the derivative of the resulting left-side and right-side expressions of with respect to $\lambda$. By Proposition \[propid\], on the left-side we obtain , while on the right-side we directly obtain . These expressions are equal for all functions $\v{\sigma}(t,\bdx)$ and therefore hold iff the terms multiplying $\v{\sigma}$ vanish and the total derivative terms involving $\v{\sigma}$ are separately equal (by considering the terms $\vder{\sigma}{t}, \vder{\sigma}{i}$). From the terms multiplying $\v{\sigma}$ we have \[Ufactoreq\] 0= -\[\] +\[\] + ( + \[\]) . This reduces when $\lambda=1$ to and hence $\{ \factor{\sigma} \}$ is a solution of the determining condition .
Conversely, suppose $\{ \factor{\sigma} \}$ is a solution of the determining condition . Then, by combining the two identities in Proposition \[propid\], we see $\factor{\sigma}$ satisfies the linearized multiplier equation ( ( + \[\]) \[\] ) = \[\] + \[\] with $\Parder{\Phat{t}[\bdul]}{\lambda}$ and $\Parder{\Phat{i}[\bdul]}{\lambda}$ defined by && v =v\[\] + \^i , \[Ptlinid\]\
&& v =( §[i]{}\[ ,;\] +§[i]{}\[ ,+ ;\] ) -\^i +\^[ij]{} ,\
&& \[Pilinid\] for some expressions $\theta^i,\psi^{ij}=-\psi^{ji}$. We now undo the linearization to obtain the multiplier equation by integrating with respect to $\lambda$ as follows. We set $\v{\sigma}=\u{\sigma}-\tu{\sigma}$, and so = (u-) + . Then we use the fundamental theorem of calculus to obtain \[FTC\] ( +\[\]) \[\] = \[\] + \[\] +( +\[\]) \[\] -\[\] -\[\] where \[\] = && \[\] + \_0\^1 d(u-) \[\] , \[Phatt\]\
\[\] = && \[\] +\_0\^1 d( §[i]{}\[ -,;\]\
&&+§[i]{}\[ -,+;\] ) , \[Phati\] to within trivial conserved densities. Since holds for all $u(t,\bdx)$, while $\tu{}(t,\bdx)$ is fixed, we must have \[Keq\] \[\] +\[\] = ( +\[\]) \[\] = (t,) . It is then simple to check that is satisfied identically by \[Kterms\] \[\] = t\_0\^1 d(t,) , \[\] = \_0\^1 d(t,) .
Thus, we find from that $\{ \factor{\sigma} \}$ satisfies the multiplier equation , with conserved densities given by . Hence, by Theorem \[thmmult\], $\factor{\sigma}$ are multipliers for a / in normal form .
To obtain the construction formula for the conserved densities, we move onto the solution space of and substitute $\uparmder{\sigma}{\lambda}{t}
= -\lambda\g{\sigma}[\bdu] +(1-\lambda) \tuder{\sigma}{t}$ into . The expressions $\Phat{t}[\bdu]$ and $\Phat{i}[\bdu]$ directly reduce to the formula for $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$.
Treatment of Nth order scalar PDEs {#scalarcase}
==================================
Here we exhibit the / determining system and construction formula for scalar PDEs of any order with one dependent variable $u$ and $n+1$ independent variables $t,\bdx=(\x{1},\ldots,\x{n})$. We work directly with the scalar PDE expressed in an $N$th order / form \[scalarPDE\] = +(t,x,u,,…,) =0 where in this section $\ujet{q}$ now denotes all derivatives of $u$ of order $q$, excluding $t$ derivatives of $u$ of order $q\ge N$ and their differential consequences (/ the PDE is written so that the $t$ derivatives of $u$ of highest order appear in solved form).
Clearly, without loss of generality, for /s we are free to eliminate $\N$th order $t$ derivatives of $u$ (and differential consequences) in considering conserved densities.
\[defnscalarCK\] A [*local / in normal form*]{} for a / scalar PDE is a divergence expression \[cons\] ¶[t]{}(t,,u,,…,) + ¶[i]{}(t,,u,,…,) = 0 holding for all solutions $u(t,\bdx)$ of .
A / is trivial if it holds as an identity for some expressions $\theta^i(t,\bdx,u,\ujet{},\ldots,\ujet{k-1})$, $\psi^{ij}(t,\bdx,u,\ujet{},\ldots,\ujet{k-1})$ with $\psi^{ij}=-\psi^{ji}$, for all solutions $u(t,\bdx)$ of PDE . Only nontrivial /s are of interest.
All nontrivial /s of PDE can be shown to arise from multipliers on the PDE, similarly to Theorem \[thmmult\]. We move off the solution space of and let $u(t,\bdx)$ be an arbitrary function of $t,\bdx$. We use the notation $\nder{t}{q} u= \purederu{}{q}{t}$ for pure $t$ derivatives of $u$, and $\Du{i}=\purederu{}{}{\x{i}}$, $\Du{ij}=\mixderu{}{2}{\x{i}}{\x{j}}$, / for pure $\bdx$ derivatives of $u$, and $\nder{t}{q}\Du{i}= \mixderu{}{q+1}{t^q}{\x{i}}$, $\nder{t}{q}\Du{ij}= \mixderu{}{q+2}{t^q}{\x{i}\partial\x{j}}$, / for mixed $t,\bdx$ derivatives of $u$, with $\nder{0}{q} u= u$ and $\nder{t}{0}\Du{i}= \Du{i}$.
\[thmscalarmult\] For the / scalar PDE , [every]{} nontrivial / is uniquely characterized by a multiplier $\factor{}$ with no dependence on $\nderu{}{t}{\N}$ and differential consequences. The multiplier satisfies the relations \[scalarconseq\] ( + ) =¶[t]{} +(¶[i]{}-\^i) and \[scalarfactoreq\] = (¶[t]{}) holding for all functions $u(t,\bdx)$, where = - + +is a restricted Euler operator, and $\Gamma^i$ is given by an expression proportional to $\nderu{}{t}{\N}+\g{}$ and its differential consequences. From one can show that $\factor{}$ is invariant under a change in $\P{t}$ by a trivial conserved density . (In particular, if $\P{t}$ is trivial, then $\factor{}$ is identically zero, and conversely.) Consequently, it is natural to define the order of a / as the order of the highest derivatives of $u$ in its multiplier .
It is straightforward to derive both the determining system for multipliers $\factor{}$ and the construction formula for conserved densities in terms of $\factor{}$ by applying the results in to the scalar PDE written as a first-order / system (which we carry out later).
In order to display the determining equations explicitly, we introduce the $\N+1$ expressions \_0 = && ,\
\_q = && (-1)\^q +\_[k=1]{}\^q (-1)\^[q-k]{} ( - ( ) +\
&&+ (-1)\^m ( ) ),q=1,…,\
\[sysfactors\] where $\solD{t}$ is the total derivative operator with respect to $t$ on the solution space of the PDE as defined by eliminating $\nderu{}{t}{\N}=-g$ and all differential consequences. (In particular, $\solD{t} u=\der{t}u$, $\solnD{2}{t}u =\nder{t}{2}u$, /, and $\solnD{\N}{t} u= -g$.) Note that, if the order of $\Omega_0$ with respect to $\bdx$ derivatives of $u$ is $p$, the order of $\Omega_q$ is at most $p+mq$.
\[thmscalardeteq\] For the / scalar PDE , the multipliers for [all]{} nontrivial /s up to any given order $p$ are the solutions $\factor{}(t,\bdx,u,\ujet{},\ldots,\ujet{p})$ of the determining system \[scalaradsymmsys\] \_=0 and && - = \_[k=1]{}\^[p’]{} (-1)\^k ,\
&& -(-1)\^q\
&&= \_[k=q+1]{}\^[p’]{} (-1)\^[k-q+1]{} , q=1,…,[p’-1]{}\
&& - (-1)\^[p’]{} =0,\
&& \[scalarextrasys\] where $p'=p+mk$, $j=0,1,\ldots,\N-1$; $k=0,1,\ldots,\N-1$.
In this system, is the determining equation for the adjoint symmetries $\factor{} = \adsymm{}(t,\bdx,u,\ujet{},\ldots,\ujet{p})$ of order $p$ of the PDE , explicitly \[scalaradsymmeq\] 0=(-)\^ + . The extra determining equations are the necessary and sufficient conditions for an adjoint symmetry to be a / multiplier. Since do not involve $\nderu{}{t}{\N}$ or any of its differential consequences, one is able to work equivalently on the solution space of the PDE in order to find the solutions $\factor{}$.
In order now to display explicitly the construction formula for the conserved densities $\P{t},\P{i}$ in terms of the multiplier $\factor{}$, we first define the trilinear expression §[i]{}\[V,W;F\] = && \_[j=0]{}\^[-1]{} ( V ( W - ( W ) +)\
&& + V ( W - ( W ) +) +) \[trilin\] depending on arbitrary functions $V,W,F$. Next we let =u +(1-) where $\tu{}$ is any function of $t,\bdx$. This defines a one-parameter $\lambda$ family of functions with $\uparm{}{1}=\u{}$ and $\uparm{}{0}=\tu{}$. Then we define && \_q\[\] = \_q(t,,,,…,),q=0,1,…,-1\
&& \[\] = (t,,,,…,) ,\
&& (t,) = (+ \[\]) \_0\[\], using for $\Omega_q$ in terms of $\factor{}$.
\[thmscalarformula\] For the / scalar PDE , the conserved densities of any nontrivial / are given in terms of the multiplier $\factor{}$ by && ¶[t]{} = \_0\^1 d\_[j=0]{}\^[-1]{} (-) \_[j]{}\[\] + t\_0\^1 d(t,) , \[scalarPt\]\
&& ¶[i]{} = \_0\^1 d\^n (t,) + \_0\^1 d( §[i]{}\[ u-,\_0\[\];\[\] \]\
&& +§[i]{}\[ u-,\[\]-\[u\] +(1-); \_0\[\] \] ) . \[scalarPi\]
In applying the construction formula , we fix the function $\tu{}$ so that the expressions $\factor{}[\tu{}]$ and $\g{}[\tu{}]$ are nonsingular. In particular, if $\factor{}[0]$ and $\g{}[0]$ are nonsingular then we can choose $\tu{}=0$, which significantly simplifies the integrals. Moreover, if $\tu{}=\u{}=0$ satisfies the PDE , then immediately the $\K$ integrals vanish. A change in the choice of $\tu{}$ alters the conserved densities only by a trivial conserved density .
We now outline the proof of Theorems \[thmscalardeteq\] and \[thmscalarformula\] using Theorems \[thmdeteq\] and \[thmformula\]. To begin we write the scalar PDE in first-order (evolution) form with respect to $t$ as follows: && 1=u, 2=, …, u=, \[uident\]\
&& =-2, …, =-u, =, \[gident\]\
&& =1 -2 = 0, …, =-1 - u=0, =u + =0. \[scalarsys\] Through there is a one-to-one correspondence between nontrivial /s of the scalar PDE and nontrivial /s in normal form of the equivalent first-order PDE system . The relation between a multiplier $\factor{}$ of a scalar PDE / and a set of multipliers $\{ \factor{1},\ldots,\factor{\N} \}$ of the corresponding PDE system / can be obtained by considering the adjoint symmetry equations of the scalar PDE and the PDE system . Straightforwardly, from , we have && 0= - + , \[scalarsysadsymmeq\]\
&& 0= - - + , q=1,…,-1 \[scalarsysadsymmeq’\] where $\adslinop{q,g}$ is the adjoint operator of the linearization operator $\slinop{q,g}$ defined by = + + + . By solving for $\factor{2},\ldots,\factor{\N}$ in terms of $\factor{1}$ and comparing with , we directly see \[factorident\] ==\_0, =\_1, …, =\_[-1]{}. This establishes an explicit correspondence between $\factor{}$ and $\{ \factor{1},\ldots,\factor{\N} \}$ leading immediately to Theorems \[thmscalardeteq\] and \[thmscalarformula\] from Theorems \[thmdeteq\] and \[thmformula\].
Theorems \[thmscalardeteq\] and \[thmscalarformula\] can also be established directly from Theorem \[thmscalarmult\] without use of the results in . The main step in the proof of Theorem \[thmscalardeteq\] is a polynomial splitting result analogous to Lemma \[lemsplit\] as follows.
The determining condition for a multiplier $\factor{}$ of order $p$ for the scalar PDE arises from the relation by the result that an expression is a divergence if and only if it is annihilated by the full Euler operator = - - + + + +. This can be shown (by a straightforward calculation [@olverbook]) to yield \[scalarmultiplierdeteq\] 0= ( () + ) = (-)\^ + + ( +) , which is required to hold for all functions $u(t,\bdx)$ (not just solutions of ). The determining condition is a polynomial in $\nderu{}{t}{\N},\nderu{}{t}{\N+1},\ldots,\nderu{}{t}{2\N-1}$ and differential consequences with respect to $\bdx$. Furthermore, the terms in this polynomial have weights $0$ up to $\N$, where we assign weight $1$ to $\nderu{}{t}{\N}$ (and $\bdx$ derivatives of $\nderu{}{t}{\N}$), $2$ to $\nderu{}{t}{\N+1}$ (and $\bdx$ derivatives of $\nderu{}{t}{\N+1}$), /, and we add the weights of products (and powers) of $\nderu{}{t}{\N},\nderu{}{t}{\N+1}$, /. Now, since $u$ is required to be an arbitrary function of $t$ and $\bdx$, the polynomial splits into separate determining equations given by the coefficients of the various weight terms involving $\nderu{}{t}{\N},\nderu{}{t}{\N+1},\ldots,\nderu{}{t}{2\N-1}$ (and differential consequences with respect to $\bdx$). It is convenient to organize the splitting by working in terms of $\nder{t}{\N}u+\g{}=\G{}$, $\nder{t}{\N+1}u+\solD{t}\g{}=\solD{t}\G{}$, $\nder{t}{\N}\Du{i}+\D{i}\g{}=\D{i}\G{}$, $\nder{t}{\N+1}\Du{i}+\D{i}\solD{t}\g{}=\D{i}\solD{t}\G{}$, /. The terms of weight $0$ yield the adjoint symmetry determining equation and the terms of weight $1$ up to $\N$ yield the extra determining equations on $\factor{}$. This derivation is illustrated in the second example of Part I.
The construction formula for conserved densities $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$ of a / for PDE is obtained by inverting the Euler operator equation as follows. Since holds for arbitrary functions $u(t,\bdx)$, it must hold with $u$ replaced by the one-parameter family $\uparm{}{\lambda} =\lambda \u{} +(1-\lambda)\tu{}$. This yields \[linscalardeteq\] 0= (-)\^\[\] + \[\] + ( +\[\] ) . We multiply by $\u{}-\tu{}$ and then rearrange the terms which involve total derivative operators coming from $\adslinop{\g{}}$ and $\adslinop{\factor{}}$. This leads to the formula && ( \_[j=0]{}\^[-1]{} (u-) \_[j]{}\[\] ) +( §[i]{}\[ u-,\_0\[\];\[\] \]\
&&+§[i]{}\[ u-, + \[\];\_0\[\] \] ) = ( ( +\[\]) \[\] ) . Next we integrate from $\lambda=0$ to $\lambda=1$ and apply the fundamental theorem of calculus. Using the identity $\D{t}\Big( t\int_0^1 d\lambda \K(\lambda t,\lambda \bdx) \Big)
+\D{i}\Big( \x{i}\int_0^1 d\lambda \lambda^n \K(\lambda t,\lambda \bdx) \Big)
=\K$, and finally moving onto the solution space of the PDE , we obtain the / with $\P{t}$ and $\P{i}$ given by .
\[defnvarPDE\] A / scalar PDE is called [*variational*]{} if it arises from an action \[action\] S=( L(t,,u,,…,) ) dt dby variation with respect to $u$, G=(L) = +.
The well-known necessary and sufficient condition [@olverbook] for existence of an action is that + = (-)\^+ , / $\N$ must be even and $\g{}$ must have a self-adjoint linearization. This condition is equivalent to requiring that the determining equation for symmetries of the PDE is self-adjoint.
In the case when PDE is variational, Theorem \[thmscalardeteq\] combined with Noether’s theorem [@blumanbook; @olverbook] shows that the extra determining equations constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for a symmetry of the PDE to leave invariant the action to within a boundary term. In particular, if $\X{}u = \symm{}(t,\bdx,u,\ujet{},\ldots,\ujet{p})$ is a symmetry of order $p$, then $\X{}S=\int( \D{t}\theta^t +\D{i}\theta^i ) dt d\bdx$ holds for some expressions $\theta^t$ and $\theta^i$ iff $\factor{}= \symm{}$ satisfies and hence $\symm{}$ is a multiplier yielding a / of PDE .
Summary and concluding remarks {#conclude}
==============================
For any / system $G$ of one or more PDEs, Theorems \[thmdeteq\], \[thmformula\] and Theorems \[thmscalardeteq\], \[thmscalarformula\] yield an effective computational method to obtain all local /s (up to any specified order). The method is summarized as follows:
1\. Linearize $G$ to form its linearized system $\ell$, which is the determining system for the symmetries of $G$.
2\. Form the / $\ell^*$ of $\ell$, which is the determining system for the adjoint symmetries of $G$.
3\. Form the / $\h$ comprising the necessary and sufficient determining equations for an adjoint symmetry to be a multiplier for a / of $G$.
4\. Solve the augmented system $\ell^* \cup \h$. This is the determining system for the multipliers that yield all nontrivial local /s of $G$.
5\. Use the explicit construction formula to obtain the conserved densities arising for each solution of the system $\ell^* \cup \h$.
The linearized system of $G$ is self-adjoint ($\ell = \ell^*$) if and only if $G$ is variational, in which case solutions of $\ell^*$ are solutions of $\ell$. Then the / $\h$ is equivalent to the condition for symmetries to leave invariant the action for $G$. In general, if $G$ is not variational then solutions of $\ell^*$ are not solutions of $\ell$.
The systems $\ell,\ell^*,\h$, and $\ell^* \cup \h$ are all linear overdetermined systems which are solved working entirely on the space of solutions of $G$ (/ a leading derivative of the dependent variables in $G$ is eliminated). There exist algorithmic procedures [@software] to seek solutions of $\ell$. These procedures can be readily adapted for seeking solutions of $\ell^*$, $\h$, and $\ell^* \cup \h$. In general, $\ell^* \cup \h$ is more overdetermined than $\ell$ and hence is typically easier to solve. More significantly, one can choose appropriate mixings of the determining equations in $\ell^*$ and $\h$ to solve $\ell^* \cup \h$ effectively.
One can also use specific ansatze to seek particular solutions of $\ell^* \cup \h$, such as restricting the form of highest derivatives of the dependent variables of $G$ allowed in the solution. For example, familiar /s such as energy invariably arise from the simple ansatz of seeking multipliers restricted to be linear in first derivatives.
In general it is important to note that solutions of $\ell^*$ are not necessarily solutions of $\h$ and hence $\ell^*$ does not determine a / multiplier. This typically occurs for scaling symmetries of systems $G$ in the case $\ell^*=\ell$ (/ self-adjoint), and for point-type adjoint symmetries (first-order and linear in derivatives of dependent variables) of systems $G$ in the case $\ell^*=-\ell$ (/ skew-adjoint). Examples are $u_{tt} -u_{xx} +u^3=0$ which has $u+tu_t+xu_x$ as a solution of $\ell=\ell^*$ but not a solution of $\h$; $u_t+u_{xxx}=0$ which has $u_x$ as a solution of $\ell^*=-\ell$ but not a solution of $\h$. exhibits several ODE examples in which nontrivial adjoint symmetries are not multipliers. The need for the extra conditions $\h$ to determine multipliers has not been clearly recognized in the literature (/ [@incomplete]).
The chief aspect of our method compared to other existing treatments of PDE /s (/ [@fokas; @vinogradov; @olverbook; @blumanbook; @wolf]) is the explicit delineation of the linear determining system $\ell^* \cup \h$ which incorporates (and identifies) the necessary and sufficient conditions for adjoint symmetries to be multipliers, without moving off the space of solutions of the given PDE(s) $G$. Consequently, one can calculate multipliers of /s by effective algorithmic procedures. Moreover there is the added computational advantage of allowing the determining equations in the adjoint system $\ell^*$ and the extra system $\h$ to be mingled to optimally solve the determining system $\ell^* \cup \h$, as illustrated by the / classification results for the PDE examples in Part I.
The authors are supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. We gratefully thank the referees for useful comments which have improved this paper.
[99]{}
S.C. Anco and G. Bluman, Direct construction of conservation laws from field equations, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 2869-2873 (1997).
S.C. Anco and G. Bluman, Integrating factors and first integrals of ordinary differential equations, Eur. J. Appl. Math. **9**, 245-259 (1998).
S.C. Anco and G. Bluman, Direct construction method for conservation laws of partial differential equations. Part I: Examples of conservation law classifications. Eur. J. Appl. Math. **13**, 545-566 (2002).
T.B. Benjamin, J.L. Bona, and J.J. Mahoney, Model equations for long waves in nonlinear dispersive media, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. **A272**, 47-48 (1972).
G. Bluman and S. Kumei, [*Symmetries and Differential Equations*]{} (Springer, New York 1989).
N. Chien, T. Honein, G. Herrmann, [*Dissipative systems, conservation laws and symmetries*]{}, Int. J. Solids Structures **33**, 2959-2968 (1996).
A.S. Fokas and B. Fuchssteiner, On the structure of symplectic operators and hereditary symmetries, Lett. Al Nuovo Cim. **28**, 299-303 (1980).
B. Fuchssteiner and A.S. Fokas, Symplectic structures, their Backlund transformations and hereditary symmetries, Physica **4D**, 47-66 (1981).
W. Hereman, [*CRC Handbook of Lie Group Analysis of Differential Equations, Volume 3: New Trends in Theoretical Developments and Computational Methods.*]{} Chapter 13, 367-413. (N.H. Ibragimov, ed.) (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida 1996).
B.B. Kadomtsev and V.I. Petviashvili, [*On the stability of solitary waves in weakly dispersive media*]{}, Sov. Phys. Dokl. vol[15]{}, 539-541 (1970).
P.J. Olver, [*Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations*]{} (Springer, New York, 1986).
C.E. Seyler and D.L. Fenstermacher, A symmetric regularized long wave equation, Phys. Fluids **27**, 4-7 (1984).
A.M. Vinogradov, Local symmetries and conservation laws, Acta. Appl. Math. **2**, 21-78 (1984).
T. Wolf, A comparison of four approaches to the calculation of conservation laws. Eur. J. Appl. Math. **13**, 129-152 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'library.bib'
---
**Fully Convolutional Networks for Automated Segmentation of Abdominal Adipose Tissue Depots in Multicenter Water-Fat MRI**\
Taro Langner^1\*^, Anders Hedström^2^, Katharina Paulmichl^3,4^, Daniel Weghuber^3,4^,\
Anders Forslund^5^, Peter Bergsten^5,6^, Håkan Ahlström^1,2^, Joel Kullberg^1,2^
\
^1^Dept. of Radiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden\
^2^Antaros Medical, BioVenture Hub, Mölndal, Sweden\
^3^Dept. of Pediatrics, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria\
^4^Obesity Research Unit, Paracelsus Medical University, 5020 Salzburg, Austria\
^5^Dept. of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE 751 05, Sweden\
^6^Dept. of Medical Cell Biology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, SE 751 23, Sweden\
\*[email protected]
**Published in *Magnetic Resonance in Medicine***
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
**Purpose:** An approach for the automated segmentation of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) in multicenter water-fat MRI scans of the abdomen was investigated, using two different neural network architectures.\
**Methods:** The two fully convolutional network architectures U-Net and V-Net were trained, evaluated and compared on the water-fat MRI data. Data of the study Tellus with 90 scans from a single center was used for a 10-fold cross-validation in which the most successful configuration for both networks was determined. These configurations were then tested on 20 scans of the multicenter study beta-cell function in JUvenile Diabetes and Obesity (BetaJudo), which involved a different study population and scanning device.\
**Results:** The U-Net outperformed the used implementation of the V-Net in both cross-validation and testing. In cross-validation, the U-Net reached average dice scores of $0.988$ (VAT) and $0.992$ (SAT). The average of the absolute quantification errors amount to $0.67\%$ (VAT) and $0.39\%$ (SAT). On the multi-center test data, the U-Net performs only slightly worse, with average dice scores of $0.970$ (VAT) and $0.987$ (SAT) and quantification errors of $2.80\%$ (VAT) and $1.65\%$ (SAT).\
**Conclusion:** The segmentations generated by the U-Net allow for reliable quantification and could therefore be viable for high-quality automated measurements of VAT and SAT in large-scale studies with minimal need for human intervention. The high performance on the multicenter test data furthermore shows the robustness of this approach for data of different patient demographics and imaging centers, as long as a consistent imaging protocol is used.
**Key words:** deep learning, fully convolutional networks, segmentation, water-fat MRI, adipose tissue, abdominal
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The quantification of human adipose tissue depots has the potential to provide new insights into the role of body composition as a factor for metabolic and cardiovascular disease. Abdominal obesity has been linked to conditions such as hypertension, inflammation and type 2 diabetes and is increasingly prevalent even among young adults and children [@despres2006abdominal]. Due to their different roles in the human metabolism, the total amount of abdominal adipose tissue is commonly separated into the two main components of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), with the former being more closely associated with health risks [@hu2016segmentation]. Other depots such as intramuscular adipose tissue and areas surrounding the spine are typically excluded. In practice the segmentation of VAT and SAT is usually performed with the help of automatic or semi-automatic methods which often require manual inspection and corrections by human experts. In larger studies with dozens or hundreds of scanned volumes this results in a high workload, so that an accurate, automated strategy that minimizes the need for human input and yields consistent results has the potential to reduce the cost and increase the feasibility of large scale studies.\
For measurements of the quantity and distribution of adipose tissue in medical research, non-invasive imaging methods are commonly employed such as CT and MRI. When using chemical-shift encoded water-fat MRI, it is possible to obtain both co-registered water and fat signal images as well as voxel-wise fat fraction values [@hu2013quantitative] without exposing the patient to ionizing radiation.
A variety of automated and semi-automated methods for VAT and SAT segmentation have been developed for images derived from both CT and MRI. In CT images, techniques have been proposed that use thresholding followed by ray tracing to isolate areas that are surrounded by lean tissue [@kullberg2017automated]. However, methods like this depend on the use of the Hounsfield scale, so that they can not be directly applied to MR images. In whole-body MRI of mice, a previously presented method used a combination of clustering and competitive region growing for the identification of narrow passages which delineate the depots of VAT and SAT [@ranefall2009automatic]. To simplify the task of segmentation, a common strategy consists in imaging and segmenting only a single transverse slice located between the vertebrae L2-L5 as an indicator for overall VAT and SAT. However, it has been noted that the the accuracy of this approach is insufficient [@addeman2015validation], [@shen2016automatic], so that a volumetric assessment is expected to result in more reliable measurements. In water-fat MRI, further strategies have been proposed such as the transfer of segmentations between volumes [@joshi2013automatic], clustering techniques for masking and fitting of three-dimensional surfaces [@addeman2015validation] or morphological operators that allow the identification of VAT and SAT.\
Rather than relying on techniques such as clustering, thresholding and registration, the most successful methods for image-based semantic segmentation on current benchmark datasets in the computer vision community employ machine learning strategies such as convolutional neural networks [@everingham2015pascal], [@garcia2017review], [@lecun2015deep], which have also seen success in medical applications [@shen2017deep]. For segmentation tasks, a network trained for classification can be applied in a sliding window technique to patches of an image to predict a label for each given central voxel. This approach has been previously used to generate adipose tissue segmentations in CT images [@wang2017two]. However, the redundant feature extraction for adjacent patches by the sliding window technique is highly inefficient, so that specialized architectures for segmentation have emerged.
Rather than relying on techniques such as clustering, thresholding and registration, the most successful methods for image-based semantic segmentation on current benchmark datasets in the computer vision community employ machine learning strategies such as convolutional neural networks [@everingham2015pascal], [@garcia2017review], [@lecun2015deep], which have also seen success in medical applications [@shen2017deep]. Based on the concept of fully convolutional networks [@long2015fully], derived architectures have been proposed such as the U-Net [@ronneberger2015u] for the segmentation of two-dimensional biomedical cell images and the V-Net [@milletari2016v] for segmentation of the human prostate in three-dimensional MR images. We therefore introduce a new approach using a fully convolutional network for the automated segmentation of VAT and SAT, with the goal of investigating how high of an accuracy and robustness can be achieved on this task. The network was applied to a representation of the water-fat MRI scans in which the water and fat signal as well as the calculated voxel-wise fat fractions are combined. Both the U-Net and the V-Net were adapted for this task and their performance was compared in both a ten-fold cross-validation as well as on a separate test dataset containing images from two different centers, each using a different MR system.
Based on the concept of fully convolutional networks [@long2015fully], derived architectures have been proposed such as the U-Net [@ronneberger2015u] for the segmentation of two-dimensional biomedical cell images and the V-Net [@milletari2016v] for segmentation of the human prostate in three-dimensional MR images. We therefore introduce a new approach using a fully convolutional network for the automated segmentation of VAT and SAT, with the goal of investigating how high of an accuracy and robustness can be achieved on this task. The network was applied to a representation of the water-fat MRI scans in which the water and fat signal as well as the calculated voxel-wise fat fractions are combined. Both the U-Net and the V-Net were adapted for this task and their performance was compared in both a ten-fold cross-validation as well as on a separate test dataset containing images from two different centers, each using a different MR system.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
The water-fat MRI data obtained from two separate studies was used to train and evaluate the performance of convolutional neural network architectures for semantic segmentation. The image data of the study Tellus was used for the training process, in which the learnable parameters of the network are adjusted, as well as the validation phase, in which a chosen network configuration together with its learned parameters is evaluated. The most successful network configurations were then tested on images of the study beta-cell function in JUvenile Diabetes and Obesity (BetaJudo) [@staaf2017pancreatic].\
### Water-fat MRI Data {#water-fat-mri-data .unnumbered}
The image data of the study Tellus was acquired from a cohort of adult male and female subjects, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, aged 18-80 years, with a body mass index of up to $40kg/m^2$. The images were acquired with a 1.5T MR system Achieva dStream, Philips Healthcare, Best, The Netherlands at the University Hospital Uppsala, Sweden with anterior and posterior coils using the mDixon Quant sequence with TR 5.6ms, TE1 0.95ms, deltaTE 0.7ms, flip angle 5deg and fixed FOV. Among these patients, 45 were selected who participated in two visits, between 27 and 45 days apart, yielding 90 scan volumes with a typical image resolution of \[256, 256, 20\] voxels of size \[2.07, 2.07, 8\] mm.
The image data of the study BetaJudo [@staaf2017pancreatic] was acquired in a collaboration between the Paracelsus Medical University Hospital in Salzburg, Austria and Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden. The study population consisted of 116 male and female individuals between the age of 10 and 18 years with complete records and includes both normal-weight and overweight subjects. A standardized imaging protocol was applied, with the Uppsala center using the same scanner and configuration as in the Tellus study, and the Salzburg center using a 1.5T Philips Ingenia system with TR 8.8ms, TE1 1.38ms, deltaTE 2.6ms, flip angle 5deg, again with fixed FOV. The typical image resolution for these scans is \[256, 176, 21\] voxels, again of size \[2.07, 2.07, 8\] mm. From this population 10 subjects were randomly selected for each center, resulting in a total of 20 scans that formed the test data set.\
There were systematic differences between the scans of both studies. The images obtained from Tellus included the arms of the patients and were masked to contain a value of zero in the image background. In BetaJudo, the arms are not included and signal noise in the background leads to noisy fat fraction values. The volumes consist of 21 instead of 20 transverse slices and the scanned area is slightly shifted from (L4-L5) to (L3-L4), so that it includes less of the hip bone. Despite the lower age of the subjects, the labeled volumes for SAT in the chosen scans are on average about 75% larger, while the VAT volumes are about 50% smaller than in the images of Tellus. In order to obtain reference segmentations, the images of both studies were labeled with manual input. For the Tellus data, a first estimate at the correct labels was generated using the inside lean tissue filter (4) and exclusion of voxels with fat fraction values below 50%. The results were then manually corrected by an experienced operator by adjusting the delineation of VAT and SAT in the software SmartPaint (18) based on the water image and removing adipose tissue around the spinal column. On BetaJudo the reference segmentations were generated by another operator in a fully manual procedure using the software 3DSlicer on the fat-fraction image, likewise excluding voxels with fat fractions of less than 50% as well as adipose tissue around the spine.
![By combining the fat and water signal as well as the voxel-wise fat fraction values obtained from water-fat MRI, a three-channel image can be formed as input for the networks.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Figure_1_reconv.eps){width="\textwidth"}
### Data formatting {#data-formatting .unnumbered}
Several pre-processing steps were applied to the image data. In the Tellus dataset, the arms of the patients were removed from all scans. The contrast of the signal images of the water-fat MRI was then adjusted for each transverse slice by clipping the brightest one percent of their respective histograms and normalizing the remaining intensities. This strategy greatly decreases the variation in intensities seen both across different volumes as well as between the central and outer slices of a given scan where signal loss occurs. The fat fraction values were not normalized, so that the actual percentage is retained. The water and fat signal images as well as the fat fraction image were combined to form the three channels of a color image as seen in Figure Several pre-processing steps were applied to the image data. For BetaJudo, all image slices were zero-padded to a size of \[256, 256\] and the noise in the background was masked out. In the Tellus dataset, the arms of the patients were removed from all scans to simplify the problem under the assumption that this step could be automatically performed in the future, possibly with a conventional algorithm. The contrast of the signal images of the water-fat MRI was then adjusted for each transverse slice by clipping the brightest one percent of their respective histograms and normalizing the remaining intensities to a float value range of \[0, 1\] for processing by the networks. This strategy greatly decreases the variation in intensities seen both across different volumes as well as between the central and outer slices of a given scan where signal loss occurs. The fat fraction values were not normalized, so that the actual percentage is retained. The water and fat signal images as well as the fat fraction image were combined to form the three channels of a color image as seen in Figure \[fig1\].\
### Automated Segmentation {#automated-segmentation .unnumbered}
In order to train and validate the different network architectures, the data of the Tellus study was split on the patient level for a 10-fold cross-validation. In this way, the available data was split into ten subsets, each of which was used to evaluate the performance of a network instance trained on the remaining nine sets. The presented metrics for the cross-validation are obtained by uniting the results on the individual sets. The highest-scoring network configurations were then trained once more on all available scans of Tellus in order to be tested on the data of the BetaJudo study.
These splits of the image data were used for the training of convolutional neural networks for semantic segmentation. Based on the given reference segmentations, these architectures are able to successively apply convolutional filters for the extraction of hierarchical image features that allow for a segmentation to be automatically generated. The relevant features and their role in deciding on the shape of the segmentation are learned from the reference data by supervised learning. Both architectures follow an encoder-decoder structure in which the representations of the input are first downsampled and later upsampled in multiple steps, with the goal of extracting both fine as well as large-scale features. Long skip connections allow for both of these types of features to be combined in order to eventually assign a label to each voxel of the input image.
![U-Net architecture used for the experiments. A two-dimensional input slice with three channels is passed to the network, yielding pixel-wise scores for all three classes. In contrast to the original architecture, zero-padding ensures that the size of the feature maps stays consistent on each level, so that no cropping is needed in the skip connections. More detail is found in the uploaded PyTorch implementation.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Figure_2_reconv.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![V-Net architecture used for the experiments. A three-dimensional input volume with three channels is passed to the network, yielding voxel-wise scores for all three classes. In contrast to the original architecture, no short skip connection is used in the first convolutional block. The number of convolutional steps for the lower-resolution feature maps is increased less, especially in the decoding part of the network in order to save processing time and memory requirements. Rather than simply halving the resolution of the entire volume on each level, the strided convolution is adjusted to retain the number of slices after the first and third level despite compressing the other two dimensions. More detail is found in the uploaded PyTorch implementation.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Figure_3_reconv.eps){width="\textwidth"}
### U-Net {#u-net .unnumbered}
As a first network architecture, the U-Net [@ronneberger2015u] was trained on the two-dimensional transverse slices of the chosen volumes. Preliminary experiments showed that in the chosen configuration the dice scores of the segmentations did not improve when the number of pooling layers was increased or diminished. The architecture of the original paper with four downsampling steps was therefore retained and is shown in Figure \[fig2\]. Due to their relatively small size, all slices can easily be processed as a whole without any need for tiling. Furthermore internal zero padding for the filters was used instead of mirrored padding of the input image, so that input and output of the network have the same dimensions. In this way the runtime and memory requirements for the network were roughly halved and no penalty on segmentation quality was observed. This strategy has been previously reported by as successful by multiple papers [@dong2017automatic], [@kayalibay2017cnn].
### V-Net {#v-net .unnumbered}
The implementation of the V-Net [@milletari2016v] that was used for the following experiments is based on a GitHub repository[^1] with that includes modifications such as batch normalization and dropout. It is worth noting that the description of the V-Net architecture in the original paper also differs slightly from the actual implementation that was used by its authors to generate their reported results[^2]. In order to process the highly anisotropic multi-channel data, the following additional architectural adjustments were necessary.
The first adjustment affects the dimensionality reduction and is necessary due to the low number of slices. When applying a strided convolution for downsampling, the resolution of the volumetric feature maps in the V-Net is effectively halved in each step. When the third dimension of the input volumes has an extent of just 20, only the first two halving steps result in an even number of slices. Due to this restriction, all input volumes were padded to 24 slices by concatenating copies of the last slice. Additionally, the stride of the first and third strided convolution was set to a value of one along the longitudinal axis, so they do not affect the number of slices. At the end of the downsampling path the volume is thereby represented by feature maps with 6 slices. A visualization of the resulting architecture is listed in the Appendix. When evaluating the dice score and other performance metrics on the segmentation results, the padding slices were excluded so that a direct comparison to the U-Net is possible. The second change is required due to the usage of multiple image channels. In the V-Net the result of the first convolution step is combined as an element-wise sum with the original input volume by a short skip connection. This skip connection was removed to avoid a conflict between the 3 input image channels and the 16 volumetric feature map channels. Furthermore, the number of convolution steps was reduced especially in the decoder part of the architecture in order to improve the network speed. The resulting architecture is shown in Figure \[fig3\].
### Settings and Evaluation {#settings-and-evaluation .unnumbered}
All reported results were achieved in the framework PyTorch using the Adam optimizer [@kingma2014adam] and a learning rate of 0.0001 as well as a batch size of one. The learned weights were initialized with the PyTorch default settings, randomly sampled from a scaled, zero-centered Gaussian distribution1. No benefit was observed when using class weights for the loss function, so that for the reported results all classes were weighted evenly. The U-Net was trained with a pixel-wise cross-entropy loss.\
![Training curves for the U-Net and V-Net in both cross-validation and on the test data. The x-axis marks the given training iteration, with the y-position representing the average dice score on the validation or test data for VAT (dotted line) and SAT (continuous line). Based on the cross-validation, the iteration marked with a star symbol was chosen to calculate the listed results.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Figure_4_reconv.eps){width="\textwidth"}
For the V-Net an improvement over the voxel-wise cross-entropy loss was found when using a dice loss with a term alpha = $0.1$. to ensure numerical stability and avoid division by zero. For a set of voxels X labeled by the method to be evaluated and the set of voxels Y that are part of the reference segmentation, the loss function L to be minimized therefore takes the following form:
$$L(X,Y)=1 - \frac{2 \mid X \cap Y \mid + alpha}{\mid X\mid +\mid Y \mid + alpha}$$
\[eq1\]
The U-Net was trained on a Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080Ti graphics card for 65000 iterations, requiring about one hour on each training split. The V-Net, in contrast, was trained for only 15000 iterations but required about ten hours per split. The resulting training curves are seen in Figure \[fig4\] and an implementation for the networks used in these experiments has been uploaded to GitHub[^3]. The results were evaluated by dice score as well as the volume and percentage of the error of the segmentation. The effect of the pre-processing steps was analyzed and additionally, systematic errors and patterns in the network performance were visually evaluated. In order to judge in how far the retrieved dice scores might be affected by differences Visualizations of both network architectures and training curves are listed in the segmentation styles of the two operators, an additional inter-operator dice score was calculated. This score is based on the segmentation of 20 randomly chosen volumes as a representative sample from the Tellus dataset, created by the operator who segmented the images of BetaJudo.
Results {#results .unnumbered}
=======
\[table\_unet\]
------- ------------- ------------------- -------------------
**U-Net**
Depot Metric CV Test
Dice $0.988 \pm 0.007$ $0.970 \pm 0.010$
VAT Error in % $0.67 \pm 0.80$ $2.80 \pm 1.55$
Error in mL $1 \pm 27$ $-41 \pm 32$
Dice $0.992 \pm 0.003$ $0.987 \pm 0.004$
SAT Error in % $0.39 \pm 0.35$ $1.65 \pm 0.80$
Error in mL $2 \pm 26$ $-112 \pm 45$
------- ------------- ------------------- -------------------
: Average performance of the networks in cross-validation (CV) on the data of Tellus and on the test data of BetaJudo (Test). The listed error in % is the average of all absolute differences in measured and reference volumes divided by the reference volume.
\[table\_vnet\]
------- ------------- ------------------- -------------------
**V-Net**
Depot Metric CV Test
Dice $0.982 \pm 0.009$ $0.916 \pm 0.059$
VAT Error in % $1.15 \pm 1.06$ $8.86 \pm 10.15$
Error in mL $-18 \pm 54$ $75 \pm 165$
Dice $0.987 \pm 0.004$ $0.978 \pm 0.012$
SAT Error in % $0.86 \pm 0.84$ $3.02 \pm 2.28$
Error in mL $24 \pm 54$ $-231 \pm 187$
------- ------------- ------------------- -------------------
For both cross-validation and testing, the average performance metrics are seen in Table \[table\_unet\]. The U-Net consistently outperforms the V-Net and generates segmentations that have an average error of less than one percent of the volume in cross-validation. Both networks achieve a slightly lower performance on the test data, but the U-Net still reaches an average error of less than 3% for the more difficult VAT volume. As an additional test, both networks were also evaluated on the test data without previous removal of the background noise. Although no such noise is present in the training data, the performance of the U-Net is virtually unaffected, with no change in the metrics at the significance given in Table \[table\_unet\]. The V-Net is less robust and erratically oversegments random patterns in the background noise, so that no separate metrics are listed for this test.
![Relative error in volume measurement (y-axis) as calculated in (predicted volume / reference volume - 1) in relation to the reference volumes (x-axis) for the U-Net in cross-validation (a, b) and on the test set (c, d). The dotted lines denote two standard deviations away from the mean. Note how on the test set the data from Uppsala (dot markers) is on average closer to an error of zero than the data from Salzburg (x markers).[]{data-label="fig5"}](Figure_5_reconv.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig5\] shows the relationship between reference segmentation volumes and error percentage of the output of the U-Net in cross-validation and on the test data, respectively. A sample of resulting segmentations is shown in Figure \[fig6\]. For the U-Net, the most commonly observed errors in cross-validation consist of oversegmentation of the hip bones as VAT, mistakes in ambiguous areas between VAT and SAT and leakage of VAT in rare cases where skin folds lead to multiple separate SAT compartments in more obese patients. On the test data, the majority of errors occur in ambiguous areas and occasional, insular oversegmentations. When assigning VAT labels there is also a tendency towards undersegmenting some of the outer areas of the depots. For the V-Net, the used implementation is outperformed by the U-Net in all cases with the exception of a marginally higher dice score for a single SAT volume.\
When examining those image volumes that were segmented by both operators, there is similar disagreement in manual segmentation around the spine and hip bones in VAT and intramuscular tissue in SAT. The average dice scores for the overlap between these segmentations are 0.969 (VAT) and 0.975 (SAT). It is important to note that the images used for this evaluation are not the same as the test set that was used to evaluate the network, so that the dice scores can not be directly compared.
![Segmentation results by the U-Net on the test dataset for the best (a, d), median (b, e) and worst (c, f) slice as measured by the sum of mislabeled voxels. The multi-channel input to the network is seen in (a-c), while (d-f) shows the respective output segmentations underneath, superimposed on the fat signal image.[]{data-label="fig6"}](Figure_6_reconv.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Discussion {#discussion .unnumbered}
==========
On the given water-fat MRI data, the fully convolutional network using the U-Net architecture was able to automatically generate highly accurate VAT and SAT segmentations and clearly outperforms the V-Net. When applied to the multicenter test data, the network was robust enough for the performance to only take a minor hit despite being faced with a different patient demographic and scanning device. In preliminary experiments, different augmentation strategies were evaluated such as varied translations, rotations, scales and volumetric deformations. Surprisingly, none of these strategies improved the results in the final configuration, so that all networks achieved their best performance with a comparably low number of training images. The networks furthermore benefited from the hand-crafted pre-processing strategy in which the contrast was adjusted, even though they could have learned to model this step internally. The fact that the networks did not learn to perform a comparably effective pre-processing step automatically shows that the optimization process during training is not guaranteed to use the full potential of the architecture. Human decisions on the formatting of the input are therefore still a relevant factor for the network performance.\
For the U-Net, most resulting segmentations are of high quality and require no further corrections. The network is robust in regards to the background noise in the fat fraction values, even though no such noise was present in the training data. However, it was found that on average the performance on the data from Salzburg is slightly lower than on the data from the center in Uppsala, which is more similar to the training data. As a general rule the dice scores for more obese patients with larger volumes of VAT and SAT are higher than those for thin patients, a pattern that is also visible in Figure \[fig5\]. This is probably due to the stronger effect of mislabeled single voxels in ambiguous regions in between and on the outline of the two depots. Preliminary experiments showed that modifications of the U-Net usually also achieved higher scores than the implementation of the V-Net, which indicates that the volumetric architecture may not be well suited for the given data. However, the underlying reasons for this effect can not easily be determined without further extensive experiments which are beyond the scope of this work. In our comparison the U-Net is more flexible, trains faster and generalizes better than the V-Net on the given scans.\
Both networks perform worse on the test data than in cross-validation and have a tendency to undersegment both VAT and SAT. It is likely that such a decrease in performance is not only due to the different study population and the multicenter data in the test dataset. As observed in the representative sample of training images that were segmented by both operators, the average dice scores for the inter-operator variability are in the same range or slightly lower than the network performance on the test data. Similar values have been previously reported for the agreement between manual segmentations by different operators [@joshi2013automatic]. Even though the values presented here were obtained on different image sets, so that they do not allow for a direct comparison between the network and human performance, they indicate that the potential for further significant improvements is largely limited by the quality of the reference segmentations. Despite these observations, the lower performance on the test set as compared to the cross-validation indicates that the presented method should not be understood as a general solution to VAT and SAT segmentation in water-fat MRI. The approach can not be expected to retain this level of performance when applied to more strongly deviant images that, for example, strongly differ in position, image contrast or the usage of surface coils.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
In conclusion, the experiments show that the proposed strategy is able to generate accurate and robust automated VAT and SAT segmentations in water-fat MRI scans with the help of the U-Net architecture. The segmentations allow for a volume quantification with an average of absolute errors below one percent in cross-validation and below three percent when applied to the multicenter test data. When examining the dice scores, the performance of the network on the test data is within range of the observed variability between different human operators both reported here and in the literature. In a direct comparison of network architectures, the implementation of the volumetric V-Net was clearly outperformed and less robust than the U-Net.\
The results of the cross-validation suggest that, when given a comparable number of (N = 90) already segmented images as training data, this approach could be employed in the context of a large-scale study to automatically segment the remaining scans. The high degree of robustness of the approach in regards to differences in patient demographics as well as the usage of a different device (of the same vendor) is seen in the results on the multicenter test data. This result shows the potential of the strategy to successfully process data of studies without any existing segmentations. In practice, the network could accordingly be trained using existing reference data and be applied to future studies using the same imaging protocol in order to provide automated segmentations with a minimal need for manual intervention.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement number 279153.
[^1]: <https://github.com/mattmacy/vnet.pytorch>
[^2]: <https://github.com/faustomilletari/VNet/issues/9>
[^3]: <https://github.com/tarolangner/fcn_vatsat>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Semiconductors and ferromagnetic materials play a largely complementary role in current information processing and storage technologies. The possibility of exploiting synergies between their properties has led to interest[@physicstoday] in fabricating hybrid systems. Among these, the most widely studied are ones in which ferromagnetic metals are patterned on the surface of a semiconductor.[@metalsemi] An attractive alternative has been presented by recent advances[@tohoku; @tokyo; @leuven; @story; @haury; @theory] in the fabrication and control of diluted magnetic semiconductors which exhibit free-carrier induced ferromagnetism. In semiconductors, low intrinsic carrier densities allow electrical transport properties to be grossly altered by changing doping profiles or gate voltages. In ferromagnets, it is long range order which allows weak magnetic fields to reorient large moments and produce significant changes in transport and other properties. Systems with magnetically ordered free carriers in semiconductors open up a plethora of intriguing possibilities for engineered electronic properties. Since these will generally involve spatial patterning of dopant and magnetic ion densities, their description requires a theory of free-carrier induced ferromagnetism in semiconductors appropriate to inhomogeneous systems. In this Letter we present such a theory and apply it to the case of layered structures which mimic metallic giant-magnetoresistance multilayers.[@magslreview] We conclude that strong magnetoresistance effects associated with half-metallic (fully polarized free-carrier band) states can occur in such systems.
The systems in which we are interested are described by Hamiltonians of the form $${\cal H} = {\cal H}_m + {\cal H}_f - J_{pd} \sum_{i,I} {\vec S_I}
\cdot {\vec s_i} \delta({\vec r}_i - {\vec R}_I).
\label{coupling}$$ Here ${\cal H}_m$ is the Hamiltonian of localized spins $\vec S_I$, located at positions ${\vec R}_I$ and interacting with an external magnetic field and, in general, also with each other. ${\cal H}_f$ is the Hamiltonian of a semiconductor free-carrier system described using an envelope function[@semictext] language and including interactions of carriers with a random disorder potential and with other carriers. We assume here that the semiconductor of interest has a single parabolic band; the formalism is readily generalized to multi-band situations which will often be of practical interest. The last term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[coupling\]) represents the exchange interaction[@dms] between $\vec{S}_I$ and free-carrier spins $\vec{s}_i$ which is responsible for the novel physics. Our theory is simplified by the neglect[@ueda] of dynamic correlations between a localized spin and both other localized spins and the free-carriers. We use a grand-canonical ensemble where the full system is in contact with a heat bath and the free carriers are in contact with a particle reservoir. Since we will ultimately use the local-spin-density approximation[@dfreviews] (LSDA) to account for correlations in the inhomogeneous free-carrier system, it is convenient to formulate our mean-field-theory in terms of the Gibbs thermodynamic variational principle which asserts that $$\Omega \le - k_B T \ln \left[
\sum_{\alpha} \exp( - \langle \alpha | {\cal H} | \alpha
\rangle/k_B T) \right].
\label{variational}$$ Here $|\alpha\rangle$ ranges over all possible direct products of localized spin moment $m_I$ configurations and many-fermion free carrier states obtained by diagonalizing ${\cal H}$ in subspaces with fixed localized spin configuration. $$\langle \alpha | {\cal H} | \alpha \rangle =
- \sum_I (g \mu_B B) m_I + E_{\kappa}[m_I]\; ,
\label{engexp}$$ where $E_{\kappa}[m_I]$ is a many-particle eigenvalue for free-carriers whose Hamiltonian includes the spin-dependent external potential term, $ - \sum_i s_{z,i} [ g^* \mu_B B + J_{pd} \sum_{I} m_I
\delta (\vec r_i - \vec R_I)]$ with $g$ and $g^*$ denoting localized-spin and free-carrier g-factors respectively.
The sum over the many-fermion free-carrier states can be performed formally by appealing to spin-density-functional theory[@dfreviews] which states that the free-carrier grand potential can be expressed in terms of the ground state number and spin densities. Assuming that the total spin quantum number of each localized moment is $S$, it follows that $$\Omega = \sum_I \Omega^{(0)}(b_I) +
\Omega_f[n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}]
- \frac{g^* \mu_B B}{2} \int d \vec r m(\vec r)
\label{omega}$$ where $\Omega_f[n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow}]$ is the internal free-carrier contribution, $b_I = [g \mu_B B + J_{pd} m(\vec R_I)/2]/k_B T $, and $$\Omega^{(0)}(b_I) = -k_B T \ln \big[ \sum_{i=-S}^{S} \exp (b_I i) \big]
\label{omega0}$$ is the thermodynamic potential of an isolated localized spin. In Eq. (\[omega\]), $m(\vec{r})=n_{\uparrow}(\vec{r})-n_{\downarrow}(\vec{r})$ and the mean-field densities, $n_{\uparrow}(\vec{r})$ and $n_{\downarrow}(\vec{r})$, of the itinerant spins are to be adjusted so that the functional derivatives of $\Omega$ with respect to both $n_{\uparrow}(\vec r)$ and $n_{\downarrow}(\vec r)$ are identically equal to the chemical potential.
In spin-density functional theory practical self-consistent field calculations for inhomogeneous interacting fermions are made possible by the Kohn-Sham separation of $\Omega_f$ into single-particle, electrostatic and exchange-correlation pieces. The development here is standard apart from the introduction of an additional spin-dependent effective potential because of the dependence of $b_I$ on $n_{\uparrow}(\vec R_I)$ and $n_{\downarrow}(\vec R_I)$. We find that the equilibrium free-carrier spin densities and the mean value of the localized spin quantum numbers on each site can be determined by solving the following equations self-consistently: i) a free-carrier single-particle Schrödinger equation with a spin-dependent potential, $$\left[ - \frac{ \nabla^2}{2 m^*} + V_{\sigma}(\vec r)
\right] \psi_{k,\sigma}(\vec r)
= \varepsilon_{k,\sigma} \psi_{k,\sigma}(\vec r)\; ,
\label{schrodinger}$$ where $$V_{\sigma}(\vec r)=v_{es}(\vec r) + v_{xc,\sigma}(\vec r)
-\frac{\sigma}{2} \left(g^* \mu_B B + h_{pd}(\vec r)\right)\; ;$$ ii) the Poisson equation for the electrostatic potential $$v_{es}(\vec r) = \frac{e^2}{\epsilon} \int d \vec r' \frac{n(\vec r')}
{|\vec r - \vec r'|} + v_{ext}(\vec r)\; ,
\label{poisson}$$ where $$n(\vec r)=n_{\uparrow}(\vec r)+n_{\downarrow}(\vec r)\; , \;\;
n_{\sigma}(\vec r)= \sum_k f(\epsilon_{k,\sigma}) |\psi_{k,\sigma}(\vec
r)|^2\; ,$$ $f(\epsilon_{k,\sigma})$ is the Fermi distribution function, and $v_{ext}(\vec r)$ is the envelope function external potential[@semictext] including most importantly band edge and ionized impurity contributions; iii) the LSDA equation for the spin-dependent exchange-correlation potential $$v_{xc,\sigma}(\vec r) = \frac{d [n
\epsilon_{xc}(n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow})]}{d n_{\sigma}}
\big|_{n_{\sigma}= n_{\sigma}(\vec r)}\; ,
\label{xcpot}$$ where $\epsilon_{xc}(n_{\uparrow},n_{\downarrow})$ is the exchange and correlation energy per particle of a spatially uniform free carrier system;[@vosko] iv) the mean-field equation for the exchange-coupling effective Zeeman field $$h_{pd}(\vec r) = J_{pd} \sum_I \delta (\vec r - \vec R_I) \langle m_I
\rangle\; ,
\label{exchangefield}$$ where the mean-field localized-spin moment $\langle m_I \rangle = S B_S(b_I S)$ and $B_S(x)$ is the Brillouin function.[@aharoni]
For homogeneous systems with randomly distributed localized spins these equations can be solved analytically and represent an improvement over the mean-field theory RKKY interaction description of free-carrier induced ferromagnetism. Our approach allows finite temperature, free-carrier exchange and correlation, and free-carrier spin-polarization effects to be conveniently accounted for. The Curie-Weiss temperature, obtained from Eqs. (\[schrodinger\])-(\[exchangefield\]), is given by $$k_B T_c = \frac{c S (S+1)}{3} \frac{J_{pd}^2}{(g^* \mu_B)^2}
\chi_f(n,T)\; ,
\label{tc}$$ where $c$ is the magnetic impurity density, and $\chi_f(n,T)$ is the temperature and density dependent free-carrier magnetic susceptibility. In Fig. \[tcr\] we have plotted the ferromagnetic transition temperature predicted by this expression for $p$-type Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As with $S=5/2$, $J_{pd}=0.15$ eV nm$^3$, $c=10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ and hole mass $m^*=0.5m_e$, as a function of free-carrier Fermi wavevector $k_F$.
=3.5in
When exchange and correlation effects are neglected and $\chi_f(n,T)$ is replaced by its zero-temperature value, $T_c$ is proportional to $k_F$ and agrees with the RKKY theory expression.[@theory; @tohoku; @ueda] Free-carrier exchange and correlation enhances $T_c$ by $\approx 30~K$ in the range of free-carrier densities studied. The theory appears to be reasonably accurate when applied to the experimental systems we are interested in, those which have the largest critical temperatures[@tohoku] ($T_c \approx 110$ K), providing confidence in its application to inhomogeneous systems. It is not adequate at small Mn fraction ($ x < 0.02$) where ferromagnetism is not observed, presumably because the free-carrier density is below its Mott limit. Experimentally, $T_c$ also decreases for $x > 0.07$, possibly because of spin-fluctuation effects neglected in the mean-field theory[@ueda]. The insets in Fig. \[tcr\] show that in the density-range of interest, the magnetization of the localized spins saturates more slowly than that of the free carriers as the temperature falls below the critical temperature.
=3.5in
Once the band edge and ionized and magnetic impurity profiles have been specified, Eqs. (\[schrodinger\])-(\[exchangefield\]) can be used to solve for the sytem’s equilibrium properties. As an illustration of our approach, we consider a Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As/GaAs superlattice with magnetic impurities in alternate layers. We look for two different self-consistent solutions of Eqs. (\[schrodinger\])-(\[exchangefield\]), a ferromagnetic (F) one with parallel ordered moments in all Mn-doped regions, and a solution with an antiferromagnetic (AF) alignment of adjacent magnetic layers. The interlayer exchange coupling $E_c$, is defined as the difference in energy between AF and F-states per area per Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As layer and is expected[@rkky] to oscillate with GaAs spacer width. In Fig. \[ec\] we present numerical results for $E_c$ as a function of a dimensionless parameter $2d\overline{k}_F$ where $\overline{k}_F$ is the Fermi wavevector corresponding to the average 3D density of free carriers in the superlattice with a period $d$. The system we consider has 2 nm thick Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As layers with $c=10^{21}$ cm$^{-3}$ and homogeneously distributed ionized impurities that neutralize free-carrier charge. Oscillations in the self-consistent (solid lines) $E_c$, are qualitatively consistent with simple RKKY model estimates;[@rkky] differences exist primarily because of the proximity induced spin-polarization in the nominally paramagnetic GaAs layers mentioned below. The amplitude of oscillations in $E_c$ is $\sim 10\times$ smaller than in metallic systems[@ecmetal] measured in absolute units and $\sim 10\times$ larger if energy is measured relative to the Fermi energy of free carriers. In order to achieve substantial exchange coupling in experimental systems it will be important to limit disorder scattering in the GaAs layers.
=3.5in
Our mean-field calculation also yields information on the localized and free-carrier spin magnetization densities and on the spin-split bands of the free-carrier system. This information provides a starting point for building a theory of electronic transport. Numerical results for the above Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As superlattice with $d=3.5$ nm and $\overline{k}_F=1.4$ nm$^{-1}$ (corresponding to average density 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$) are summarized in Figs. \[vmixi\] and \[e\]. In the top panels of Fig. \[vmixi\], the chemical potential and the effective potentials for spin-up and spin-down free carriers (see Eq. (\[schrodinger\])) are plotted as a function of $z$ over a AF configuration unit cell. All energies here and below are measured from the spatial average of the electrostatic potential $v_{es}(z)$. The potentials $V_{\sigma}$ have similar shapes in F and AF cases, except for the reversed order for up and down spins in the right Mn-doped layer. Note that in this example, confinement of carriers in the magnetic layers is due entirely to the exchange potential produced by magnetic order. The localized (middle panels) and itinerant (lower panels) spin systems reach 100 $\%$ polarization in the Mn-doped layers at the temperature ($T=0.1T_c$) and carrier density for which these calculations were performed. The itinerant system spin-polarization is large in the layers free of magnetic impurities, especially so in the F-state case.
Fig. \[e\] shows occupied minibands in the superlattice Brillouin zone. In the F-state spin-up and spin-down minibands are split by about 0.25 eV. There is no spin-splitting in the AF-state since the effective potentials $V_{\uparrow}$ and $V_{\downarrow}$ differ by a rigid shift in the $\hat{z}$ direction. The miniband dispersion is much weaker in the AF case because the barriers separating two adjacent minima in the effective potential are twice as thick and high as in the F case. Since the conductance is approximately proportional to the square of the largest miniband width in either coherent or incoherent transport limits, the minibands can be used to estimate the size of the current-perpendicular-to-plane (CPP) magnetoresistance effect. For the case illustrated, the AF state CPP conductance will be three orders of magnitude smaller than the F state CPP conductance. The large difference is expected since the bulk Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As bands are half-metallic for these parameters. In general we predict strong CPP magnetoresistance in Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As/GaAs multilayer systems if the AF state can be realized.
=3.5in
The GaAs/Mn$_x$Ga$_{1-x}$As superlattice is but one example of a semiconductor nanostructure to which our mean field theory can be applied. Tremendous flexibility is possible even within systems containing only GaAs based materials. These can act like a normal (N) conductor, like an itinerant ferromagnet (F) when a fraction of the Ga atoms is replaced by Mn, and like an insulator (I) when a large enough fraction of Ga in the crystal is replaced by Al. In GaAs-based N/F/I heterostructures all components are lattice matched and have relatively simple band structures. Geometries of interest include F-N junctions, N-F-N spin-filters, F-N-F spin-valves, and F-I-F magnetic tunnel junctions. Since the materials are semiconductors rather than metals, external bias voltages can have a strong influence on both charge and magnetization density profiles. Self-consistency is hence essential in modeling these systems.
The authors acknowledge helpful interactions with D.D. Awaschalom, J.K. Furdyna. and E. Miranda. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants DMR-9623511, DMR-9714055 and INT-9602140, by the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic under grant ME-104 and by the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under grant 202/98/0085.
See for example G. Prinz, Physics Today [**48**]{}, 58 (1995).
P. Ye [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3013 (1995); [*ibid*]{} Semicond. Sci. Technol. [**11**]{}, 1613 (1996); H.A. Carmona, A.K. Geim, A. Norgaret, P.C. Main, T.J. Foster, and A. Henini, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3009 (1995).
H. Ohno, Science [**281**]{}, 951 (1998); H. Matsukura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, R2037 (1998); H. Ohno [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**69**]{}, 363 (1996); H. Ohno [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2664 (1992).
S. Koshihare [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4617 (1997).
A. Van Esch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [bf 56]{}, 13103 (1997).
T. Story [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 777 (1986).
A. Haury [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 511 (1997); I.P. Smorchkova [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3571 (1997).
T. Dietl, A. Haury, and Y. Merle d’Aubign' e, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, R3347 (1997).
For a review see B. Heinrich and J.A.C. Bland, [*Ultrathin Magnetic Structures*]{}, Vol. 2 (Springer, Berlin, 1994).
G. Bastard, [*Wave Mechanics Applied to Semiconductor Heterostructures*]{} (Les Éditions de Physique, Paris, 1990).
J.K. Furdyna, J. Appl. Phys. [**64**]{}, R29 (1988); [*Semimagnetic Semiconductors and Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors*]{}, edited by M. Averous and M. Balkanski (Plenum, New York, 1991); T. Dietl in [*Handbook on Semiconductors*]{}, Chap. 17 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994).
Homogeneous ferromagnetic semiconductors are closely related to the low-carrier-concentration limit of dense Kondo systems, which is well-described by mean-field theory; Manfred Sigrist, Kazuo Ueda, and Hirokazu Tsunetsugu, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 175 (1992).
R.M. Dreizler and E.K.U. Gross, [*Density Functional Theory: An Approach to the Quantum Many-Body Problem*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1990); N. Argaman and G. Makov, preprint \[cond-mat/9806013\] (1998).
A. Aharoni, [*Introduction to the theory of ferromagnetism*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996).
S.H. Vosko [*et al.*]{}, Can. J. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1200 (1980).
A. Yfet, Phys. Rev. B [**36**]{}, 3948 (1987).
Discrepancies exist between experimental and ideal theoretical values of $E_c$ in metallic systems, partly because of interface roughness effects (J. Kudrnovsky [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 5125 (1996)). This comparison with metallic systems is based on $E_c$ values for Fe/Au/Fe triplelayers where good agreement is found between theory and experiment: J. Ugrundis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2734 (1997).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Criteria for the existence of de Sitter inflation with dilaton fields in four-dimensional space-times with torsion is discussed.The relation between matter density perturbation and the spin-density perturbation is stablished based on this criteria.From COBE data it is shown that there is a linear relationship between the spin-torsion density and temperature of the Universe for the case where matter density dominates the kinetic part of dilaton fields.'
---
**[Criteria for de Sitter inflation in Einstein-Cartan cosmology and COBE data]{}**
[L.C. Garcia de Andrade[^1]]{}
#### {#section .unnumbered}
Recently much work has been done in Inflationary theories in Einstein-Cartan cosmology [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5] without avery clear criteria of how to define inflation with dilaton fields or inflatons.In this letter we hope to remedy this situation by stablishing this criteria following the same pattern that was used in the context of General Relativity (GR) [@6].Application of this criteria to an example where we investigate the relation between the spin-torsion and matter densities and the temperature anisotropies is given, where the COBE data is used to obtain an expression between the spin-torsion density and temperature of the Universe.This letter complements previous work developed by Palle [@4] in the sense that we deal with inflation generated by a scalar field which is not taken into account when Palle investigates a model of inflation with rotation and expansion and computes the density perturbation during this phase.Korotky [@5] has also applied this model to show that is possible to solve some problems that appear in the Nucleosynthesis in Riemann-Cartan spacetime.To start with let us consider the Einstein-Cartan equations as given in Gasperini [@1] $$H^{2}=\frac{8{\pi}G}{3}({\rho}_{eff}-2{\pi}G{\sigma}^{2})
\label{1}$$ and $$H^{2}=-\frac{4{\pi}G}{3}({\rho}_{eff}+3{p}_{eff}-8{\pi}G{\sigma}^{2})
\label{2}$$ Where $\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H$.Application of the de Sitter metric $$ds^{2}=dt^{2} - e^{2Ht}(dz^{2}+dx^{2}+dy^{2})
\label{3}$$ to the EC equations yields $${\rho}_{eff}=-p_{eff}+4{\pi}G{\sigma}^{2}
\label{4}$$ Where $${\rho}_{eff}={\dot{\phi}}^{2}+V({\phi})+{\rho}
\label{5}$$ and $${p}_{eff}={\dot{\phi}}^{2}-V({\phi})+{\rho}
\label{6}$$ Substitution of expressions (\[5\]) and (\[6\]) into expression (\[4\]) yields after some algebra $$2{\dot{\phi}}^{2}+{\rho}=-p+4{\pi}G{\sigma}^{2}
\label{7}$$ One must note that this criteria reduces to the GR criteria when torsion and the dilaton field ${\phi}$ vanish.Expression (\[7\]) gives us some more freedom on the criteria to choose to consider inflation in the context of Einstein-Cartan gravity.The first could be to maintain the criteria of GR inflation and to use ${\rho}=-p$ into expression (\[7\]) yields $${\dot{\phi}}^{2}=2{\pi}G{\sigma}^{2}
\label{8}$$ In the particular case where torsion is constant integration of expression (\[8\]) yields a linear relation between dilaton and time where torsion appears in the angular coefficient of the straight lines as $${\phi}(t)={\phi}(0)+2{\pi}G{\sigma}_{0}t
\label{9}$$ where the index $0$ indicates that the quantity is constant.By making use of the relation $a(t)=\frac{1}{T}$ between the cosmic scale factor $a$ and the temperature $T$,one obtains $${\delta}a=-\frac{{\delta}T}{{T}^{2}}
\label{10}$$ Now from the EC field equations above one obtains $$\frac{{\delta}{\rho}}{\rho}|_{eff}=-2k\frac{T{\delta}T}{H^{2}-kT^{2}}
\label{11}$$ By making use of the approximation $kT^{2}>>>H^{2}$ one obtains the relationship between the effective matter density fluctuation and the temperature fluctuation $$\frac{{\delta}{\rho}}{\rho}|_{eff}=2\frac{{\delta}T}{T}
\label{12}$$ Yet from the field equations one now has $$\frac{{\delta}{\rho}}{\rho}|_{eff}=\frac{2}{T}\frac{{\delta}{\sigma}}{\sigma}-3\frac{k}{16{\pi}G^{2}{\sigma}^{2}}2\frac{{\delta}T}{T}
\label{13}$$ To simplify matters we shall consider the flat section $(k=0)$ and the last term drops out.From the expression (\[5\]) one obtains $$\frac{{\delta}{\rho}}{\rho}=\frac{1}{T}\frac{{\delta}{\sigma}}{\sigma}
\label{14}$$ and from the COBE data $\frac{{\delta}T}{T}=10^{-5}$ we obtain a relation between the spin-torsion density fluctuation and the temperature of the Universe as $$\frac{{\delta}{\sigma}}{\sigma}=\frac{1}{2}.10^{-5}T
\label{15}$$ Just to give an estimate to the spin-torsion density during the de Sitter inflationary phase let us consideer the temperature $T_{0}=0.5 K$ for the temperature of the CBR radiation [@7]which yields $$\frac{{\delta}{\sigma}}{\sigma}=2.5 10^{-6}
\label{16}$$ In principle an experiment could be proposed to measured such relative high value predicted for the spin-torsion density fluctuation based on the Einstein-Cartan cosmology.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
#### {#section-1 .unnumbered}
Thanks are due to Prof.I.L.Shapiro and Prof.Rudnei Ramos, for their constant advice on the subject of this paper.I am very much indebt to FAPESP (fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo) and CNPq. (Brazilian Government Agency) for financial support.
[7]{} M.Gasperini,Repulsive gravity in the very early universe,gr-qc/9805060. L.C.Garcia de Andrade,Phys.Lett.B468,(1999)28. A.Maroto and I.Shapiro,Phys.Lett.B 414,(1997)34. D.Palle,On Primordial Cosmological Density Fluctuations in the Einstein-Cartan Gravity from COBE data,gr-qc LOs Alamos archives (1999). A.Korokty,in Modern Problems of theoretical Physics,Fetschrift for D.Ivanenko,(1990),World Scientific. R.Brandeenberger,in Gravitation and Cosmology Brazilian School,(1995),Ed. Mario Novello. J.Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology,(1993),Princeton University Press.
[^1]: Departamento de Matematica Aplicada-IMECC=Universidade Estadual de Campinas,Brasil. e-mail.: [email protected] address:Departamento de Fisica Teorica-IF-UERJ-CEP:20550-013,Rio de Janeiro,RJ
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have used a combination of ultrafast coherent phonon spectroscopy, ultrafast thermometry, and time-dependent Landau theory to study the inversion symmetry breaking phase transition at $T_c = 200$ K in the strongly spin-orbit coupled correlated metal Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$. We establish that the structural distortion at $T_c$ is a secondary effect through the absence of any softening of its associated phonon mode, which supports a purely electronically driven mechanism. However, the phonon lifetime exhibits an anomalously strong temperature dependence that decreases linearly to zero near $T_c$. We show that this behavior naturally explains the spurious appearance of phonon softening in previous Raman spectroscopy experiments and should be a prevalent feature of correlated electron systems with linearly coupled order parameters.'
author:
- 'J. W. Harter'
- 'D. M. Kennes'
- 'H. Chu'
- 'A. de la Torre'
- 'Z. Y. Zhao'
- 'J.-Q. Yan'
- 'D. G. Mandrus'
- 'A. J. Millis'
- 'D. Hsieh'
title: 'Evidence of an improper displacive phase transition in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ via time-resolved coherent phonon spectroscopy'
---
The strongly spin-orbit coupled metallic pyrochlore Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ undergoes an unusual cubic-to-tetragonal phase transition below a critical temperature $T_c = 200$ K that breaks structural inversion symmetry [@yamaura2002]. Unlike many other pyrochlore 5$d$ transition metal oxides such as Cd$_2$Os$_2$O$_7$ [@mandrus2001] or members of the $R_2$Ir$_2$O$_7$ ($R$ = rare earth) family [@matsuhira], which undergo paramagnetic metal-to-antiferromagnetic insulator transitions below a similar temperature scale, the phase transition in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ is from metal-to-metal [@hanawa; @sakai2001; @jin2002] and does not appear to be accompanied by any long-range magnetic order [@vyaselev; @arai; @sakai2002]. Extensive efforts to determine the underlying mechanism of the phase transition in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ using x-ray diffraction [@jin2002; @castellan2002; @yamaura2002; @huang2009], local magnetic probes [@vyaselev; @arai; @sakai2002], optical spectroscopy [@kendziora2005; @petersen2006; @harter2017] and various theoretical approaches [@sergienko2003; @sergienko2004; @fu2015; @dimatteo2017] have produced conflicting pictures.
For many years, the leading hypothesis was that the transition is driven by the freezing of a soft zone-centered phonon mode with $E_u$ symmetry [@sergienko2003]. This mechanism is described by a Landau free energy $F(\Phi) = a(T/T_c - 1)\Phi^2 + b\Phi^4$, where $\Phi$ is the structural order parameter, and requires the natural frequency of the $E_u$ phonon to monotonically approach zero near $T_c$, as illustrated in Fig. \[figure1\](a). Such a scenario is supported by Raman spectroscopy experiments [@kendziora2005], which detect the apparent softening of an $E_u$ phonon near $T_c$, as well as by density functional theory calculations that find an unstable oxygen $E_u$ phonon at zero temperature [@sergienko2004].
![\[figure1\] Two competing hypotheses of the $E_u$ structural distortion in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ across $T_c$. (a) The phase transition is driven by the freezing of an $E_u$ phonon. Within this theory, the mode frequency $\omega$ softens as $T \rightarrow T_c$ and goes to zero at $T_c$. (b) The $E_u$ structural distortion is a secondary order parameter linearly coupled to the primary electronic order driving the phase transition. Within this theory, the mode frequency does not depend strongly on temperature.](Figure1.pdf)
A competing hypothesis is that the phase transition is driven by an electronic order. Specific theoretical proposals include an odd-parity electronic nematic order [@fu2015; @wu2004; @wu2007], which arises from a Pomeranchuk instability in the $p$-wave spin interaction channel [@fu2015], as well as a combination of odd-parity quadrupolar and even-parity octupolar magnetic orders [@dimatteo2017]. Recent optical second harmonic generation (SHG) measurements have indeed uncovered an odd-parity electronic order parameter $\Psi_u$ with $T_{2u}$ symmetry that exhibits a $\sqrt{1 - T/T_c}$ scaling behavior [@harter2017], which is consistent with the behavior of a primary order parameter. Based on a symmetry analysis of the Landau free energy, it was deduced that an additional even-parity electronic order parameter $\Psi_g$ with $T_{1g}$ symmetry must exist, which together with $\Psi_u$ induces the $E_u$ structural distortion as a so-called “improper” secondary order parameter [@harter2017]. This mechanism is described by $F(\Phi) = a\Phi^2 - g\Psi_g\Psi_u\Phi$ and does not require the $E_u$ phonon to soften near $T_c$, as illustrated in Fig. \[figure1\](b). The hypothesis of an electronically driven phase transition in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ is further supported by x-ray diffraction experiments [@castellan2002], which show an anomalous temperature dependence of superlattice Bragg peaks below $T_c$, as well as by the extreme weakness of the structural distortion [@yamaura2002; @huang2009] contrasted with the pronounced changes in resistivity and magnetic susceptibility [@jin2002] across $T_c$.
To determine which of the two proposed hypotheses is correct and to understand the reasons for conflicting pictures, we carried out time-resolved optical reflectivity measurements on a Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ single crystal to coherently drive the $E_u$ phonon and directly probe its temperature dependence in the time domain. Figure \[figure2\](a) shows a characteristic differential reflectivity transient $\Delta R(t)/R$ for $T < T_c$, with $t$ being the delay time between pump and probe pulses. The reflectivity sharply decreases after pump excitation, after which it recovers towards a quasi-steady state less than the initial value. The recovery features oscillations due to the coherent excitation of two Raman-active phonon modes superposed atop a smoothly decaying background. To extract the properties of the modes, we fit the recovery to the function $${{\Delta R(t)\over R} = B_0 + B_1e^{-\gamma_1 t} + B_2e^{-\gamma_2 t} + \sum_{i = 1, 2} A_i x_i(t),}$$ where the two exponential decay terms describe a fast and slow relaxation process and the two damped harmonic oscillator terms describe the phonon modes. We take $x_i(t)$ to be the generic response of an underdamped harmonic oscillator \[$\ddot{x}_i + (2/\tau_i)\dot{x}_i + \omega_i^2x_i = 0$\] with initial conditions $x_i(0) = 1$ and $\dot{x}_i(0) = 0$, given by $${x_i(t) = e^{-t/\tau_i}\left[\cos\left(\Omega_i t\right) + {\sin\left(\Omega_i t\right)\over\Omega_i\tau_i}\right],}$$ $${\Omega_i = \sqrt{\omega_i^2 - 1/\tau_i^2}.}$$ Here, $\omega_i$ is the natural frequency of the oscillator, $\tau_i$ is its inverse damping parameter, and $\Omega_i$ is the actual frequency of damped oscillations. We emphasize the important fact that observing the oscillation frequency approach zero ($\Omega_i \rightarrow 0$) does not necessarily imply that the mode is softening ($\omega_i \rightarrow 0$). Instead, as we will show, this kind of behavior can also be explained by a diverging damping rate ($\tau_i \rightarrow 0$). Indeed, based on the temperature dependence of the raw data alone \[Fig. \[figure2\](b)\], it is clear that the phonon lifetime rapidly diminishes upon approaching $T_c$.
The values of $\omega_i$ and $\tau_i$ for the two phonon modes extracted from the fits at different temperatures are displayed in Fig. \[figure3\]. These best-fit values are uniquely determined because of the exponential decay factor in the oscillator response $x_i(t)$. A number of salient features may be drawn from the results. First, both mode frequencies have a weak temperature dependence and, as illustrated by the gray curve in Fig. \[figure3\](a), do not show any signatures of soft mode behavior (where one would expect $\omega_i \rightarrow 0$ at $T_c$). Instead, the observed temperature dependence is fully consistent with a small negative linear slope expected for “normal” phonons [@scott1974]. Second, mode 1 only exists below the phase transition whereas mode 2 survives above $T_c$. Indeed, the frequency and lifetime of mode 1 extracted from our data very closely match a previous Raman study [@kendziora2005] in which the mode symmetry was identified as deriving from an $E_u$ distortion that only becomes Raman-active (and therefore experimentally observable) below $T_c$. In contrast, mode 2 is likely a fully symmetric $A_{1g}$ breathing mode because it survives above $T_c$. The absence of mode 2 in the Raman data is possibly the result of its short lifetime and correspondingly broad bandwidth. Third, as shown in Fig. \[figure3\](b), the lifetime of mode 1 has a very strong temperature dependence, plunging to nearly zero as the temperature is increased to $T_c$. The lifetime of mode 2, on the other hand, is relatively short and independent of temperature. These facts strongly disfavor the soft-phonon scenario and suggest that the $E_u$ structural distortion is a secondary order parameter that does not drive the phase transition.
![\[figure4\] Time-dependent Landau theory results. Calculated lifetime ($\tau$) of oscillations of the structural order parameter away from its equilibrium value. Input parameters of the calculation include the observed mode frequency 2.5 THz and electronic damping rate 3.5 THz (denoted $\Omega_0/2\pi$ and $\gamma_0/2\pi$ respectively in Ref. [@EPAPS]), and different values of the reduced free energy coupling constant $\lambda = g^2/bc$. The behavior $\tau \propto 1 - T/T_c$ observed by experiment is reproduced. For comparison, circles are experimental data from Fig. \[figure3\]. The shaded region near $T_c$ identifies where critical fluctuations are expected to be important and Landau theory no longer applies.](Figure4.pdf)
Raman spectroscopy data [@kendziora2005] were originally interpreted as evidence of a softening of the $E_u$ phonon and therefore of a structurally-driven phase transition; with our data we see that this interpretation is incorrect. Instead, the reported decrease in the Raman peak frequency near $T_c$ is due to a decrease in the lifetime of the phonon rather than a softening of its natural frequency. This new interpretation is fully consistent with the Raman data if we re-analyze the data using a driven damped harmonic oscillator model [@EPAPS], where the frequency of the resulting Raman peak does not necessarily correspond to the oscillator natural frequency—a phenomenon well-established in the literature [@didomenico1968; @burns1970]. As shown in Fig. \[figure3\], the values of $\omega_1$ and $\tau_1$ extracted from this revised analysis of the Raman data fully agree with our time-domain analysis, offering an independent consistency check of our results.
Although nontrivial temperature dependencies of mode lifetimes near phase transitions are well established for primary order parameters [@silverman1972; @demsar1999; @taniguchi2007; @torchinsky2014; @chu2017], it is unusual to observe such behavior for a secondary order parameter. To examine why the lifetime of the $E_u$ phonon mode has such a strong temperature dependence near $T_c$ despite it not going soft, we analyzed the interaction between the primary and secondary modes in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ by performing a time-dependent Landau theory analysis of its full free energy proposed by Ref. : $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F = {}& F_0-\frac{a}{2}\left(1-\frac{T}{T_c}\right)\left(\Psi_u^2+\Psi_g^2\right)+\frac{b}{2}\Phi^2\\
&-g\Psi_g\Psi_u\Phi+\frac{c}{4}\left(\Psi_g^4+\Psi_u^4\right)
\end{split}
\label{eq:F}\end{aligned}$$ By expanding $F$ about the equilibrium values of the structural ($\Phi$) and electronic ($\Psi_{u,g}$) order parameters and considering the linearized dynamical response to deviations from the equilibrium values, which is valid at temperatures sufficiently below $T_c$ where critical fluctuations are irrelevant, our calculations show that there exists a linear coupling between the primary and secondary modes [@EPAPS]. This coupling allows the $\Phi$ mode to be damped by the critical slowing down of the $\Psi_{u,g}$ modes. Assuming overdamped dynamics for the $\Psi_{u,g}$ modes and oscillatory dynamics for the $\Phi$ mode, our theory produces a $\Phi$ mode lifetime $\tau \propto 1 - T/T_c$ in agreement with our measurements. Figure \[figure4\] shows the calculated temperature dependence of $\tau$ for various values of the coupling strength $\lambda = g^2/bc$ using the experimentally determined phonon natural frequency (2.5 THz). We see that the linear temperature scaling relation is a robust feature of our theory and, for suitably chosen values of the model parameters, can quantitatively reproduce the experimental data.
![\[figure5\] Time-resolved second harmonic generation of Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$. (a) Fractional change in SHG intensity $\Delta I_\mathrm{SHG}/I_\mathrm{SHG}$ at 175 K for a selection of pump fluences as a function of time delay after the pump pulse. Curves are horizontally offset for clarity. (b) SHG intensity as a function of temperature, demonstrating that $I_\mathrm{SHG} \propto (1 - T/T_c)^2$. The orange symbols correspond to the intensity levels shown in panel (a) and illustrate the instantaneous temperature increase due to the pump pulse for different fluence values. (c) Close up view of the reduction of $I_\mathrm{SHG}$ near time zero for a pump fluence of 1.00 mJ/cm$^2$. The majority of the intensity drop is complete by $\sim 0.2$ ps. The horizontal dashed line shows the quasi-steady value at long times.](Figure5.pdf)
It is surprising that the data are so well captured by time-dependent Landau theory because an ultrafast optical pulse typically excites the system far away from equilibrium on short timescales, during which the electronic and lattice temperatures can be very different. To measure how quickly the electron and lattice subsystems thermally equilibrate in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$, we performed time-resolved SHG measurements. The second-order electric-dipole susceptibility has been shown to couple linearly to the $E_u$ structural order parameter below $T_c$ [@petersen2006; @harter2017], therefore the SHG intensity can be used as a sensitive measure of the lattice temperature. Figure \[figure5\](a) shows time-resolved SHG transients acquired at $T$ = 175 K. For all pump fluences tested, we observe the SHG intensity drop to a lower value quickly upon pump excitation, indicating a rapid heating of the lattice, and then stay nearly constant at this value for over 100 ps. Since this far exceeds typical electron-lattice equilibration timescales, the equilibration must be complete once the intensity flattens. The long ($>$ 100 ps) recovery time is likely due to slow heat diffusion away from the excited region, which is consistent with the reported low “amorphous-like” thermal conductivity of Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ [@he2010]. To further verify that the system is equilibrated upon the flattening of intensity, we compared the actual temperature rise in this regime to the expected pump-induced temperature rise for an electron-lattice equilibrated system. The actual temperature rise can be obtained from the SHG intensity versus temperature curve measured from an un-pumped sample \[Fig. \[figure5\](b)\], which exhibits a $I_\mathrm{SHG} \propto (1 - T/T_c)^2$ scaling relation. For the data set in Fig. \[figure5\](a) acquired using a fluence of 1.00 mJ/cm$^2$ for example, the curve yields a temperature rise of $\Delta T \approx 15$ K at $t$ = 20 ps. The expected temperature rise can be calculated using the equation $\Delta T \sim (1-R)f/C_p\delta$, where $R$ is the reflectivity, $f$ is the fluence, $C_p$ is the volumetric heat capacity, and $\delta$ is the optical penetration depth. Inputting $f$ = 1.00 mJ/cm$^2$, $C_p \approx 2.3$ J/cm$^3\cdot$K at $T$ = 175 K [@jin2002; @he2010; @tachibana2010], $R \approx 0.6$ and $\delta \approx 100$ nm at a pump wavelength of 1400 nm [@wang2002], we find $\Delta T \approx 17$ K, in good agreement with the actual measured temperature rise. This shows that the entirety of the pump pulse energy is accounted for by the increase in lattice temperature, which rules out the existence of a hotter electron subsystem since that would imply an incomplete transfer of energy to the lattice. Given that the equilibrated lattice temperature is nearly reached within a resolution limited timescale ($<$ 0.2 ps) as shown in Fig. \[figure5\](c), the system can be well approximated as being in equilibrium over the time window that the coherent phonons are observed \[Fig. \[figure2\](b)\], which explains the efficacy of our time-dependent Landau theory. The rapid transfer of energy from the electronic to lattice subsystem is consistent with previous reports of strong electron-phonon coupling in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ [@vyaselev; @bae2006] and further supports our theory that the reciprocal process - a dissipation of the phonon energy into the electronic bath - is responsible for the observed phonon damping.
Although our analyses have focused on the electronically driven phase transition in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$, these results are generic to any system possessing a linear coupling between primary and secondary orders with different symmetries and may be an effective strategy to differentiate primary from secondary order parameters in a wide class of materials. For example, improper ferroelectrics [@bousquet2008; @oh2015] are driven by coupled primary structural order parameters, and the ferroelectric mode of secondary nature in such systems should behave in much the same way as the $E_u$ phonon mode in Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ observed here.
This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. SC-0010533. D.H. also acknowledges funding from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and support for instrumentation from the Institute for Quantum Information and Matter, an NSF Physics Frontiers Center (PHY-1125565) with support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through grant GBMF1250. J.-Q.Y. and D.G.M. were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences, Materials Sciences and Engineering Division. Z.Y.Z. acknowledges the Center for Emergent Materials, an NSF Materials Research Science and Engineering Center under grant DMR-1420451. The work of D.M.K. and A.J.M. on this project was supported by the Basic Energy Sciences Program of the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. SC-0012375 and D.M.K. also acknowledges DFG KE 2115/1-1.
[99]{}
J.-I. Yamaura & Z. Hiroi, *J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.* **71**, 2598-2600 (2002).
D. Mandrus, J. R. Thompson, R. Gaal, L. Forro, J. C. Bryan, B. C. Chakoumakos, L. M. Woods, B. C. Sales, R. S. Fishman & V. Keppens, *Phys. Rev. B* **63**, 195104 (2001).
K. Matsuhira *et al.,* *J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.* **76**, 043706 (2007).
M. Hanawa, Y. Muraoka, T. Tayama, T. Sakakibara, J. Yamaura & Z. Hiroi, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **87**, 187001 (2001).
H. Sakai *et al.,* *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **13**, L785-L790 (2001).
R. Jin *et al.,* *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **14**, L117-L123 (2002).
O. Vyaselev, K. Arai, K. Kobayashi, J. Yamazaki, K. Kodama, M. Takigawa, M. Hanawa & Z. Hiroi, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **89**, 017001 (2002).
K. Arai, K. Kobayashi, K. Kodama, O. Vyaselev, M. Takigawa1, M. Hanawa & Z. Hiroi, *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **14**, L461-L466 (2002).
H. Sakai, H. Kato, S. Kambe, R. E. Walstedt, H. Ohno, M. Kato, K. Yoshimura & H. Matsuhata, *Phys. Rev. B* **66**, 100509(R) (2002).
J. P. Castellan, B. D. Gaulin, J. van Duijn, M. J. Lewis, M. D. Lumsden, R. Jin, J. He, S. E. Nagler & D. Mandrus, *Phys. Rev. B* **66**, 134528 (2002).
S.-W. Huang *et al.,* *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* **21**, 195602 (2009).
C. A. Kendziora, I. A. Sergienko, R. Jin, J. He, V. Keppens, B. C. Sales & D. Mandrus, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **95**, 125503 (2005).
J. C. Petersen *et al.,* *Nat. Phys.* **2**, 605-608 (2006).
J. W. Harter, Z. Y. Zhao, J.-Q. Yan, D. G. Mandrus & D. Hsieh, *Science* **356**, 295-299 (2017).
I. A. Sergienko & S. H. Curnoe, *J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.* **72**, 1607-1610 (2003).
I. A. Sergienko, V. Keppens, M. McGuire, R. Jin, J. He, S. H. Curnoe, B. C. Sales, P. Blaha, D. J. Singh, K. Schwarz & D. Mandrus *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **92**, 065501 (2004).
L. Fu, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **115**, 026401 (2015).
S. Di Matteo & M. R. Norman, *Phys. Rev. B* **96**, 115156 (2017).
C. Wu & S.-C. Zhang, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **93**, 036403 (2004).
C. Wu, K. Sun, E. Fradkin & S.-C. Zhang, *Phys. Rev. B* **75**, 115103 (2007).
J. F. Scott, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **46**, 83-128 (1974).
See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. \[36-37\].
M. DiDomenico, Jr., S. H. Wemple, S. P. S. Porto & R. P. Bauman, *Phys. Rev.* **174**, 522-530 (1968).
G. Burns & B. A. Scott, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **25**, 167-170 (1970).
B. D. Silverman, *Solid State Commun.* **10**, 311-314 (1972).
J. Demsar, K. Biljakovic & D. Mihailovic, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **83**, 800-803 (1999).
H. Taniguchi, Y. J. Shan, H. Mori & M. Itoh, *Phys. Rev. B* **76**, 212103 (2007).
D. H. Torchinsky, F. Mahmood, A. T. Bollinger, I. Bozovic & N. Gedik, *Nat. Mater.* **12**, 387-391 (2013).
H. Chu *et al.,* *Nat. Mater.* **16**, 200-203 (2017).
J. He, D. Hitchcock, I. Bredeson, N. Hickman, Terry M. Tritt & S. N. Zhang, *Phys. Rev. B* **81**, 134302 (2010).
M. Tachibana, N. Taira, H. Kawaji & E. Takayama-Muromachi, *Phys. Rev. B* **82**, 054108 (2010).
N. L. Wang, J. J. McGuire, T. Timusk, R. Jin, J. He & D. Mandrus, *Phys. Rev. B* **66**, 014534 (2002).
J. S. Bae *et al.,* *J. Korean Phys. Soc.* **48**, 946-950 (2006).
E. Bousquet *et al.,* *Nature* **452**, 732-736 (2008).
Y. S. Oh *et al.,* *Nat. Mater.* **14**, 407-413 (2015).
J. He *et al.,* *J. Electron. Mater.* **36**, 740-745 (2007).
J. W. Harter, L. Niu, A. J. Woss & D. Hsieh, *Opt. Lett.* **40**, 4671-4674 (2015).
Methods summary
===============
**Sample growth and characterization.** Single crystals of Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ were grown by vapor transport [@he2007]. X-ray diffraction measurements were performed on pulverized single crystals using a PANalytical X’Pert Pro powder x-ray diffractometer with Cu $K\alpha_1$ radiation. No impurity peaks were observed. An elemental analysis was performed using a Hitachi TM-3000 scanning electron microscope equipped with a Bruker QUANTAX 70 energy dispersive x-ray system. The analysis confirmed an equal amount of Cd and Re within the resolution of the instrument. Magnetic susceptibility measurements were performed using a Quantum Design Magnetic Property Measurement System at temperatures from 2 to 350 K. The results indicated high quality crystals without the presence of ReO$_2$ inclusions.
**Time-resolved reflectivity measurements.** Pump-probe linear reflectivity experiments were performed using a regeneratively amplified Ti:sapphire laser system operating at a 10 kHz repetition rate with a center wavelength of 795 nm and a pulse duration of 80 fs. Pump and probe beams were cross polarized and focused onto the (111) surface of a Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ single crystal at near-normal incidence. The relative change in reflectivity of the probe beam was measured with a lock-in amplifier referenced to the pump beam mechanically chopped at 5 kHz. For pump fluences between $\sim$0.5 mJ/cm$^2$ and $\sim$3 mJ/cm$^2$, the reflectivity transients were found to scale linearly with fluence. Data shown in Fig. 2 of the main text were acquired with a pump fluence of 1.4 mJ/cm$^2$, well within the linear response regime, and a probe fluence of less than 100 $\mu$J/cm$^2$.
**Time-resolved SHG measurements.** Pump-probe SHG experiments were performed using a regeneratively amplified Ti:sapphire laser system operating at a 100 kHz repetition rate with a center wavelength of 800 nm and a pulse duration of 100 fs. An optical parametric amplifier was used to convert the pump beam wavelength to 1400 nm. The obliquely incident 800 nm probe beam was $S$-polarized \[parallel to the (111) surface\] with a fluence of 600 $\mu$J/cm$^2$ and the $P$-polarized response of the reflected SHG at 400 nm was measured with an electron-multiplying charge-coupled device camera. The scattering plane was oriented at the angle of maximum SHG intensity. Further details of the nonlinear optical setup can be found in Ref. .
**Time-dependent Landau theory.** Here we sketch a calculation of the damping of a secondary phonon mode due to its coupling to primary critical modes. Further details can be found in Section S4. We make the assumption that a linearized theory applies (we are sufficiently far from $T_c$ that true critical fluctuations are irrelevant), and that the primary modes have simple overdamped dynamics. The key point is that in the ordered phase, there is a linear coupling between fluctuations of the primary and secondary order parameters which leads to a damping of the secondary mode by the critical slowing down of the primary mode. In addition, because we have a linear coupling between the two modes, momentum is conserved and we need only consider the $k = 0$ excitations. A nonlinear coupling of the mode fluctuations would induce additional effects.
We start from Eqn. (4) of the main text and simplify the notation by rescaling $\Psi_{u,g}$ so that $a=1$, rescaling $\Phi$ so that $b=1$, and defining $u=c/a^2$ and $\bar{g}=g/a\sqrt{b}$. Dropping the constant term, defining $t=1-T/T_c$, and rearranging, we obtain $$F=\frac{1}{2}\left(\Phi-\bar{g}\Psi_g\Psi_u\right)^2-\frac{t}{2}\left(\Psi_u^2+\Psi_g^2\right)+\frac{u}{4}\left(\frac{1-\lambda}{2}\left(\Psi_g^2+\Psi_u^2\right)^2+\frac{1+\lambda}{2}\left(\Psi_g^2-\Psi_u^2\right)^2\right),$$ with ${\lambda = \bar{g}^2/u = g^2/bc}\geq 0$. Here, $|\lambda|<1$ is required for stability. This equation is minimized when $\Psi_u^2=\Psi_g^2=\bar{\Psi}^2/2$ and $\Phi=\bar{\Phi}$, with $$\bar{\Psi}^2=\frac{2t}{u\left(1-\lambda\right)} \hspace{0.5in} \bar{\Phi}=\frac{\bar{g}t}{u\left(1-\lambda\right)}.$$ \[Note: our assumption that $\Psi_{u}$ and $\Psi_{g}$ appear symmetrically in the free energy makes the analytical calculations much simpler. But the main results will not change even if this symmetry is not assumed\].
We now expand the free energy around these equilibrium values, finding $$\delta F=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \Phi & \delta \Psi_+ & \delta \Psi_-\end{array}\right)\mathbf{K}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \Phi \\\delta \Psi_+ \\\delta \Psi_-\end{array}\right),$$ with $\delta \Psi_{\pm}=\left(\delta \Psi_u \pm\delta \Psi_g\right)/\sqrt{2}$ and force constant matrix $\mathbf{K}$ given by $$\mathbf{K}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & -\bar{g}\bar{\Psi} & 0 \\
-\bar{g}\bar{\Psi}& -t+\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2-\bar{g}\bar{\Phi} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & -t+\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi} \end{array}\right).$$ We see that $\delta \Psi_-$ decouples. Assuming oscillating dynamics for the $\Phi$ mode (our units imply the dynamical term is $\omega^2/\omega_0^2$, with $\omega_0$ the bare oscillation frequency of the $\Phi$ mode) and overdamped dynamics for the $\Psi$ modes (bare relaxation rate $\gamma_0$), we find that the dynamical matrix giving the response of the coupled modes is $$\mathbf{D}(\omega)=\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\omega^2}{\omega_0^2}-1 & \bar{g}\bar{\Psi} \\
\bar{g}\bar{\Psi} & i\frac{\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}+t-\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi}\end{array}\right)\right]^{-1}.$$ The overdamped dynamics of the $\Psi$ mode is nontrivial. If the mode is a long wavelength electronic fluctuation, the damping of the $k=0$ component would vanish in a clean system. We expect that the real damping will be sample-dependent and involve the sample mean free path as well as spin-orbit coupling.
The experimental response is proportional to the Fourier transform of the $\delta\Phi$-$\delta\Phi$ component of the dynamical matrix. The result can be written in terms of the frequency ${\Omega_0=\omega_0\sqrt{1-\lambda}}$ as $$\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)=\frac{\frac{\Omega_0^2}{1-\lambda}}{\omega^2-\Omega_0^2-\Pi(\omega)},$$ with mode self-energy $$\Pi(\omega) = \Omega_0^2\frac{\lambda}{1-\lambda}\frac{-i\frac{\omega\Gamma}{\Omega_0^2}+\left(\frac{\omega\Gamma}{\Omega_0^2}\right)^2}{1+\left(\frac{\omega\Gamma}{\Omega_0^2}\right)^2}$$ where the effective relaxation rate $$\Gamma=\frac{\left(1-\lambda\right)^2}{2 t}\gamma_0$$ diverges as $T\rightarrow T_c$. We are interested in the case where $\gamma_0(1-\lambda)^2 \ll \Omega_0$. For $T \ll T_c$ ($t\sim 1$), the mode self energy $\Pi$ is small and $\Omega_0$ is the observed mode frequency. As $t$ increases towards $T_c$, the mode broadening (inverse lifetime) $\lambda\Gamma/(1 - \lambda)\Omega_0$ becomes appreciable and proportional to $1/t$ (see Fig. 4 of the main text). For the lifetime of the mode, we thus obtain ${\tau \propto t = 1 - T/T_c}$, in accordance with the experiment. As $t$ is further decreased, the real part of $\Pi$ starts to become important and the mode frequency shifts up. The experimental data, which indicate a weak effect on the frequency but a large effect on the damping, thus favor a scenario where $\lambda/(1 - \lambda)$ is relatively large and $\Gamma < \Omega_0$.
Reflectivity transients close to $T_c$
======================================
![\[figureS6\] **Time-resolved optical reflectivity.** Oscillations in $\Delta R/R$ after removal of an exponential background at $T$ = 190 K and $T$ = 200 K. Curves are vertically offset for clarity. Fits to the data were performed using the same procedure as that used in Fig. 2 of the main text.](FigureS6.pdf)
Time-resolved reflectivity transients were also acquired from Cd$_2$Re$_2$O$_7$ in the temperature window 180 K $< T \leq 200$ K. However in this temperature window the lifetime of mode 1 becomes so short that it is impossible to reliably extract the mode parameters by fitting the data. As shown in Fig. [S\[figureS6\]]{}, the data at $T$ = 190 K and $T$ = 200 K look nearly indistinguishable from the data above $T_c$ (see Fig. 2 of main text) and do not exhibit a clear presence of mode 1. Therefore no fit parameters for mode 1 are plotted above $T$ = 180 K in Fig. 3 of the main text. Note that the lifetime $\tau$ we report is the 1/$e$ value. Therefore even though $\tau_1$ is less than one period of mode 1 just below 180 K, mode 1 is still detectable for some time beyond $\tau_1$ and so, in practice, we fit to more than one period.
Analysis of Raman data
======================
In this section, we re-analyze the Raman spectroscopy data of Ref. . In particular, we fit the data shown in their Fig. 2(b) using a model of an underdamped harmonic oscillator identical to that discussed in the main text. Such an analysis is well-established in the Raman literature [@didomenico1968; @burns1970]. Fig. [S\[figureS1\]]{}a shows the Raman data for a selection of temperatures, as well as fits to the equation $${I_\mathrm{Raman}(\omega) = A + B{(\omega_0/\tau)^2 \over (\omega_0^2 - \omega^2)^2 + 4(\omega/\tau)^2},}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are extrinsic constants capturing background and signal intensity, respectively, $\tau$ is the oscillator lifetime (inverse damping constant), and $\omega_0$ is the natural frequency of the oscillator. This equation represents the response of a damped harmonic oscillator \[$\ddot{x} + (2/\tau)\dot{x} + \omega_0^2x = 0$\] to a periodic drive at frequency $\omega$ and has been used to describe Raman spectroscopy of underdamped phonon modes [@didomenico1968; @burns1970]. Most notably, the resulting peak position of the equation is $\omega_\mathrm{peak} = \sqrt{\omega_0^2-2/\tau^2}$, which can deviate significantly from $\omega_0$, especially when $\tau$ is small. Reinterpreting the Raman data using this analysis, we see that the data is consistent with a weak temperature dependence of the oscillator natural frequency (Fig. [S\[figureS1\]]{}b) and a strong temperature dependence of the oscillator lifetime (Fig. [S\[figureS1\]]{}c), which grows from near zero at $T_c$, as discussed in the main text.
Time-dependent Landau theory details
====================================
**Numerical solutions.** Here we take the full analytical expression of ${\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)}$ given by Eqns. (S6) and (S7) of Section S1 and solve numerically for different parameter values. Results are summarized in Fig. [S\[figureS3\]]{}. The weak linear temperature dependence of the mode frequency observed by experiment is beyond the scope of our theory. We find instead a fairly constant mode frequency, with a slight upturn in the regime close to $T_c$. Indications of this upturn are not apparent in the data, likely because the mode lifetime becomes so short near $T_c$ that it becomes difficult to extract meaningful phonon parameters from the experimental data in this regime. To construct Fig. [S\[figureS3\]]{}, we use the fact that ${\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)}$ is a ratio of polynomials and is causal, and so it can be represented as a sum of poles in the lower half complex frequency plane. Finding the poles and their residues and Fourier transforming gives $${\Phi(t)=B_0+B_1e^{-\gamma_1 t}+A_1 \sin(\Omega t)e^{-t/\tau},}$$ where the term with coefficient $B_1$ is a pole on the imaginary axis representing overdamped dynamics of the $\Phi$ mode (which is induced by its coupling to the $\Psi$ modes), and the term with coefficient $A_1$ represents the oscillations of the $\Phi$ mode, with the imaginary part of the pole giving the relaxation rate $1/\tau$ and the real part giving the frequency of oscillation $\Omega$. One can in fact express the full solution for the poles analytically, but the equations are lengthy and we refrain from giving them here. Instead, we evaluate them numerically. If $\gamma_1>1/\tau$, the long-time dynamics are dominated by the third term of the above equation and the dynamics of the $\Phi$ mode are damped oscillations. If $\gamma_1<1/\tau$, the long-time dynamics are dominated by the monotonic behavior of the second term. We note that away from $T_c$ we find $\gamma_1>1/\tau$, while the region close to $T_c$ has $\gamma_1<1/\tau$. How well the crossover can be identified experimentally depends crucially on the prefactors $B_1$ and $A_1$ as well as the available temporal range of the data.
![\[figureS3\] **Summary of numerical results.** Frequency $\tilde{\omega}=\sqrt{\Omega^2+1/\tau^2}$ and lifetime $\tau$ for different values of $\gamma_0$ and $\lambda$. Other parameters are set to $\Omega_0/2\pi=2.5$ THz, $T_c=200$ K, and $\Omega_0/\gamma_0 = 6(1 - \lambda)$ (left column) or $\lambda=0.9$ (right column). For direct comparison, axes are scaled to match those in the main paper.](FigureS3.pdf)
Next we consider the time domain, which is important because that is what is measured in experiment. Fig. [S\[figureS4\]]{} summarizes some numerical results for $\lambda=0.9$, $\Omega_0/\gamma_0=0.6$, and $\Omega_0/2\pi=2.5$ THz. One can clearly identify a dominant frequency up to a temperature $T \approx 185$ K, above which the monotonic relaxation becomes dominant and the subleading oscillatory behavior cannot be extracted reliably (we can still determine analytically where the poles sit and find that $\gamma_1<1/\tau$ at $T = 190$ K such that the oscillatory term becomes subdominant). The same can be concluded from the Fourier transform of the mode ${\Phi(\omega)\sim D(\omega)}$ at real frequency $\omega$, which is shown in Fig. [S\[figureS5\]]{}.
![\[figureS4\] **Time evolution of $\Phi$.** Numerical simulation of the time dependence of $\Phi(t)$ (solid lines) for a selection of temperatures. The parameters used are ${\lambda=0.9}$, ${\Omega_0/\gamma_0=0.6}$, and ${\Omega_0/2\pi=2.5}$ THz. Dashed lines show fits to the data equivalent to those in the main text.](FigureS4.pdf)
![\[figureS5\] **Frequency distribution of $\Phi$.** The Fourier transform of $\Phi(t)$ for a selection of temperatures. The parameters used are ${\lambda=0.9}$, ${\Omega_0/\gamma_0=0.6}$, and ${\Omega_0/2\pi=2.5}$ THz.](FigureS5.pdf)
**Details of calculation.** We begin with the free energy given in Eqn. (S1). By expanding around the equilibrium values given in Eqn. (S2) we find $$\delta F=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \Phi & \delta \Psi_u & \delta \Psi_g\end{array}\right)\tilde{\mathbf{K}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \Phi \\\delta \Psi_u \\\delta \Psi_g\end{array}\right),$$ with force constant matrix $\tilde{\mathbf{K}}$ given by $$\tilde{\mathbf{K}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1 &- \frac{\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}\bar{\Psi} &- \frac{\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}\bar{\Psi} \\-\frac{\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}\bar{\Psi} & -t+\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2 & -\bar{g}\bar{\Phi} \\-\frac{\bar{g}}{\sqrt{2}}\bar{\Psi} & -\bar{g}\bar{\Phi} & -t+\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2 \end{array}\right).$$ If we assume overdamped dynamics (bare relaxation rate $\gamma_0$) for the $\Psi$ modes, coherent dynamics for the $\Phi$ mode, and scale all frequencies to the bare oscillator frequency $\omega_0$, we get the equation of motion $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\omega^2}{\omega_0^2} & 0 & 0 \\0 & \frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2} & 0 \\0 & 0 &\frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \Phi \\\delta \Psi_u \\\delta \Psi_g\end{array}\right)-\tilde{\mathbf{K}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \Phi \\\delta \Psi_u \\\delta \Psi_g\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{Source}.$$ The response to the probe that excites the “bare” $\Phi$ mode is the (1,1) component of $$\tilde{\mathbf{D}}(\omega)=\left[\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\omega^2}{\omega_0^2} & 0 & 0 \\0 & \frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2} & 0 \\0 & 0 & \frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}\end{array}\right)-\tilde{\mathbf{K}}\right]^{-1}.$$ This result is completely general. We can simplify in this particular case because $\Phi$ couples equally to $\Psi_g$ and $\Psi_u$ and the dynamical matrix for the $\Psi$ fields is symmetric. Defining $\delta \Psi_{\pm}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\delta \Psi_u \pm\delta \Psi_g\right)$, we have $$\delta F=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta \Phi & \delta \Psi_+ & \delta \Psi_-\end{array}\right)\mathbf{K}
\left(\begin{array}{c}\delta \Phi \\\delta \Psi_+ \\\delta \Psi_-\end{array}\right),$$ with $$\mathbf{K}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1 & -\bar{g}\bar{\Psi} & 0 \\ -\bar{g}\bar{\Psi}& -t+\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2-\bar{g}\bar{\Phi} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -t+\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi} \end{array}\right),$$ so the $\delta \Psi_-$ component decouples. The matrix that gives the response of the coupled ($\delta \Phi,\delta\Psi_+)$ modes is $$\mathbf{D}(\omega)=\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\omega^2}{\omega_0^2}-1 & \bar{g}\bar{\Psi} \\ \bar{g}\bar{\Psi} & \frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}+t-\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi}\end{array}\right)\right]^{-1}.$$ In particular the experimentally measured $\delta\Phi$-$\delta\Phi$ response is given by the (1,1) component, which is $$\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)=\frac{\frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}+t-\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi}}{\left(\frac{\omega^2}{\omega_0^2}-1\right)\left(\frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}+t-\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi}\right)-\bar{g}^2\bar{\Psi}^2}.$$ We identify the coefficient $\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)$, relating changes in the $\Phi$ field to the applied electric field (called “Source” in the calculation), as the conductivity, which is proportional to the measured change in the reflectivity. Let us rearrange this equation as $$\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)=\frac{\omega_0^2}{\omega^2-\omega_0^2\left(1+\mathcal{S}(\omega)\right)},$$ with dimensionless mode self-energy $$\mathcal{S}(\omega)=\frac{\bar{g}^2\bar{\Psi}^2}{\frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}+t-\frac{3}{2}u\bar{\Psi}^2+\bar{g}\bar{\Phi}}=\lambda\frac{\frac{2t}{1-\lambda}}{\frac{i\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}-\frac{2t}{1-\lambda}},$$ where we have used the expressions for $\bar{\Psi}$ and $\bar{\Phi}$ in the second equality.
From the experimental data, we do not observe a large frequency shift as $t$ is varied, implying that the real part of $\mathcal{S}$ depends only weakly on $t$ for the relevant parameters. Thus, we must assume that $\frac{\omega\gamma_0}{\omega_0^2}\ll \frac{2t}{1-\lambda}$ so that the frequency shift remains negligible. This inequality must break down as $t\to 0$, but if $\gamma_0/\omega_0\ll 1$ there is a wide range of $t$ where it applies. In this limit, which is obtained for $t$ sufficiently large ($T \ll T_c$), $\mathcal{S}\rightarrow -\lambda$. Defining the low-temperature renormalized (observable) mode frequency $$\Omega_0=\omega_0\sqrt{1-\lambda},$$ we have $$\mathbf{D}_{11}(\omega)=\frac{\frac{\Omega_0^2}{1-\lambda}}{\omega^2-\Omega_0^2-\Pi(\omega)},$$ with $$\Pi(\omega) = \Omega_0^2\frac{\lambda}{1-\lambda}\frac{-i\frac{\omega\Gamma}{\Omega_0^2}+\left(\frac{\omega\Gamma}{\Omega_0^2}\right)^2}{1+\left(\frac{\omega\Gamma}{\Omega_0^2}\right)^2}$$ and $$\Gamma=\frac{\left(1-\lambda\right)^2}{2 t}\gamma_0.$$ Our theory therefore has only two fundamental degrees of freedom, $\lambda$ and $\gamma_0$, and a range of $\lambda$ and $\gamma_0$ describes the data. The range is constrained by the requirement that ${\rm Re}\left[\Pi(\omega)\right]\ll \Omega_0^2$. To construct Fig. 4 of the main text, we assumed $\gamma_0/2\pi=3.5$ THz and adjusted $\lambda$ as shown in the figure. Our best fit of $\lambda=0.85$ implies that the bare mode frequency $\omega_0/2\pi$ is $2.5/\sqrt{0.15}$ THz. Of course, other fits with slightly different $\gamma_0$ would also be possible.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Juliette Hell
- 'Alan D. Rendall'
date:
-
-
title: Sustained oscillations in the MAP kinase cascade
---
Introduction
============
The MAP kinase cascade (mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade) is a pattern of chemical reactions encountered frequently in cell biology. The actual substances involved in the reactions vary from one example to another but certain features are always present. There are three proteins, generically denoted by MAPK, MAPKK and MAPKKK. For brevity we mostly use the notations $K$, $KK$ and $KKK$ for these. A phosphate group can be attached to $KKK$ at a particular site and this causes it to become activated. It then catalyses the addition of phosphate groups to $KK$ at two sites. An enzyme which catalyses a phosphorylation in this way is called a kinase and MAPKKK stands for MAPKK kinase. Similarly when $KK$ has been phosphorylated at both sites it becomes activated and catalyses the addition of phosphate groups to $K$ at two sites. There are also other enzymes (phosphatases) which remove phosphate groups from each of the three proteins. We refer to one of the proteins $K$, $KK$ or $KKK$ together with its phosphorylated forms and the reactions interconverting these forms as a layer of the cascade. We think of the layers corresponding to $KKK$, $KK$ and $K$ as being arranged from top to bottom and refer to them as the first, second and third layers. Since substances in one layer directly influence the reactions in the next layer information flows from the top to the bottom in this picture and that is the reason it is called a cascade. The MAPK cascade can be represented in the following way: $$\label{cascade}
\xymatrix@C=0.5em{
KKK\ar@/^1pc/[rr]^{E_1}&&KKK^* \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{E_2} \ar@{.>}[dl] \ar@{.>}[dr]&&&&\\
&&&&&&\\
KK\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKK^*} &&KKP\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKK^*} \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KKP'ase} &&KKPP\ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KKP'ase} \ar@{.>}[dl] \ar@{.>}[dr] &&\\
&&&&&&\\
&&K\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKPP}&&KP\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKPP} \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KP'ase}&&KPP\ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KP'ase}
}$$ In this diagram, an enzymatic reaction $\xymatrix{X \ar[r]^{E} &Y}$ represents the chemical reactions $X+E \rightleftarrows X\cdot E \rightarrow Y+E$, where $X\cdot E$ is a complex of substrate $X$ and enzyme $E$. In fact information can flow upwards through the cascade in a more indirect sense and this is described in more detail below. This backward flow has an essential influence on the dynamics of the system.
If each of the reactions is modelled by a standard irreversible Michaelis-Menten scheme (see for instance [@murray89]) composed of three elementary reactions with substrate, enzyme and substrate-enzyme complex and the elementary reactions are given mass action kinetics a system of ordinary differential equations arises as a model for the MAPK cascade. This will be referred to as the Huang-Ferrell model since it was introduced by those authors in [@huang96]. In that paper they studied mathematical properties of these equations and also compared solutions of the equations with the results of the experiments they had done on a MAPK cascade in extracts of oocytes (immature egg cells) of the frog [*Xenopus*]{}. The full system consists of 22 equations (for 8 substrates, 4 enzymes which do not occur as substrates and 10 complexes) and depends on 30 parameters (reaction constants). The procedure in [@huang96] was to fix all but one of the parameters and numerically determine stationary solutions of the system for different values of the remaining parameter. Then the value of the concentration of one of the substances at the stationary solution was studied as a function of the chosen parameter. This function exhibits the property of ultrasensitivity where the output is a sigmoid function of the input.
The possibility of carrying out this procedure is dependent on the fact that there exist a stationary solution for each value of the parameters. Moreover the results will only be unambiguous if there is only one such solution for fixed values of the reaction constants and the total amounts of the three proteins and the four other enzymes. This issue is not addressed in [@huang96]. That the answer to the uniqueness question is not obvious is made clear by the results of [@markevich04]. That paper was concerned with a system which can be thought of as a single layer of the MAPK cascade with two phosphorylation steps. The ODE system in this case is known as the dual futile cycle [@wangsontag08a]. The numerical and heuristic work in [@markevich04] indicated that this system exhibits bistability, i.e. that there are parameter values for which there exists more than one stable stationary solution. A rigorous proof that this is the case was given in [@hell14].
A priori it is not ruled out that solutions of the Huang-Ferrell model might exhibit more complicated long-time behaviour than just convergence to a stationary solution. In fact, numerical and heuristic work in [@qiao07] indicates that periodic solutions exist. There is also evidence suggesting that chaotic behaviour may occur [@zumsande10]. According to the investigations of [@qiao07] periodic solutions already occur in the system corresponding to the first two layers of the MAPK cascade. We refer to this system as the truncated Huang-Ferrell model. In what follows we will prove that for both the truncated and full Huang-Ferrell models there exist parameters for which there are periodic solutions. This means that the protein concentrations being modelled undergo sustained oscillations.
Following the terminology of [@grimbs11] we refer to the Huang-Ferrell model or an analogous system for a subset of the layers of the cascade as the MM-MA system (for Michaelis-Menten via mass action). Under suitable circumstances it is possible to derive a smaller system, the MM system (for Michaelis-Menten), via a quasistationary approximation. This is relatively simple to do for the dual futile cycle and the dynamics of the MM system in that case was studied in [@ortega06]. In that paper the authors found that bistability is already present in the MM system. The method used in [@hell14], which will be generalized here, is to first prove bistability for the MM system and then use the fact that the MM system is a limit of the MM-MA system in a suitable sense to obtain the corresponding result for the MM-MA system. For this we used that the stationary solutions are hyperbolic. The technique applied to treat the singular limit is geometric singular perturbation theory (GSPT) [@fenichel79]. In [@hell14] an MM limit was defined for the truncated Huang-Ferrell model. The definition was inspired by ideas in [@ventura08] and [@ventura13]. In these papers it was pointed out that the phenomenenon of sequestration can lead to a flow of information from layers further down in the cascade to higher levels. For instance, if a lot of $KKK^*$, the activated form of $KKK$, is bound to its substrates $KK$ and the phosphorylated form $KKP$ then not much of it is available as a substrate for the phosphatase which would otherwise convert it back to the inactivated form $KKK$. Related ideas are discussed in [@delvecchio08], where this effect is called retroactivity. It was mentioned in [@hell14] that if it could be proved that this MM system admits a hyperbolic periodic solution then the truncated Huang-Ferrell system would also admit a periodic solution. It turned out to be difficult to obtain a proof of hyperbolicity and thus we will use a slightly different strategy in what follows. The basic idea is nevertheless still to first prove a result for the MM system and then lift some of the structure found to the MM-MA system.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces some basic notation and terminology and Section 3 proceeds to show that the MM system derived from the truncated Huang-Ferrell model admits a Hopf bifurcation for certain values of the parameters. It is then shown that it can be concluded that the MM-MA system also admits a Hopf bifurcation. It follows from the basic theorem of Hopf (cf. [@hale69]) that there are parameters for which the MM-MA system admits periodic solutions. These results are summed up in Theorem \[theorem1\]. Section 4 shows that the bistability in the dual futile cycle implies the presence of bistability in the truncated Huang-Ferrell model. In Section 5 the arguments of Section 3 are extended so as to prove Theorem \[theorem2\] which asserts the existence of periodic solutions for the full Huang-Ferrell model. In particular this involves the use of an MM system for the full MAPK cascade. Section 6 presents results on some variants of the models coming from the MAPK cascade. For a cascade consisting of two single phosphorylation loops it is proved that all solutions of the MM system converge to the same stationary solution. In particular there are no sustained oscillations for that model. For a cascade consisting of a layer with two phosphorylations above a layer with one phosphorylation it is not clear whether sustained oscillations can occur. It is shown how this configuration can arise by modelling a system considered in [@prabakaran14], thus motivating further study of this question. The final section indicates some directions in which the results of this paper might be extended. Some information on geometric singular perturbation theory is collected in an appendix.
The basic equations {#basic}
===================
In what follows we essentially adopt the notations of Huang and Ferrell [@huang96] for the full cascade and then specialize them to the truncated system. The unknowns in the system are the concentrations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{substances}
&&[KKK], [KKK^*], [E_1], [E_2], [KKK\cdot E_1], [KKK^*\cdot E_2],\nonumber\\
&&[KK], [KKP], [KKPP], [KK P'ase],\nonumber\\
&&[KK\cdot KKK^*], [KKP\cdot KKK^*],
[KKP\cdot KK P'ase], [KKPP\cdot KK P'ase],\nonumber\\
&&[K], [KP], [KPP], [K P'ase]\nonumber\\
&&[K\cdot KKPP], [KP\cdot KKPP], [KP\cdot K P'ase], [KPP\cdot K P'ase] . \end{aligned}$$ The square brackets around a symbol indicate the concentration of the substance denoted by that symbol. Here $E_1$ and $E_2$ are the kinase and the phosphatase in the first layer while $KK P'ase$ and $K P'ase$ are the phosphatases in the second and third layers. $KKK^*$ is the activated (i.e. phosphorylated) form of $KKK$. A $P$ occurring in the name of a protein indicates a phosphate group. For instance $KKPP$ is the doubly phosphorylated form of $KK$. Finally, the substrate-enzyme complexes are denoted by the symbols for the two substances separated by a centred dot. The full set of 22 evolution equations for these quantities will not be reproduced here. They can be found in [@huang96]. More precisely, 18 of them can be found there and the other four, those for the concentrations of the free enzymes, are easily derived from those. There are seven conserved quantities, three corresponding to the total amounts of the three substrate proteins in all phosphorylation states and four corresponding to the total amounts of the four enzymes. These conservation laws can be substituted into the evolution equations so as to reduce their number. In [@huang96] the four conserved quantities associated to the enzymes are used in this way while the others are not. Thus 18 evolution equations remain. The reaction constants for the elementary reactions in the Michaelis-Menten description are denoted by $\tilde a_i$ for the formation of the complex, $k_i$ for the liberation of product and $\tilde d_i$ for the release of the substrate from the complex. These notations are as in [@huang96] except that $a_i$ and $d_i$ have been replaced by $\tilde a_i$ and $\tilde d_i$ since $a_i$ and $d_i$ will be used for a different purpose later. All reaction constants are assumed positive and since the unknowns in the equations are concentrations the solutions of interest are those which are positive, i.e. all their components are positive.
The truncated Huang-Ferrell model is obtained by setting the concentrations of all the unknowns in the full model involving the substance $K$ and that of the enzyme $KP'ase$ (i.e. the quantities in the last two lines of (\[substances\])) to zero and discarding the evolution equations for those quantities. For the rest of this section we concentrate on the truncated model. This serves, in particular, to introduce some of the main techniques of the paper in a context simpler than that of the full cascade. The results for the truncated cascade also constitute a central component of the proof of the theorems for the full cascade. As explained in [@hell14] the passage to the limiting MM system can be carried out by scaling the variables in a certain way with powers of a parameter $\epsilon$ and then letting $\epsilon$ tend to zero. First it is important to introduce a new variable to replace $[KKK^*]$. This is $$\overline {KKK}=[KKK^*]+[KK\cdot KKK^*]+[KKP\cdot KKK^*].$$ When the Huang-Ferrell model is written in terms of $\overline {KKK}$ the equations of the truncated model are a subset of the equations for the full model. The scaling is done as follows. The quantities in the evolution equations are replaced by new quantities defined in the following way. The concentrations of compounds not containing $KKK$ or the enzymes $E_i$ or $KKP'ase$ are not rescaled. These are the first three quantities in the second line of (\[substances\]). For the concentrations of compounds which contain $KKK$ or $KKP'ase$ but not the $E_i$ the new quantity is $\epsilon^{-1}$ times the old one. These are the first two quantities in the first line, the last quantity in the second line and all the quantities in the third line of (\[substances\]). For the quantities involving $E_1$ and $E_2$ the new quantity is $\epsilon^{-2}$ times the old one. These are the last four quantities in the first line of (\[substances\]). The reaction constants $\tilde a_1$ and $\tilde a_2$ are multiplied by $\epsilon$ to get new quantities. All the other reaction constants are left unchanged. In addition a new time coordinate is introduced as $\epsilon$ times the old one. To avoid complicating the notation the rescaled quantities will be denoted in the same way as the original ones. There results the following system, which was given in a different notation in [@hell14]. $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=-\tilde a_2[KKK^*][E_2]+\tilde d_2[KKK^*\cdot E_2]
+k_1[KKK\cdot E_1],\label{tev1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\tilde a_3[KK][KKK^*]+\tilde d_3[KK\cdot KKK^*]
+k_4[KKP\cdot KK P'ase],\label{tev2}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KKPP]=-\tilde a_6[KKPP][KK P'ase]+\tilde d_6[KKPP\cdot KK P'ase]
+k_5[KKP\cdot KKK^*],\label{tev3}\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKK\cdot E_1]}{dt}=\tilde a_1[KKK][E_1]
-(\tilde d_1+k_1)[KKK\cdot E_1],\label{tev4}\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKK^*\cdot E_2]}{dt}=\tilde a_2[KKK^*][E_2]-(\tilde d_2+k_2)
[KKK^*\cdot E_2],\label{tev5}\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KK\cdot KKK^*]}{dt}=\tilde a_3[KK][KKK^*]-(\tilde d_3+k_3)
[KK\cdot KKK^*],\label{tev6}\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKP\cdot KKK^*]}{dt}=\tilde a_5[KKP][KKK^*]-(\tilde d_5+k_5)
[KKP\cdot KKK^*],\label{tev7}\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKP\cdot KK P'ase]}{dt}=\tilde a_4[KKP][KK P'ase]
-(\tilde d_4+k_4)[KKP\cdot KK P'ase],\label{tev8}\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKPP\cdot KK P'ase]}{dt}=\tilde a_6[KKPP][KK P'ase]
-(\tilde d_6+k_6)[KKPP\cdot KK P'ase].\label{tev9}\end{aligned}$$ These equations correspond to a subset of the equations given in [@huang96]. To get a closed system we must express some of the quantities on the right hand side of the equations in terms of those on the left hand side using the definition of $\overline{KKK}$ and the conservation laws. The necessary equations are $$\begin{aligned}
&&[KKK^*]=\overline{KKK}-[KK\cdot KKK^*]-[KKP\cdot KKK^*],\\
&&[KKK]=KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK}+O(\epsilon),\\
&&[KKP]=KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-[KKPP]+O(\epsilon),\\
&&[E_1]=E_{1,{\rm tot}}-[KKK\cdot E_1],\\
&&[E_2]=E_{2,{\rm tot}}-[KKK^*\cdot E_2],\\
&&[KK P'ase]=(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}-[KKP\cdot KK P'ase]
-[KKPP\cdot KK P'ase].\end{aligned}$$ This system of equations extends smoothly to $\epsilon=0$. The terms written as $O(\epsilon)$ are sums of concentrations of complexes. They are not written explicitly since they vanish for $\epsilon=0$ and thus make no contribution to the limiting equations. When $\epsilon=0$ the equations (\[tev4\])-(\[tev9\]) become algebraic equations. Substituting these into the other evolution equations gives a set of three evolution equations, the MM system, which will now be computed. First the concentrations of the complexes can be expressed in terms of those of the substrates and the free enzymes. $$\begin{aligned}
&&[KKK\cdot E_1]=\frac{\tilde a_1[KKK][E_1]}{\tilde d_1+k_1},\\
&&[KKK^*\cdot E_2]=\frac{\tilde a_2[KKK^*][E_2]}{\tilde d_2+k_2},\\
&&[KK\cdot KKK^*]=\frac{\tilde a_3[KK][KKK^*]}{\tilde d_3+k_3},\\
&&[KKP\cdot KKK^*]=\frac{\tilde a_5[KKP][KKK^*]}{\tilde d_5+k_5},\\
&&[KKP\cdot KK P'ase]=\frac{\tilde a_4[KKP][KK P'ase]}{\tilde d_4+k_4},\\
&&[KKPP\cdot KK P'ase]=\frac{\tilde a_6[KKPP][KK P'ase]}{\tilde d_6+k_6}.\end{aligned}$$ It is convenient to introduce the Michaelis constants $K_{m,i}=\frac{\tilde d_i+k_i}{\tilde a_i}$. Now the concentrations of the free enzymes can be expressed in terms of the total concentrations of the enzymes. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
&&E_{1,{\rm tot}}=[E_1](1+K_{m,1}^{-1}[KKK]),\\
&&E_{2,{\rm tot}}=[E_2](1+K_{m,2}^{-1}[KKK^*]),\\
&&\overline{KKK}=[KKK^*](1+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]),\\
&&(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}=[KK P'ase](1+K_{m,4}^{-1}[KKP]+K_{m,6}^{-1}[KKPP]).\end{aligned}$$ Substituting this into the equations $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=-\frac{k_2}{K_{m,2}}[KKK^*][E_2]
+\frac{k_1}{K_{m,1}}[KKK][E_1],\label{inter1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{k_3}{K_{m,3}}[KK][KKK^*]
+\frac{k_4}{K_{m,4}}[KKP][KK P'ase],\label{inter2}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KKPP]=-\frac{k_6}{K_{m,6}}[KKPP][KK P'ase]
+\frac{k_5}{K_{m,5}}[KKP][KKK^*]\label{inter3}\end{aligned}$$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=
\frac{k_1K_{m,1}^{-1}E_{1,{\rm tot}}[KKK]}{1+K_{m,1}^{-1}[KKK]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{k_2K_{m,2}^{-1}E_{2,{\rm tot}}\overline{KKK}}
{1+K_{m,2}^{-1}\overline{KKK}+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]},\label{Mmm1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{k_3K_{m,3}^{-1}\overline{KKK}[KK]}
{1+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{k_4K_{m,4}^{-1}(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KKP]}
{1+K_{m,4}^{-1}[KKP]+K_{m,6}^{-1}[KKPP]},\label{Mmm2}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KKPP]=+\frac{k_5K_{m,5}^{-1}\overline{KKK}[KKP]}
{1+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{k_6K_{m,6}^{-1}(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KKPP]}
{1+K_{m,4}^{-1}[KKP]+K_{m,6}^{-1}[KKPP]}.\label{Mmm3}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[Mmm1\])-(\[Mmm3\]) are the Michaelis-Menten system. For convenience we introduce the notations $a_i=k_{i+2}K_{m,i+2}^{-1}$ for $i=1,3$, $a_i=k_{i+2}K_{m,i+2}^{-1}(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}$ for $i=2,4$, $c_i=k_iK_{m,i}^{-1}E_{i,{\rm tot}}$ for $i=1,2$ and $d_i=K_{m,i}^{-1}$ for $i=1,2$. Furthermore we replace $[KKP]$, $[KKK]$ by their expressions in the chosen phase variables $\overline{KKK}$, $[KK]$, $[KKPP]$and the parameters of the system.
Assume that the coefficients $K_{m,i}^{-1}$ are equal to a common quantity $b_1$ for $3\le i\le 6$. For any choice of the parameters $a_i$, $b_1$, $c_i$ and $d_i$ there exists a choice of the parameters and total quantities of the enzymes for the MM-MA system which gives rise to them. This choice can be made so as to depend smoothly on $(a_i,b_1,c_i,d_i)$.
In this notation, the Michaelis-Menten system for the truncated cascade is the following: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=
\frac{c_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}{1+d_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{c_2\overline{KKK}}
{1+d_2\overline{KKK}+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KKPP]},\label{mm1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{a_1\overline{KKK}[KK]}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KKPP])}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{a_2(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-[KKPP])}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK])},\label{mm2}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KKPP]=+\frac{a_3\overline{KKK}(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-[KKPP])}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KKPP]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{a_4[KKPP]}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KKPP])}.\label{mm3}\end{aligned}$$
Analysis of the truncated system
================================
The aim of this section is to prove that there are values of the parameters and the total amounts of substrates and enzymes in the truncated Huang-Ferrell system for which there exist periodic solutions. The first step is to determine explicit stationary solutions of the system (\[mm1\])-(\[mm3\]) for certain values of the total amounts. The existence of periodic solutions of the MM system is obtained by showing that a Hopf bifurcation occurs at these stationary solutions. It is then shown that there is also a Hopf bifurcation, and hence periodic solutions, for the full truncated Huang-Ferrell system. Suppose that all parameters $a_i$, $b_1$, $c_2$ and $d_i$ have been fixed. Consider stationary solutions of (\[mm1\])-(\[mm3\]) which satisfy $[KK]=[KKPP]$. Then $a_1\overline{KKK}[KK]=a_2[KKP]$ and $a_3\overline{KKK}[KKP]=a_4[KKPP]$ as a consequence of (\[mm2\]) and (\[mm3\]). In particular the product of these two equations gives $\overline{KKK}^2=\frac{a_2a_4}{a_1a_3}$ and so $\overline{KKK}$ is determined. Next it is possible to determine $[KK]$ and $[KKP]$ as functions of $KK_{\rm tot}$ by means of the formulae $$[KK]=\frac{KK_{\rm tot}}{2+q_1},\ \ \ [KKP]=\frac{q_1KK_{\rm tot}}{2+q_1},$$ where $q_1=\sqrt{\frac{a_1a_4}{a_2a_3}}$. The first equation (\[mm1\]) has not been used yet and produces a constraint on the parameters. This is the price to pay for simplifying some computations by having an equilibrium whose two last coordinates are identical. Set $Q=\frac{c_2\overline{KKK}}{1+d_2\overline{KKK}
+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK])}$. It follows from the equation $d\overline{KKK}/dt=0$ that $\frac{c_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}
{1+d_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}=Q$. This is equivalent to $KKK_{\rm tot}=\overline{KKK}+\frac{Q}{c_1-d_1Q}$ provided the denominator in the last term is positive. Choose $c_1$ so that $\frac{c_2d_1}{c_1d_2}<1$. Then the denominator is positive and this expression can be used to define $KKK_{\rm tot}$. Once this has been done all the conditions for stationary solutions are satisfied. Let us summarize this information: $$\label{equill}
\begin{array}{ll}
\mbox{coordinates of the equilibrium}& \overline{KKK}=\sqrt{\frac{a_2 a_4}{a_1 a_3}} \nonumber\\
& [KK]=[KKPP]=\frac{KK_{\rm tot}}{2+\sqrt{\frac{a_1 a_4}{a_2 a_3}}}\\
\mbox{constraints on the parameters}& \frac{c_2 d_1}{c_1 d_2}<1 \\
&KKK_{\rm tot}=\sqrt{\frac{a_2 a_4}{a_1 a_3}}+\frac{Q}{c_1 - d_1 Q},\\
& \mbox{where } Q=\frac{c_2\overline{KKK}}{1+d_2\overline{KKK}
+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK])}
\end{array}$$
Next the linearization of (\[mm1\])-(\[mm3\]) will be considered. It turns out that the signs of all entries in the derivative of the right hand side of the system are independent of the values of the concentrations and can be determined. One is zero, one is positive and all the rest are negative. The characteristic polynomial of the linearization is the determinant of a matrix of the form $$\label{lin}
\left[
{\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda+a & 0 & c \\
d & \lambda+e & f \\
-g & h & \lambda+i
\end{array}}
\right]$$ where all parameters are positive. Note that $-e$, $-f$, $-h$ and $-i$ only differ from the elements of the matrix (46) of [@hell14] by the multiplicative factor $N^{-2}$ and the fact that $a_1$ and $a_3$ are replaced by $a_1\overline{KKK}$ and $a_3\overline{KKK}$, respectively. As in that case the parameters $a_1\overline{KKK}$ and $a_4$ can be eliminated. Let $M_2$ be the submatrix of the matrix (\[lin\]) with $\lambda=0$ consisting of the second and third rows and columns. The determinant of the linearization is given by $$-\left( a\vert M_2 \vert + c(dh+eg)\right).$$ Since we are seeking parameters for which a Hopf bifurcation producing stable periodic orbits takes place, the three eigenvalues of the linearization at the equilibrium (\[equill\]) should be two imaginary eigenvalues $\pm i\omega_0$, $\omega_0\neq 0$, and a third real negative eigenvalue. In particular the determinant of the linearization and its trace should be both strictly negative. The sign of $\vert M_2 \vert$ is unclear, but the linearization has a negative determinant if $\vert M_2 \vert$ is small enough. Define $u=b_1KK_{\rm tot}$ and $v=b_1[KK]$. Then the determinant of $M_2$ is given, up to a positive multiplicative constant, by $$-(u-3v+1)(u-2v)u(u-v+1).$$ In fact all factors except the first are positive for all allowed values of the variables. Thus the determinant is negative iff $u-3v+1>0$. This is equivalent to the condition $ei-fh<0$. In terms of the parameters of the reduced system $u-3v+1=\left(\frac{q_1-1}{q_1+2}b_1KK_{\rm tot}+1)\right)$. It follows that provided $q_1<1$ the value of $KK_{\rm tot}$ can be varied so that the determinant of $M_2$ passes from being positive to being negative.
Now consider the determinant of the matrix in the linearized system. It is equal to $-a(ei-fh)-c(dh+eg)$. The second term is automatically negative and so if $ei-fh>0$ the determinant of the full matrix is negative. On the other hand if $ei-fh<0$ the sign of the determinant is not clear. The trace is negative for all parameter values. In a deformation as above the determinant of the three-dimensional matrix is negative when the determinant of $M_2$ becomes zero. It stays negative at least in a small neighbourhood of that point. Thus there are parameters for which both the determinant of $M_2$ and the determinant of the three-dimensional matrix are negative. The determinant of (\[lin\]) is $$\lambda^3+(a+e+i)\lambda^2+(ae+ai+cg+ei-fh)\lambda+(aei-afh+cdh+cge).$$ Call it $p_3(\lambda)$. The eigenvalue conditions for a Hopf bifurcation are that two eigenvalues are purely imaginary and non-zero and that the third is non-zero. If this is true the trace is given by the real eigenvalue and thus determines its sign. In the example here we see that at a Hopf bifurcation the real eigenvalue must be negative. The determinant is then also negative. Introduce the notation $p_3(\lambda)=\lambda^3+A_2\lambda^2+A_1\lambda+A_0$. In a deformation as above all $A_i$ are positive near the point where $ei-fh=0$. The Routh-Hurwitz theorem [@gantmacher59] implies that all roots of this polynomial have negative real parts if and only if $A_i>0$ for all $i$ and $H_3=A_2A_1-A_0>0$. The Routh-Hurwitz coefficient $H_3$ is given by $$H_3=(a+e+i)(ae+ai+cg+ei-fh)-aei+afh-cdh-cge$$ which simplifies to $$\label{hopf}
H_3=a(ae+ai+cg)+(e+i)(ae+ai+ei)+cgi-[cd+(e+i)f]h.$$ Let $S_3$ be the region in the space of three by three matrices defined by the condition that all eigenvalues have negative real parts. At any point on the boundary of $S_3$ where the determinant is non-zero the eigenvalue configuration characteristic of the Hopf bifurcation must occur. In other words, two eigenvalues are imaginary and non-zero and the other is negative.
In the Michaelis-Menten system for the truncated MAPK cascade we have already exhibited a class of stationary solutions and shown that there is a choice of the parameters for which the matrix defined by the linearization of this system has negative determinant and the determinant of $M_2$ is negative. Call this point in parameter space $Z$. We recall that at $Z$, the constraints that have to be fulfilled are the following: $$\label{constraintss}
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{c_2 d_1}{c_1 d_2}&<&1\\
KKK_{\rm tot}&=& \sqrt{\frac{a_2 a_4}{a_1 a_3}}\\
q_1&=&\sqrt{\frac{a_1 a_4}{a_2 a_3}}<1\\
KK_{\rm tot}&=& \frac{q_1+2}{b_1(1-q_1)}+\delta,
\end{array}$$ where $\delta>0$ is small. At $Z$ the linearization has negative trace. The coefficients will now be rescaled in a particular way. Let $\bar a_i$ be the values of the parameters $a_i$ at the starting point and define $a_i(L)=\bar a_i L$. The other parameters are kept fixed. Under this rescaling a stationary solution remains a stationary solution. The determinant of the linearization is rescaled by $L^2$ and so, in particular, has a fixed sign. The constants $d$-$i$ in the matrix of the linearization are scaled by a factor $L$ while the coefficients $a$ and $c$ are left unchanged. After rescaling the condition that the quantity $H_3$ is negative becomes $$L^3(fh-ei)(e+i)>La(ae+ai+cg)+L^2(e+i)(ae+ai)+L^2cgi-L^2cdh.$$ If we start the rescaling from $Z$ then for $L$ sufficiently large this condition will be satisfied. On the other hand, for $L$ sufficiently small and positive the opposite inequality will be satisfied. In other words, in this family the quantity $H_3$ starts positive for $L$ small and positive and becomes negative at some large value of $L$. It must pass from being positive to being zero at some point $L_0$. In fact it must have a minimum for some negative value of $L$ and a maximum for some positive value of $L$ since it vanishes at the origin and its derivative there is positive. In fact the value $L_0$ is the unique positive root of a quadratic polynomial. At the unique positive value $L_0$ of $L$ for which it is zero this function has a negative derivative. It follows from the facts that $A_2>0$ and $A_0>0$ that $A_1$ cannot approach zero before $H_3$ reaches zero. Thus the family cannot leave $S_3$ before $H_3$ reaches zero. This family passes through a point where the eigenvalues satisfy the conditions for a Hopf bifurcation. When a three-dimensional matrix has one negative real eigenvalue $\mu_1$ and another eigenvalue $\mu_2$ which is not real the quantity $H_3$ is equal to $$-{\rm Re}\mu_2[({\rm Re}\mu_2)^2+2({\rm Im}\mu_2)^2+(\mu_1+{\rm Re}\mu_2)^2].$$ From this we can see that if a one-parameter family of matrices is such that the quantity $H_3$ passes through zero at some parameter value with non-zero velocity then the real part of the complex eigenvalue passes through zero at that point with non-zero derivative.
The situation which has just been described is as follows. We have a family of coefficients in the Michaelis-Menten system depending on the parameter $L$. There is a corresponding family of stationary solutions. We consider the linearization of the system at that point. We can suppose that for all values of $L$ considered it has one negative real eigenvalue $\mu_1$ and one eigenvalue $\mu_2$ which is never real. Moreover at $L=L_0$ the eigenvalue $\mu_2$ is imaginary and its real part moves through the imaginary axis with non-zero velocity as $L$ is varied through $L_0$. In other words, $\mu_2 (L)$ defines a curve in the complex plane which passes through the imaginary axis transversely for $L=L_0$. In particular the linearization is always invertible. It was shown in [@hell14] that the Michaelis-Menten system (\[mm1\])-(\[mm3\]) can be embedded into the MM-MA system (\[tev1\])-(\[tev9\]) in such a way as to allow GSPT to be applied. In the terminology of [@hell14] the transverse eigenvalues all have negative real parts. More information on these matters can be found in the appendix. Above we introduced a parameter $L$ into the MM system by letting the coefficients depend on $L$ in a certain way. This can be extended to the MM-MA system by making a smooth choice of corresponding coefficients for that system. After doing this the system on the slow manifold depends on the two parameters $\epsilon$ and $L$. At the point where the Hopf bifurcation occurs for $\epsilon=0$ and $L=L_0$ the derivative of the right hand side of the system with respect to the unknowns is invertible. Hence, by the implicit function theorem there is a unique nearby stationary solution depending smoothly on $L$ and $\epsilon$. Thus the family of stationary solutions for $\epsilon=0$ can be continued smoothly to a curve of stationary solutions in the slow manifold for small positive values of $\epsilon$. For each $\epsilon$ there are corresponding eigenvalues $\tilde\mu_1 (L,\epsilon)=\mu_{1,\epsilon} (L)$ and $\tilde\mu_2 (L,\epsilon)=\mu_{2,\epsilon} (L)$ of the linearization at the stationary solution. For $\epsilon$ small the curve $\mu_{2,\epsilon}$ intersects the imaginary axis transversely. Now the transverse eigenvalues are negative and it follows that the family of solutions of the MM-MA system undergoes a Hopf bifurcation. Using centre manifold theory the dynamics can be reduced to a two-dimensional situation for both the MM-MA system for the truncated Huang-Ferrell model and the corresponding MM system. Applying the theorem of Hopf in the form given in [@hale69], Chapter VIII, Theorem 1.3 shows that in both cases there exists a one-parameter family of periodic solutions. The following theorem has been proved.
\[theorem1\] There exist positive parameter values $a_i$, $b_1$, $c_i$ and $d_i$ such that the MM system for the truncated Huang-Ferrell model with these parameter values has a positive periodic solution. There exist positive parameter values $\tilde a_i$, $k_i$ and $\tilde d_i$ and positive values of the total amounts $E_{1,\rm tot}$, $E_{2,\rm tot}$, $(KKP'ase)_{\rm tot}$, $KKK_{\rm tot}$ and $KK_{\rm tot}$ such that the MM-MA system for the truncated Huang-Ferrell model with these parameter values and these values of the total amounts has a positive periodic solution.
Bistability {#bistab}
===========
In [@hell14] it was proved that there are parameter values for which the dual futile cycle has more than one stable stationary solution. It will now be shown that this property is inherited by the truncated MAPK cascade. For this the coefficients in the MM system for the truncated MAPK cascade will be rescaled. Define $c_1=\epsilon^{-1}\hat c_1$, $c_2=\epsilon^{-2}\hat c_2$ and $d_2=\epsilon^{-1}\hat d_2$. Then the equations for the quantities with hat are in the standard form for singular perturbation theory. For fixed values of $\overline{KKK}$ the equations for $[KK]$ and $[KKPP]$ are those for the dual futile cycle and we know that there are parameters for which there exist two stable hyperbolic stationary solutions. The evolution equation for $\overline{KKK}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\epsilon\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})
=\frac{\hat c_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}
{1+d_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\hat c_2\overline{KKK}}
{\epsilon+\hat d_2\overline{KKK}+\epsilon b([KK]+[KKP])}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\epsilon=0$ this reduces to $$d_1\left(\frac{\hat c_1\hat d_2}{\hat c_2 d_1}-1\right)
(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})=1.$$ Interestingly this last equation does not depend on $[KK]$ or $[KKP]$. Provided the quotient of reaction constants occurring in this equation, which is equal to $\frac{c_1d_2}{c_2d_1}$, is greater than one then a unique stationary solution is determined by solving this equation for $KKK_{\rm tot}$ in terms of $\overline{KKK}$. It is an asymptotically stable and hyperbolic solution of the equation $$\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=\frac{\hat c_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}
{1+d_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}
-\frac{\hat c_2}{\hat d_2}.$$ Thus the transverse eigenvalue in the sense of GSPT is negative and that theory can be applied. It follows that the MM system for the truncated MAPK cascade exhibits bistability. This implies a corresponding statement for the MM-MA system. It can be shown in a similar way that both the MM and MM-MA systems contain saddle points for these values of the parameters.
It can also be shown that there are parameters for which there is a stationary value where the eigenvalues are real with the sign pattern $(-,-,0)$. There $ei-fh<0$. Scaling with the parameter $L$ starting at this point gives a family of coefficients for which the determinant of the linearization is always zero. Along this family the quantity $H_3$ goes from positive to negative. When it crosses zero $A_2=0$ and there is a second zero eigenvalue. If the kernel of the matrix at that point were two-dimensional it would have to intersect the subspace spanned by the first two coordinates in a one-dimensional subspace. It would follow that this subspace was spanned by the vector with components $(0,1,0)$. This gives a contradiction. Thus the Jordan form of the matrix must be non-diagonalizable and the algebraic conditions on the linearization for a Bogdanov-Takens bifurcation are satisfied at that point. In other words, the condition BT.0 of [@kuznetsov10] holds. Since, on the other hand, no information has been obtained on the genericity conditions BT.1-BT.3 this does not by itself give useful information on the dynamical properties of the solutions.
The full Huang-Ferrell system
=============================
The aim is now to reduce the full Huang-Ferrell system in a way similar to that done above for the truncated system. The first step is to introduce the quantity $$\overline {KK}=[KKPP]+[K\cdot KKPP]+[KP\cdot KKPP].$$ Consider the system of evolution equations for $\overline{KKK}$, $[KK]$, $\overline{KK}$, $[K]$, $[KPP]$ and the substrate-enzyme complexes and rescale the unknowns. In this case the quantities not containing the $E_i$, $KKK$, $KK$, $KKP'ase$ or $KP'ase$ are not rescaled. These are the first three quantities in the fourth line of (\[substances\]). Quantities which contain $KK$ or $KP'ase$ but not $E_i$, $KKK$ or $KKP'ase$ are rescaled by $\epsilon^{-1}$. These are the first three quantities in the second line, the last quantity in the fourth line and all quantities in the fifth line of (\[substances\]). Quantities which contain $KKK$ or $KKP'ase$ but not $E_i$ are rescaled by $\epsilon^{-2}$. These are the first two quantities in the first line, the last quantity in the second line and all quantities in the third line of (\[substances\]). Quantities which contain the $E_i$ are rescaled by $\epsilon^{-3}$. These are the last four quantities in the first line of (\[substances\]). The reaction constants $\tilde a_1$ and $\tilde a_2$ are multiplied by $\epsilon^2$ to get new quantities while $\tilde a_3$, $\tilde a_4$, $\tilde a_5$ and $\tilde a_6$ are multiplied by $\epsilon$. A new time coordinate is introduced as $\epsilon$ times the old one. These scalings have been chosen so that the new equations for the free substrates are independent of $\epsilon$ and the new equations for the substrate-enzyme complexes have a factor $\epsilon$ in front of the time derivatives, just as in the case of the truncated system. The resulting equations extend (\[tev1\])-(\[tev9\]). The first two rescaled equations are unchanged and the third only differs from the corresponding equation for the truncated system in that $[KKPP]$ is replaced by $\overline{KK}$ on the left hand side. The list of expressions for the concentrations of the complexes can be extended as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&&[K\cdot KKPP]=\frac{\tilde a_7[K][KKPP]}{\tilde d_7+k_7},\\
&&[KP\cdot KP'ase]=\frac{\tilde a_8[KP][KP'ase]}{\tilde d_8+k_8},\\
&&[KP\cdot KKPP]=\frac{\tilde a_9[KP][KKPP]}{\tilde d_9+k_9},\\
&&[KPP\cdot KP'ase]=\frac{\tilde a_{10}[KPP][KP'ase]}{\tilde d_{10}+k_{10}}.\end{aligned}$$ There are the following additional equations for the total amounts of enzymes $$\begin{aligned}
&&\overline{KK}=[KKPP](1+K_{m,7}^{-1}[K]+K_{m,9}^{-1}[KP]),\\
&&(KP'ase)_{\rm tot}=[KP'ase](1+K_{m,8}^{-1}[KP]+K_{m,10}^{-1}[KPP]).\end{aligned}$$ The equations (\[inter1\])-(\[inter3\]) can be taken over to the full model except that in (\[inter3\]) the quantity $[KKPP]$ should be replaced by $\overline{KK}$ on the left hand side and that in order to obtain a closed system $[KKPP]$ must be substituted for in terms of $\overline{KK}$ on the right hand side. The following equations also hold: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}[K]=-\frac{k_7}{K_{m,7}}[K][KKPP]
+\frac{k_8}{K_{m,8}}[KP][KP'ase],\label{inter4}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KPP]=-\frac{k_{10}}{K_{m,10}}[KPP][K P'ase]
+\frac{k_9}{K_{m,9}}[KP][KKPP].\label{inter5}\end{aligned}$$ The evolution equations for the MM system are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=
\frac{k_1K_{m,1}^{-1}E_{1,{\rm tot}}[KKK]}{1+K_{m,1}^{-1}[KKK]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{k_2K_{m,2}^{-1}E_{2,{\rm tot}}\overline{KKK}}
{1+K_{m,2}^{-1}\overline{KKK}+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]},\label{mm4}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{k_3K_{m,3}^{-1}\overline{KKK}[KK]}
{1+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{k_4K_{m,4}^{-1}(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KKP]}
{1+K_{m,4}^{-1}[KKP]+K_{m,6}^{-1}[KKPP]},\label{mm5}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KK})=+\frac{k_5K_{m,5}^{-1}\overline{KKK}[KKP]}
{1+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]+K_{m,5}^{-1}[KKP]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{k_6K_{m,6}^{-1}(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KKPP]}
{1+K_{m,4}^{-1}[KKP]+K_{m,6}^{-1}[KKPP]},\label{mm6}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[K]=-\frac{k_7K_{m,7}^{-1}\overline{KK}[K]}
{1+K_{m,7}^{-1}[K]+K_{m,9}^{-1}[KP]}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{k_8K_{m,8}^{-1}(K P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KP]}
{1+K_{m,8}^{-1}[KP]+K_{m,10}^{-1}[KPP]},\label{mm7}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KPP]=+\frac{k_9K_{m,9}^{-1}\overline{KK}[KP]}
{1+K_{m,7}^{-1}[K]+K_{m,9}^{-1}[KP]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{k_{10}K_{m,10}^{-1}(K P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KPP]}
{1+K_{m,8}^{-1}[KP]+K_{m,10}^{-1}[KPP]}.\label{mm8}\end{aligned}$$ Assume that the coefficients $K_{m,i}^{-1}$ are equal to a common quantity $b_2$ for $7\le i\le 10$. Extend the definition of $a_i$ by defining it to be $k_{i+2}K_{m,i+2}^{-1}$ for $i=5,7$ and $k_{i+2}K_{m,i+2}^{-1}(KP'ase)_{\rm tot}$ for $i=6,8$. As in the case of the truncated system there exists a smooth choice of the parameters and total quantities of the enzymes for the MM-MA system which give rise to any choice of the parameters $a_i$, $b_i$, $c_i$ and $d_i$.
We now have a system describing the full cascade which is in the standard form of GSPT. To profit from this it is necessary to examine the transverse eigenvalues. These are the eigenvalues of the matrix which is the derivative of right hand side of the evolution equations for the enzyme-substrate complexes for fixed values of the substrate concentrations. There are ten complexes and this is a ten by ten matrix with components $L_{ij}$. Let the complexes be numbered in the order they are listed in (\[substances\]). Each complex which does not share an enzyme contributes a diagonal element to the matrix. These are the components $L_{11}$ and $L_{22}$ and are negative. Each pair of complexes which share an enzyme contributes a two by two submatrix on the diagonal. They are the $L_{ij}$ with $2k-1\le i,j\le 2k$ for $2\le k\le 5$. The eigenvalues of each of these submatrices on the diagonal have negative real parts. The calculation is essentially the same as that done for the case of the truncated system in [@hell14]. It remains to examine the effect of the non-zero elements of the matrix which do not belong to any of these blocks. These are $L_{23}$, $L_{24}$, $L_{67}$ and $L_{68}$. The elements $L_{11}$ and $L_{22}$ are alone in their columns. Thus the calculation of the eigenvalues reduces to that of the submatrix obtained by discarding the first and second rows and columns. Then the submatrices for $k=1$ and $k=4$ occur as direct sums with other matrices. Thus determining the eigenvalues reduces to doing so for the submatrix defined by $5\le i,j\le 8$. This submatrix is block upper triangular and so its eigenvalues are the eigenvalues of the submatrices for $k=2$ and $k=3$. Combining these facts shows that all transverse eigenvalues have negative real parts.
Consider a stationary solution of the system (\[mm4\])-(\[mm8\]) which satisfies $[KK]=[KKPP]$ and $[K]=[KPP]$. Explicit stationary solutions can be found in a way similar to what was done for the truncated system. It follows from equations (\[mm7\]) and (\[mm8\]) that $a_5\overline{KK}[K]=a_6[KP]$ and $a_7\overline{KK}[KP]=a_8[KPP]$. Hence $\overline{KK}^2=\frac{a_6a_8}{a_5a_7}$. The quantities $[K]$ and $[KP]$ are determined by $$[K]=\frac{K_{\rm tot}}{2+q_2},\ \ \ [KP]=\frac{q_2K_{\rm tot}}{2+q_2},$$ where $q_2=\sqrt{\frac{a_5a_8}{a_6a_7}}$. The expression obtained for $\overline{KKK}$ in the case of the truncated system remains valid for the full system while in those for $[KK]$ and $[KKP]$ are modified to $$[KK]=\frac{KK_{\rm tot}}{2+\tilde q_1},\ \ \
[KKP]=\frac{q_1KK_{\rm tot}}{2+\tilde q_1},$$ where $\tilde q_1=q_1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K])$. In addition we have the relation $$KK_{\rm tot}=\frac{(2+\tilde q_1)\overline{KK}}{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K])},$$ so that $KK_{\rm tot}$ is determined. Stationary solutions for the MM system for the full cascade can be determined as follows. Fix the parameters $a_i$, $b_i$, $c_2$, $d_i$. Then if $c_1$ is chosen sufficiently large the concentrations for the stationary solution can be expressed in terms of $K_{\rm tot}$ and $KK_{\rm tot}$. Note that if the parameters $a_i$, $1\le i\le 8$ are varied in such a way that $r_k=a_{2k+1}/a_{2k}$ remains unchanged for $1\le k\le 4$ then $q_1$ and $q_2$ do not change and the stationary solution is preserved.
Expressing the evolution equations in terms of the quantities $a_i$, $b_i$, $c_i$ and $d_i$ and using the conservation laws gives $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=
\frac{c_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}
{1+d_1(KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK})}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{c_2\overline{KKK}}
{1+d_2\overline{KKK}+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KK})},\label{mapkmm1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{a_1\overline{KKK}[KK]}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KK})}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{a_2(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\overline{KK})}
{1+b_1\left(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\frac{b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[KPP])}
{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[KPP])}\overline{KK}\right)},\label{mapkmm2}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KK})=
\frac{a_3\overline{KKK}(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\overline{KK})}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK])}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{a_4\overline{KK}}
{b_1\overline{KK}+(1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\overline{KK}))
(1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[KPP]))},\label{mapkmm3}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[K]=-\frac{a_5\overline{KK}[K]}
{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[KPP])}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{a_6(K_{\rm tot}-[K]-[KPP])}
{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K])},\label{mapkmm4}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KPP]=+\frac{a_7\overline{KK}(K_{\rm tot}-[K]-[KPP])}
{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[KPP])}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{a_{8}[KPP]}
{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K])}.\label{mapkmm5}\end{aligned}$$ A relation will now be established between this system and the system for the truncated model by doing some rescaling. Replace $[K]$, $[KPP]$ and $K_{\rm tot}$ by $\epsilon [K]$, $\epsilon [KPP]$ and $\epsilon K_{\rm tot}$, respectively. Replace $a_i$ by $\epsilon^{-1} a_i$ for $5\le i\le 8$. In the limit the first three equations are independent of $[K]$ and $[KPP]$ and are just the equations of the truncated system analysed in the last section. The limit is in the form appropriate for applying GSPT. The linearization of the system for $[K]$ and $[KPP]$ is independent of those two variables. Its trace and determinant are $-(a_5+a_7)\overline{KK}-(a_6+a_8)<0$ and $a_5a_7\overline{KK}^2+(a_5+a_6)a_8>0$, respectively and so the transverse eigenvalues have negative real parts. A parameter $L$ can be introduced in the system for the full cascade in the same way as was done for the truncated cascade. It follows that the presence of a Hopf bifurcation in the MM system for the truncated model implies that of Hopf bifurcation in the MM system for the full cascade. A parameter $L$ can also be introduced in the MM-MA system for the full cascade, implying the existence of a Hopf bifurcation for that system, i.e. the original system of Huang and Ferrell. Thus the following theorem has been proved.
\[theorem2\] There exist positive parameter values $a_i$, $b_i$, $c_i$ and $d_i$ such that the MM system for the full Huang-Ferrell model with these parameter values has a positive periodic solution. There exist positive parameter values $\tilde a_i$, $k_i$ and $\tilde d_i$ and positive values of the total amounts $E_{1,\rm tot}$, $E_{2,\rm tot}$, $(KKP'ase)_{\rm tot}$, $(KKP'ase)_{\rm tot}$, $KKK_{\rm tot}$, $KK_{\rm tot}$ and $K_{\rm tot}$ such that the MM-MA system for the full Huang-Ferrell model with these parameter values and these values of the total amounts has a positive periodic solution.
Further examples
================
This section is concerned with some examples which are variations on those coming from the MAPK cascade. The first is a system which is similar to the truncated Huang-Ferrell system except that the second layer of the cascade only has one phosphorylation site. In other words, we discuss now the following cascade: $$\label{cascademonophos}
\xymatrix@C=0.5em{
KKK\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{E_1}&&KKK^* \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{E_2} \ar@{.>}[dl] &&&&\\
&&&&&&\\
KK\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKK^*}&&KKP \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KKP'ase}
}$$ This minimal cascade and its generalization to several layers of simple phosphorylation loops have been considered in [@ventura08] where it is remarked that damped oscillations may occur in a system of this type. It will now be shown how the features observed for the MAPK cascade change in the case of a cascade of two simple phosphorylation loops. The variables are $$\begin{aligned}
&&[KKK], [KKK^*], [E_1], [E_2], [KKK\cdot E_1], [KKK^*\cdot E_2],
\nonumber\\
&&[KK], [KKP], [KKP'ase], [KK\cdot KKK^*], [KKP\cdot KKP'ase]. \end{aligned}$$ We introduce the variable $\overline{KKK}=[KKK^*]+[KK\cdot KKK^*]$ in analogy to what was done in the previous examples. The variables are rescaled as in the truncated Huang-Ferrell model. This means that $[KK]$ and $[KKP]$ are not rescaled, for $[KKK]$, $[KKK^*]$, $[KKP'ase]$, $[KK\cdot KKK^*]$ and $[KKP\cdot KKP'ase]$ the new quantity is $\epsilon^{-1}$ times the old one while for $[E_1]$, $[E_2]$, $[KKK\cdot E_1]$ and $[KKK^*\cdot E_2]$ the new quantity is $\epsilon^{-2}$ times the old one. The reaction constants $\tilde a_1$ and $\tilde a_2$ are multiplied by $\epsilon$ to get new quantities. A new time coordinate is introduced as $\epsilon$ times the old one. There results the following system $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=-\tilde a_2[KKK^*][E_2]+d_2[KKK^*\cdot E_2]
+k_1[KKK\cdot E_1],\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\tilde a_3[KK][KKK^*]+d_3[KK\cdot KKK^*]
+k_4[KKP\cdot KK P'ase],\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKK\cdot E_1]}{dt}=\tilde a_1[KKK][E_1]
-(d_1+k_1)[KKK\cdot E_1],\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKK^*\cdot E_2]}{dt}=\tilde a_2[KKK^*][E_2]-(d_2+k_2)
[KKK^*\cdot E_2],\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KK\cdot KKK^*]}{dt}=\tilde a_3[KK][KKK^*]-(d_3+k_3)
[KK\cdot KKK^*],\\
&&\epsilon\frac{d [KKP\cdot KK P'ase]}{dt}=\tilde a_4[KKP][KK P'ase]
-(d_4+k_4)[KKP\cdot KK P'ase].\end{aligned}$$ To get a closed system the following relations must be used. $$\begin{aligned}
&&[KKK^*]=\overline{KKK}-[KK\cdot KKK^*],\\
&&[KKK]=KKK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KKK}+O(\epsilon),\\
&&[KKP]=KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]+O(\epsilon),\\
&&[E_1]=E_{1,{\rm tot}}-[KKK\cdot E_1],\\
&&[E_2]=E_{2,{\rm tot}}-[KKK^*\cdot E_2],\\
&&[KK P'ase]=(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}-[KKP\cdot KK P'ase].\end{aligned}$$ For $\epsilon=0$ the following MM system is obtained $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KKK})=
\frac{k_1K_{m,1}^{-1}E_{1,{\rm tot}}[KKK]}{1+K_{m,1}^{-1}[KKK]}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{k_2K_{m,2}^{-1}E_{2,{\rm tot}}\overline{KKK}}
{1+K_{m,2}^{-1}\overline{KKK}+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]},\label{mmm1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{k_3K_{m,3}^{-1}\overline{KKK}[KK]}
{1+K_{m,3}^{-1}[KK]}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{k_4K_{m,4}^{-1}(KK P'ase)_{\rm tot}[KKP]}
{1+K_{m,4}^{-1}[KKP]}.\label{mmm2}\end{aligned}$$ The system (\[mmm1\])-(\[mmm2\]) has the property that the trace of the derivative of the right hand side is always negative. Thus by the Dulac criterion this system admits no periodic solutions. It was shown in [@feliu12] that in this case the MM-MA system has a unique stationary solution for given values of the parameters and this means that the same is true for the MM system. On the boundary of the region of positive concentrations the vector field points inwards and all solutions are bounded due to the conservation laws. Putting all these facts together, it follows from Poincaré-Bendixson theory that the stationary solution of the MM system is globally asymptotically stable. It is not clear that stability might not be lost for general values of the parameters in the MM-MA system.
The next example is an in vitro model, introduced by Prabakaran, Gunawardena and Sontag [@prabakaran14], of the MAPK cascade consisting of the proteins Raf, MEK and ERK. The model system is simplified compared to the original biological system in two ways. The protein Raf is constitutively active. This corresponds to taking a fixed value of $\overline{KKK}$ in the model. ERK is mutated so that it can only be phosphorylated once, on tyrosine and not on threonine. The role of the phosphatase $KKP'ase$ is played by PP2A (protein phosphatase 2A) and that of $KP'ase$ by PTP (protein tyrosine phosphatase). Normally PP2A can remove a phosphate group from the threonine in ERK, thus causing a mixing of the layers but the mutation ensures that a phosphate of this kind is not present and PP2A cannot remove the phosphate from tyrosine. This leads to a cascade where the first layer allows two phosphorylation steps but the second only allows one. This cascade is represented in the following diagram: $$\label{cascadepgs}
\xymatrix@C=0.5em{
KK\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKK^*}&&KKP \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KKP'ase} \ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKK^*} && KKPP\ar@{.>}[dl] \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KKP'ase}\\
&&&&\\
&&K\ar@/^2pc/[rr]^{KKPP}&&KP \ar@/^1pc/[ll]^{KP'ase}
}$$ Suppose that the phosphorylation and dephosphorylation in the first layer are distributive and sequential. In other words, only one phosphate group is added or removed in each reaction, the groups are added in a specified order and removed in the reverse order. Given this data it is possible to set up an MM-MA model as done in other cases above but this is not the model used in [@prabakaran14]. There the phosphorylation of MEK is modelled using mass action (MA) kinetics with both phosphates being added in one step and the concentration of Raf not included as a variable. On the other hand the action of MEK as an enzyme in phosphorylating ERK is modelled in detail. This gives a kind of hybrid MA/MM-MA model, which we call the PGS model. It is proved in [@prabakaran14] that for the PGS model all solutions converge to a stationary solution at late times.
Now the MM-MA model for the in vitro system of [@prabakaran14] will be examined, together with its MM reduction. In the Huang-Ferrell system discard the first four equations and take $\overline{KKK}$ to be a constant in the remaining equations. Then set $[KP\cdot KKPP]$, $[KPP]$ and $[KPP\cdot KP'ase]$ to zero together with the reaction constant $\tilde a_9$. Discard the last three equations. In the corresponding MM system this means taking $\overline{KKK}$ to be constant, setting $[KPP]$ and $a_7$ to zero and discarding the first and last equations. In this case the quantity $\overline{KK}$ is defined to be $[KKPP]+[K\cdot KKPP]$. It is no longer possible to keep the coefficients $K^{-1}_{m,i}$ with $7\le i\le 10$ equal to the same positive constant $b_2$. This can be required for $i\ne 9$ but $K^{-1}_{m,9}$ must be replaced by zero. This has the effect that the expression $b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[KPP])$ is replaced in equations (\[mapkmm2\]), (\[mapkmm3\]) and (\[mapkmm4\]) by $b_2[K]$. The system of equations obtained is $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}[KK]=-\frac{a_1\overline{KKK}[KK]}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-\overline{KK})}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{a_2(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\overline{KK})}
{1+b_1\left(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\frac{b_2[K]}
{1+b_2[K]}\overline{KK}\right)},\label{pgsmm1}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}(\overline{KK})=
\frac{a_3\overline{KKK}(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\overline{KK})}
{1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK])}\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{a_4\overline{KK}}
{b_1\overline{KK}+(1+b_1(KK_{\rm tot}-[KK]-\overline{KK}))
(1+b_2[K])},\label{pgsmm2}\\
&&\frac{d}{dt}[K]=-\frac{a_5\overline{KK}[K]}
{1+b_2[K]}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{a_6(K_{\rm tot}-[K])}
{1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K])}.\label{pgsmm3}\end{aligned}$$
Next, in analogy with what has been done for other models above, stationary solutions will be considered which satisfy the restriction $[KK]=[KKPP]$. These satisfy $a_1[KK]\overline{KKK}=a_2[KKP]$ and $a_3[KKP]\overline{KKK}=a_4[KK]$. Hence $a_1a_3\overline{KKK}^2=a_2a_4$ and $\overline{KKK}=\sqrt{\frac{a_2a_4}{a_1a_3}}$. Substituting this back in gives $[KKP]=a_1a_2^{-1}\overline{KKK}[KK]=q_1[KK]$ where $q_1=\sqrt{\frac{a_1a_4}{a_2a_3}}$. Hence $$KK_{\rm tot}=[KK]+[KKP]+\overline{KK}=(2+q_1+b_2[K])[KK].$$ This allows $[KK]$ and $[KKP]$ to be expressed in terms of $KK_{\rm tot}$, $q_1$, $b_2$ and $[K]$. These relations are equivalent to the first and second equations for stationary solutions. The remaining equation can be written as $$\overline{KK}=\frac{a_6(K_{\rm tot}-[K])(1+b_2[K])}{a_5[K](1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K]))}.$$ One way of determinining a set of stationary solutions is as follows. First choose $[K]$, $K_{\rm tot}>[K]$, $b_2$, and the $a_i$. Then use the last equation to determine $\overline{KK}$. Next use $$KK_{\rm tot}=\frac{(2+q_1+b_2[K])\overline{KK}}{1+b_2[K]}.$$ Then $[KK]$, $[KKP]$ and $[KKPP]$ are determined in such a way that all the equations for stationary solutions are satisfied. To summurize, we get equilibria for parameters, conserved quantities and concentrations parametrized over $[K]$, $K_{\rm tot}>[K]$, $b_2$, and the $a_i$ by the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equilibriapgs}
\overline{KKK}&=&\sqrt{\frac{a_2a_4}{a_1a_3}}\\
KK_{\rm tot}&=&\frac{a_6(K_{\rm tot}-[K])(2+q_1+b_2[K])}{a_5[K](1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K]))}\\
\ [KK] \ &=&\frac{a_6(K_{\rm tot}-[K])}{a_5[K](1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K]))}\\
\overline{KK}&=& \frac{a_6(K_{\rm tot}-[K])(1+b_2[K])}{a_5[K](1+b_2(K_{\rm tot}-[K]))},\end{aligned}$$ where $q_1=\sqrt{\frac{a_1a_4}{a_2a_3}}$.\
In order to prove the existence of a Hopf bifurcation it is tempting to proceed as in the analysis of the MM system for the truncated MAP kinase cascade. To do so we need to find parameters such that the coefficients $A_0$, $A_1$ and $A_2$ of the characteristic polynomial of the linearization are all positive. Then the parameters $a_i, i\in\{1,2,3,4\}$ should be rescaled with a positive constant $L$ so as to find a value $L_0$ for which the Hurwitz quantity $H_3=A_1A_2-A_0$ becomes zero. The linearization is very similar to that for the truncated MAP kinase cascade. Here again one entry is zero and all others have a sign. After a suitable change in the order of the variables only one sign differs. The resulting matrix of signs is $$\left[
{\begin{array}{ccc}
- & 0 & - \\
+ & - & - \\
+ & - & -
\end{array}}
\right].$$
The main problem we have encountered in trying to implement this strategy is to find a point in parameter space where the positivity of the $A_i$ holds. The coefficient $A_0$ is the negative of the determinant of the linearization. while the coefficient $A_2$ is the determinant of the analogue of the submatrix $M_2$ defined in the case of the truncated MAPK cascade (using the modified order of the variables). Hence the Routh-Hurwitz method will give us the desired factor $L_0$ only if the determinant of the linearization and that of $M_2$ have the same (negative) sign. Experiments with Maple indicate that these two determinants tend to have different signs for parameters satisfying the biologically motivated positivity conditions. The signs are governed by the signs of polynomials. When attempting to attain the relevant combination of signs by fixing some of the parameters and varying others the signs of the determinants are governed by those of two polynomials. In all experiments we did these polynomials were different but shared a unique positive zero where their signs changed. Unfortunately, having the sign of one of the determinants negative requires being on one side of this zero while having the other negative requires being on the other side of it. After trying many parameter configurations we are tempted to to conjecture that there is a deep reason why these determinants have systematically different signs. When we apply the Routh-Hurwitz method in the case that $A_0$ and $A_2$ have different signs it is still possible to find a unique positive value $L_0$ of $L$ with $H_3=0$. However instead of leading to the purely imaginary eigenvalues required for a Hopf bifurcation this leads to two real eigenvalues with equal magnitude and opposite sign.
Conclusions and outlook
=======================
The main result of this paper is a rigorous analytical proof of the existence of periodic solutions of the Huang-Ferrell system modelling the MAPK cascade. Their presence had been suggested by numerical and heuristic work in [@qiao07]. It was also proved that solutions of this type exist for cascades consisting of a layer with one phosphorylation followed by a layer with two phosphorylations but for the superficially similar case of a layer with two phosphorylations followed by a layer with one phosphorylation an attempt to obtain a similar proof ran into difficulties. The first of these two cases was considered in [@qiao07] but to the authors knowledge the second was not previously investigated in the literature. The methods used in the proofs are bifurcation theory and geometric singular perturbation theory. It should be noted that the heuristic considerations in [@qiao07], which might in principle have been used as a basis for proofs, were in the end hardly used at all. It would be interesting to know whether this alternative route could also be effective in this problem. Relevant ideas, involving relaxation oscillations and the Conley index, are explained in [@angeli04], [@gedeon07] and [@gedeon10].
An important question is to what extent the mathematical results obtained here apply to the real biological system. First it should be noted that in nature there is not just one MAPK cascade but many. The basic pattern is always the same but the details may be different. We now concentrate on the most famous example, the Raf-MEK-ERK cascade. This is essentially the example originally considered in [@huang96]. In that case Raf is replaced by Mos but the architecture of the system is identical. In this model it is assumed that the phosphorylations and dephosphorylations are distributive and sequential. Huang and Ferrell concentrate on this case but do mention that they also did simulations for the alternative versions where one or both of the kinases act in a distributive way. In [@qiao07], [@zumsande10] and the bulk of the present paper only the distributive and sequential case is considered. It has been found that phosphorylation of ERK by MEK is distributive but not sequential [@ferrell97], [@burack97] while desphosphorylation of ERK has been found to be distributive and sequential [@zhao01]. On the other hand the phosphorylation of MEK by Raf has been found to be processive [@alessi94]. See also [@schilling09] where it is remarked that the distinction between the two mechanisms may not be absolute - processive phosphorylation may be thought of as a limiting case of distributive phosphorylation where the second step takes place much faster than the first. This means that the original Huang-Ferrell model is not applicable to the Raf-MEK-ERK cascade. It is also known that there are cases in which processive phosphorylation suppresses complicated dynamical behaviour (in this case bistability) present when the phosphorylation is distributive [@conradi05], [@conradi14]. Thus it would be interesting to investigate whether there are oscillations in the system obtained by modifying the Huang-Ferrell model by making the phosphorylation in the second layer processive.
It is also interesting to know what effect further interactions between proteins not included in the Huang-Ferrell model might have on the dynamics. It was observed in [@legewie07] that binding of Raf to MEK can influence the dynamics of the MAPK cascade, enhancing bistability. In real biological systems the MAPK cascade is also embedded in various external feedback loops. One well-known example is that ERK has a suppressive effect on Raf via the guanine nucleotide exchange factor son of sevenless (SOS). That the resulting negative feedback could lead to oscillations was observed theoretically in [@kholodenko00]. Sustained oscillations in the MAPK cascade have been observed experimentally in [@shankaran09]. They have a period of about 15 minutes and have been observed to continue for over ten hours. A quantitative comparison with simulations indicates that these oscillations are not due to sequestration effects intrinsic to the cascade but to the feedback loop via SOS. Another type of feedback leading to oscillations which involves sequestration but is not intrinsic to the cascade is discussed in [@liu11]. In that case the binding of activated ERK to a substrate reduces its availability for dephosphorylation. These examples make it clear that there are numerous examples of biological interest which represent potential applications of the methods developed in the present paper.
Another key issue is that of the biological role of complicated dynamical features such as bistability, sustained oscillations or chaos in the MAPK cascade, with or without external feedback. Many different signals pass through this cascade and it may be that non-trivial dynamics can be used to encode information, for instance by frequency modulation of oscillations. Here it could be useful to compare with other biological systems where this type of phenomenon is believed to be important, such as the NF$\kappa$B pathway [@agresti09] or calcium signalling [@falcke04]. On the other hand it could be that complicated dynamical behaviour in the basic MAPK cascade is an unwanted side effect and that the feedback loops in which it is embedded in biological systems serve to suppress it. Further mathematical investigations of systems related to the MAPK cascade could serve to understand the cascade itself better in its biological context and could also produce new insights into the architecture of biochemical systems. It should also be kept in mind that a better understanding of the dynamics of the cascade could be important for medical progress [@ventura09]. In chemotherapy of cancer Raf inhibitors are already in use while MEK inhibitors have been the subject of extensive clinical trials but have not yet been effective. A better theory of the system could help to understand where to look for appropriate drugs.
One question which has been left open here is that of the stability of the periodic solutions whose existence has been proved. Is it possible to develop methods to prove that in some of these models there are parameters for which the first Lyapunov coefficient is non-zero, which would solve the stability problem? Is it possible to extend the techniques used here to prove the existence of fold-Hopf or Hopf-Hopf bifurcations in the Huang-Ferrell model and to check the associated genericity conditions which would give information on chaotic behaviour? Evidently, modelling the MAPK cascade gives rise to a large number of challenging mathematical problems.
Appendix: geometric singular perturbation\
theory (GSPT) {#appendix-geometric-singular-perturbation-theory-gspt .unnumbered}
==========================================
In this appendix some results concerning GSPT needed in the paper will be collected. In [@hell14] a theorem from [@fenichel79] was applied but in this paper we need a parameter-dependent version of that result which does not obviously follow from the theorem. In fact, starting from the basic transformations carried out in [@fenichel79] and the idea of a slow manifold, the statements we need can be proved using standard results from the theory of centre manifolds. This will now be explained.
The starting point is a system of equations of the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&\dot x=f(x,y,\alpha,\epsilon),\\
&&\epsilon\dot y=g(x,y,\alpha,\epsilon),\end{aligned}$$ where $x$, $y$ and $\alpha$ belong to open neighbourhoods of the origin in $\R^{n_1}$, $\R^{n_2}$ and $\R^k$ respectively and $\epsilon$ belongs to an interval of the form $[0,\epsilon_0)$. The dot stands for $d/dt$. It will be assumed that the functions $f$ and $g$ are smooth and that they can be extended to smooth functions in a neighbourhood of $\epsilon=0$. This system is now transformed as in [@fenichel79] by defining a new time coordinate by $\tau=t/\epsilon$ and treating $\epsilon$ and $\alpha$ as new unknowns. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
&&x'=\epsilon f(x,y,\alpha,\epsilon),\label{fast1}\\
&&y'=g(x,y,\alpha,\epsilon),\label{fast2}\\
&&\alpha'=0,\label{fast3}\\
&&\epsilon'=0,\label{fast4}\end{aligned}$$ where the prime denotes $d/d\tau$. Observe now that the solutions of the equation $g(x,y,\alpha,0)=0$ are stationary solutions of the system (\[fast1\])-(\[fast4\]). We assume that $g(0,0,0,0)=0$. Suppose that there exists a smooth function $h_0$ such that $g(x,y,\alpha,0)=0$ is equivalent to $y=h_0(x,\alpha)$. The centre subspace of the stationary point at the origin is of dimension at least $n_1+k+1$. We now ensure that its dimension is no greater than that by assuming that all eigenvalues of the linearization of the system at the origin other than the zero eigenvalues arising from the manifold of stationary solutions already mentioned and that coming from equation (\[fast4\]) have non-zero real parts. These will be called the transverse eigenvalues. They are the eigenvalues of $D_yg (0,0,0,0)$. For any positive integer $l$ the centre manifold theorem ([@kuznetsov10], Theorem 5.1) implies that there exists a centre manifold $M_c$ of the origin of class $C^l$ and of dimension $n_1+k+1$. Another well-known result about centre manifolds states that any stationary solutions sufficiently close to a given stationary solution must lie on its centre manifold. Thus the solutions of $g(x,y,\alpha,0)=0$ all lie on the centre manifold of the origin. Since the dimension of the centre subspace is the same for all of these points it follows that $M_c$ is also a centre manifold of these neighbouring points. $M_c$ is what is called the slow manifold. In a neighbourhood of the origin it can be written in the form $y=h(x,\alpha,\epsilon)$ for a $C^l$ function $h$ with $h(x,\alpha,0)=h_0(x,\alpha)$. Considering the restrictions of the dynamical system with the intersections of $M_c$ with the subspaces of constant $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$ gives rise to a dynamical system depending in a regular way on the parameters $\alpha$ and $\epsilon$. Its explicit form (when written in terms of the time coordinate $t$) is $$\dot x=f(x,h(x,\alpha,\epsilon),\alpha,\epsilon).$$ In this way the singular limit $\epsilon\to 0$ in the original system has been reduced to a regular limit. For $\epsilon=0$ it reduces to $$\dot x=f(x,h_0(x,\alpha),\alpha,0).$$
[12]{}
Alessi, D. R., Saito, Y., Campbell, D. G., Cohen, P., Sithanandam, G., Rapp, U., Ashworth, A., Marshall, C. J. and Cowley, S. 1994 Identification of the sites in MAP kinase kinase-1 phosphorylated by p74raf-1. EMBO J. 13, 1610–1619. Angeli, D., Ferrell, J.E. Jr. and Sontag, E. D. 2004 Detection of multistability, bifurcations and hysteresis in a large class of biological positive-feedback systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101, 1822–1827. Burack, W. R. and Sturgill, T. W. 1997 The activating dual phosphorylation of MAPK by MEK is nonprocessive. Biochemistry 36, 5929–5933. Conradi, C., Saez-Rodriguez, J., Gilles, E.-D. and Raisch, J. 2005 Using chemical reaction network theory to discard a kinetic mechanism hypothesis. IEE Proc. Systems Biology 152: 243–248. Conradi, C. and Shiu, A. 2015 A global convergence result for processive multisite phosphorylation systems. Bull. Math. Biol. 77, 126–155. Del Vecchio, D., Ninfa, A. J. and Sontag, E. D. 2008 Modular cell biology: retroactivity and insulation. Nature Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 161. Falcke, M. 2004 Reading the patterns in living cells - the physics of Ca${}^{2+}$ signaling. Adv. Phys. 53, 255–440. Feliu, E. and Wiuf, C. 2012 Enzyme-sharing as a cause of multi-stationarity in signalling systems. J. R. Soc. Interface 9, 1224–1232. Fenichel, N. 1979 Geometric singular perturbation theory for ordinary differential equations. J. Diff. Eq. 31, 53–98. Ferrell, J. E., Jr. and Bhatt, R. R. 1997 Mechanistic studies of the dual phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinase. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 19008–19016. Gantmacher, F. R. 1959 The theory of matrices, Vol. II, Chelsea, New York. Gedeon, T. and Sontag, E. D. 2007 Oscillations in multi-stable monotone systems with slowly varying feedback. J. Diff. Eq. 239, 273–295. Gedeon, T. 2010 Oscillations in monotone systems with a negative feedback. SIAM J. Dyn. Sys. 9, 84–112. Grimbs, S., Arnold, A., Koseska, A., Kurths, J., Selbig, J. and Nikoloski, Z. 2011 Spatiotemporal dynamics of the Calvin cycle: multistationarity and symmetry breaking instabilities. Biosystems 103, 212–223. Hale, J. K. 1969 Ordinary Differential Equations. Dover, Mineola. Hell, J. and Rendall, A. D. 2015 A proof of bistability for the dual futile cycle. Nonlin. Anal. RWA 24, 175–189. Huang, C.-Y. F. and Ferrell, J. E., Jr. 1996 Ultrasensitivity in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 10078–10083. Kholodenko, B. N. 2000 Negative feedback and ultrasensitivity can bring about oscillations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase cascades. Eur. J. Biochem, 267, 1583–1588. Kuznetsov, Y. A. 2010 Elements of applied bifurcation theory. Springer, Berlin. Legewie, S., Schoeberl, B., Bluthgen, N, and Herzel, H. 2007 Competing docking interactions can bring about bistability in the MAPK cascade. Biophys. J. 93, 2279–2288. Liu, P., Kevrekidis, I. G. and Shvartsman, S. V. 2011 Substrate-dependent control of ERK phosphorylation can lead to oscillations. Biophys. J. 101, 2572–2581. Markevich, N. I., Hoek, J. B. and Kholodenko, B. N. 2004 Signaling switches and bistability arising from multisite phosphorylation in protein kinase cascades. J. Cell Biol. 164, 353–359. Murray, J. D. 1989 Mathematical biology. Springer, Berlin. Ortega, F., Garcés, J. L., Mas, F., Kholodenko, B. N. and Cascante, M. 2006 Bistability from double phosphorylation in signal transduction. FEBS J. 273, 3915–3926. Prabakaran, S., Gunawardena, J. and Sontag, E. D. 2014 Paradoxical results in perturbation-based network reconstruction. Biophys. J. 106, 2720-2728. Qiao, L., Nachbar, R. B., Kevrekidis, I. G. and Shvartsman, S. Y. 2007 Bistability and oscillations in the Huang-Ferrell model of MAPK signalling. PLoS Comp. Biol. 3, 1819–1826. Schilling, M., Maiwald, T., Hengl, S., Winter, D., Kreutz, C, Kolch, W., Lehmann, W. D., Timmer, J. and Klingmüller, U. 2009 Theoretical and experimental analysis links isoform‐ specific ERK signalling to cell fate decisions. Mol. Sys. Biol. 5, 334. Shankaran, H., Ippolito, D. L., Chrisler, W. B., Resat, H., Bollinger, N., Opresko, L. K. and Wiley, H. S. 2009 Rapid and sustained nuclear-cytoplasmic ERK oscillations induced by epidermal growth factor. Mol. Sys. Biol. 5, 332. Sung, M.-H., Salvatore, L., De Lorenzi, R., Indrawan, A., Pasparakis, M., Hager, G. L., Bianchi, M. E. and Agresti, A. 2009 Sustained oscillations of NF$\kappa$B produce distinct genome scanning and gene expression profiles. PloS ONE 4(9):e7163. Ventura, A. C., Sepulchre, J.-A. Merajver, S. D. 2008 A hidden feedback in signalling cascades is revealed. PLoS Comp. Biol. 4(3):e1000041. Ventura, A. C., Jackson, T. L. and Merajver, S. D. 2009 On the role of cell signalling models in cancer research. Cancer Res. 69, 400-402. Ventura, A. C. and Sepulchre, J.-A. 2013 Intrinsic feedbacks in MAPK signalling cascades lead to bistability and oscillations. Acta Biotheor. 61, 59–78. Wang, L. and Sontag, E. D. 2008 On the number of steady states in a multiple futile cycle. J. Math. Biol. 57, 29–52. Zhao, Y. and Zhang, Z. Y. 2001 The mechanism of dephosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2 by mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphatase 3. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 32382–32391. Zumsande, M. and Gross, T. 2010 Bifurcations and chaos in the MAPK signalling cascade. J. Theor. Biol. 265, 481–491.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a class of spherically symmetric vacuum solutions to an asymptotically safe theory of gravity containing high-derivative terms. We find quantum corrected Schwarzschild-(anti)-de Sitter solutions with running gravitational coupling parameters. The evolution of the couplings is determined by their corresponding renormalization group flow equations. These black holes exhibit properties of a classical Schwarzschild solution at large length scales. At the center, the metric factor remains smooth but the curvature singularity, while softened by the quantum corrections, persists. The solutions have an outer event horizon and an inner Cauchy horizon which equate when the physical mass decreases to a critical value. Super-extremal solutions with masses below the critical value correspond to naked singularities. The Hawking temperature of the black hole vanishes when the physical mass reaches the critical value. Hence, the black holes in the asymptotically safe gravitational theory never completely evaporate. For appropriate values of the parameters such stable black hole remnants make excellent dark matter candidates.'
author:
- 'Yi-Fu Cai'
- 'Damien A. Easson'
title: |
Black holes in an asymptotically safe gravity theory\
with higher derivatives
---
Introduction
============
One of the most challenging tasks facing theoretical physicists today is the construction of a consistent ultraviolet (UV) complete theory of gravity. Weinberg has suggested that the effective quantum field description of a gravitation theory may be UV complete and non-perturbatively renormalizable by virtue of asymptotic safety (AS) [@Weinberg:1977]. In this scenario the renormalization group (RG) flows have a fixed point in the UV limit and a finite dimensional critical surface of trajectories approach this point at short distances. This theory has been extensively studied in the literature [@Weinberg:1979; @Kawai:1993mb; @Reuter:1996cp; @Souma:1999at; @Lauscher:2001ya; @Lauscher:2001rz; @Litim:2003vp; @Niedermaier:2006ns], and recent evidence suggests the UV critical surface is only three-dimensional even in truncations of the exact RG equations with more than three independent coupling parameters [@Codello:2007bd; @Codello:2008vh; @Benedetti:2009rx; @Weinberg:2009ca; @Weinberg:2009bg; @Weinberg:2009wa]. Until now, the majority of the work on the subject has considered significant truncations of the action, taking into account only the Einstein-Hilbert and occasionally cosmological constant terms. In this paper, we initiate the study of black hole solutions in an asymptotically safe gravity theory including higher derivative terms and running gravitational couplings. While we focus on the above goal, our methodology is easily generalized to include a broader analysis of black solutions in higher derivative theories.
Our concrete starting point is a generally covariant gravitational theory with effective action involving a momentum cutoff $p$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{action}
\Gamma_{p}[g_{\mu\nu}]
&=& \int{d}^4x\sqrt{-g} \bigg[ p^4g_0(p) +p^2g_1({p})R \nonumber\\
&& +g_{2a}(p)R^2 +g_{2b}(p)R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu} \nonumber\\
&&+g_{2c}(p)R_{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}R^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}
+ \mathcal{O} (p^{-2}R^3)+ \cdots
\bigg]~,\end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the determinant of the metric tensor $g_{\m\n}$, $R$ is the Ricci scalar, $R_{\m\n}$ is the Ricci tensor and $R_{\m\n\l\s}$ is the Riemann tensor. The coefficients $g_i$ ($i = 0,\,1,\,2a,\dots$) are dimensionless coupling parameters and are functions of the dimension-full, UV cutoff. In particular, for long wavelengths we have g\_0 (p) = - p\^[-4]{} , g\_1(p) = p\^[-2]{}, where it is useful to define the dimensionless Newton’s constant $\bar{G}_N(p) = G_N(p) p^2$ and dimensionless cosmological constant $\bar{\Lambda}(p) = \Lambda(p) p^{-2}$. The couplings satisfy the following RG equations, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RGeq}
\frac{d}{d\ln{p}} \, g_i(p)=\beta_i[g(p)]~.\end{aligned}$$
The conditions for asymptotic safety require that all the beta functions vanish $\beta_i=0$ when the coupling parameters $g_i$ approach a fixed point $g_{i}^*$. If $g_{i}^*=0$, the fixed point is Gaussian; if $g_{i}^*\neq0$, the fixed point is Non-Gaussian (NG). For the NG fixed point, all the coupling parameters are fixed, the cutoff $p$ becomes irrelevant as $p\rightarrow \infty$, and the theory is adequately described by a finite number of higher order counter-terms included in the effective action. Near the fixed point we may Taylor expand the beta functions in a matrix form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{beta}
\beta_i[g] = \sum_j {\cal B}_{ij}(g_j-g_j^*)~~,\end{aligned}$$ where the elements of the matrix are defined by ${\cal
B}_{ij}\equiv\frac{\partial\beta_i[g]}{\partial{g}_j}^*$ at the fixed point. Solving the RG equations (\[RGeq\]) in the neighborhood of the fixed point we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gi}
g_i(p)=g_i^*+\sum_m e_i^n \left(\frac{p}{M_*} \right)^{v_n}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $e^n$ and $v_n$ are the suitably normalized eigenvectors and corresponding eigenvalues of the matrix ${\cal B}_{ij}$. Since ${\cal B}$ is a general real matrix with symmetry determined by a particular gravity model, its eigenvalues can be either real or in pairs of complex conjugates. As a consequence, the dimensionality of the ultraviolet critical surface is equal to the number of eigenvalues of the matrix ${\cal B}$, of which the real parts take negative values. The above solution involves an arbitrary mass scale $M_*$. By requiring the largest eigenvector of order unity, $M_*$ is typically identified with the energy scale at which the coupling parameters are just beginning to approach the fixed point.
It is well known that the quantization procedure for General Relativity leads to a non-renormalizable quantum field theory, where an infinite number of terms have to be fixed to renormalize the standard perturbation theory. Including higher derivative terms in the action (such as we have done in (\[action\])) introduces higher derivative propagators that soften the divergences of the perturbative quantization and can result in a perturbatively renormalizable theory [@Stelle:1976gc]. Unfortunately, the higher derivative terms required, introduce new massive spin-two degrees of freedom with wrong-sign kinetic term (i.e. negative norm states, or *ghosts) [@Stelle:1977ry]. For example, if we quantize this system in a canonical form the problem with ghosts arises since the metric field and its high-derivative term are regarded as two independent variables. These instabilities generically render the theory non-unitary and unstable. However, as shown in [@Hawking:2001yt], if the quantum theory is based on a path integral which is evaluated in Euclidean space and then Wick rotated to Lorentzian space, the path integral can yield a theory of quantum gravity without a negative norm state. A specific application of this approach in inflationary cosmology provides an interesting interpretation for metric perturbations [@Clunan:2009er]. Surprizingly, evidence is mounting that these catastrophic ghosts may be eliminated in higher derivative theories when the UV limit of gravity is controlled by a NG fixed point as in the AS gravity scenario [@Julve:1978xn; @Salam:1978fd; @Floreanini:1994yp; @Benedetti:2009rx; @Benedetti:2009iq].*
Because the asymptotically safe gravity theory is relevant for the physics of high energy scales and short distances, one is naturally lead to consider its application to early universe cosmology. For example, Weinberg has recently argued for the existence of inflationary solutions complete with graceful exit in the context of the theory [@Weinberg:2009wa]. Another clear application of AS gravity is to black hole physics; in particular, to understand how the theory modifies the conventional Schwarzschild black hole solution by taking into account the quantum corrections naturally incorporated into the model. Some early attempts are presented in [@Bonanno:2000ep; @Bonanno:2006eu; @Bonanno:2009nj; @Falls:2010he]. Their key assumption was that the leading order quantum corrections to the black hole spacetime are captured via a simple running of the Newtonian constant $G_N$ determined by the renormalisation group equation for gravity; however, the consistency of the resultant modified metric and modified effective action was not thoroughly investigated. For simplicity, the analysis was limited to a severe truncation of the action (\[action\]), including only the $g_1$ term. By truncating to the Einstein-Hilbert term (as in any $f(R)$ truncation) the authors eliminated the four-derivative propagator for the helicity two states which may drastically alter the AS theory and its solutions. In this paper, we develope an effective method of finding vacuum solutions to Einstein’s equation derived from the AS gravity with higher derivative terms. We focus on spherically symmetric spacetimes and present an exact form of a Schwarzschild-(anti)-de-Sitter (SAdS) solution. The thermodynamical properties of these black hole solutions are briefly discussed.
The paper is organized as follows: in §II, we derive the equation of motion for the AS high-derivative gravity and study a generic vacuum solution to this theory which preserves static spherical symmetry. We find that, to leading order, this solution is exactly SAdS. Due to the quantum nature of renormalization, the coupling coefficients vary with respect to the running of energy scale and it is necessary to investigate the RG flow of these coupling coefficients in accordance with the asymptotically safe scenario (see, §III). In §IV, we analyze the black hole solutions to the theory. We determine the scale identification between the momentum cutoff and the radial coordinate and subsequently, we study the behavior of the background geometry in the UV and infrared (IR) limits. We find that the metric factor is nonsingular for all values of the radial coordinate but the curvature diverges at the origin. Moreover, there exists a critical mass for the background geometry. When the black hole mass is heavier than the critical value the black hole has two horizons, but this solution vanishes when the mass is subcritical, revealing a naked singularity. Numerical calculations are performed to confirm our analytic results. The black hole thermodynamics are briefly discussed and we present our concluding remarks in §V.
Static spherically symmetric vacuum solutions
=============================================
Black hole physics provides a window into the quantum nature of gravity. Black holes possess many remarkable properties, for example, the associated thermodynamics [@Hawking:1974sw] and holographic properties. The simplest black hole solution in four dimensions corresponds to a Schwarzschild spacetime [@Schwarzschild:1916ae; @Schwarzschild:1916uq]. As is well known, the geometry is divided into two causally independent regions by an event horizon located at the Schwarzschild radius $r_s=2G_NM$ [^1]. Given the possibility of an asymptotically safe gravitational theory, it is logical to re-examine these intriguing properties of black hole physics when quantum corrections are incorporated into the gravitational action. We now obtain the field equations from the action (\[action\]) and search for static, spherically symmetric solutions to the theory.
The generalized Einstein field equations are obtained by varying the action (\[action\]) with respect to the metric tensor $g_{\m\n}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eomHD}
\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{\delta\Gamma_{p}[g_{\mu\nu}]}{\delta{g}_{\mu\nu}}=T^{\mu\nu}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}$ is the generalized Einstein tensor and $T^{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the background matter and is vanishing due to our vacuum ansatz. The generalized Bianchi identity is preserved automatically due to the general covariance of the scalar-type action. The form of $\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}$ appearing in the above equation can be expressed as,
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildeG}
\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu} &=&\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\bigg(p^4g_0+p^2g_1R+g_{2a}R^2+g_{2b}R_{\sigma\rho}R^{\sigma\rho}+g_{2c}R_{\sigma\rho\lambda\kappa}R^{\sigma\rho\lambda\kappa}\bigg)-p^2g_1R^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\
&&+g_{2a}\bigg(-2RR^{\mu\nu}+\nabla^{\mu}\nabla^{\nu}R+\nabla^{\nu}\nabla^{\mu}R-2g^{\mu\nu}\Box{R}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+g_{2b}\bigg(-2R^{\mu}_{\rho}R^{\nu\rho}+\nabla_\rho\nabla^{\mu}R^{\rho\nu}+\nabla_\rho\nabla^{\nu}R^{\rho\mu}-\Box{R}^{\mu\nu}-g^{\mu\nu}\nabla^{\rho}\nabla^{\sigma}R_{\rho\sigma}\bigg)\nonumber\\
&&+g_{2c}\bigg(-2R^{\mu\rho\sigma\lambda}R^{\nu}_{\rho\sigma\lambda}-2\nabla_{\rho}\nabla_{\sigma}R^{\mu\rho\nu\sigma}-2\nabla_{\rho}\nabla_{\sigma}R^{\nu\rho\mu\sigma}\bigg)~.\end{aligned}$$
In the above, we have defined the d’Alembertian operator $\Box\equiv\nabla_{\mu}\nabla^{\mu}$, where $\nabla_{\mu}$ is the covariant derivative. The trace of the Einstein tensor gives the useful quantity, $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{G}&\equiv&g_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\
&=&2p^4g_0+p^2g_1R-2(3g_{2a}+g_{2b}+g_{2c})\Box{R}~,\end{aligned}$$ which vanishes in our vacuum investigation, $T^{\mu\nu}=0$. In the above derivation we have applied the Bianchi identity: $\nabla_{\sigma}(R^{\sigma\rho}-\frac{1}{2}g^{\sigma\rho}R)=0$.
We assume a static, spherically symmetric metric ansatz, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{metric}
ds^2=-A(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{B(r)}+r^2d\Omega_2^2~.\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the metric (\[metric\]) into the action (\[action\]) and neglecting the time integral, up to order $\mathcal{O}(p^0)$ gives, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma}
\Gamma_{p}[A,B]
&=& \int \! {d}r \, 4 \pi{r}^2\sqrt{\frac{A}{B}} \,
\Big(g_0p^4 +g_1p^2R +g_{2a}R^2\nonumber\\
&& +g_{2b}R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}
+g_{2c}R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \Big)~,\end{aligned}$$ where the evaluated curvature invariants in terms of the metric (\[metric\]) are included in the Appendix. To obtain the vacuum solutions we must solve: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eom}
\frac{\delta\Gamma_{p}}{\delta{A}}=\frac{\delta\Gamma_{p}}{\delta{B}}=0~.\end{aligned}$$ The above calculation is greatly simplified by choosing the Schwarzschild gauge $B(r)=N(r)A(r)$ and setting $N=1$. This relation is ensured by the Cauchy theorem for a Riemannian geometry with unique boundary.
Varying the action with respect to the function $A(r)$ gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta\Gamma}{\delta{A}}
&=& \frac{4\pi}{r^2} \bigg[ 4(3g_{2a}+g_{2b}+g_{2c})(-2+2A-r^2A'')\nonumber\\
&&+(2g_{2a}+g_{2b}+2g_{2c})r^3(4A^{(3)}+rA^{(4)}) \bigg]\nonumber\\
&=&0~.\end{aligned}$$ Solving the above equations of motion yields, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{generalsolution}
A(r)=1+c_1r^{n_1}+c_2r^{n_2}+\frac{c_3}{r}+c_4r^2~,\end{aligned}$$ where the exponents $n_j$ ($j = 1, \, 2$) are given in terms of the couplings $g_{2k}$ ($k=a, \, b, \, c$), $$\begin{aligned}
n_{1(2)}=\frac{1}{2} \left(1\mp\sqrt{\frac{50g_{2a}+17g_{2b}+18g_{2c}}{2g_{2a}+g_{2b}+2g_{2c}}} \, \right)~.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This solution involves four coefficients $c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$ and $c_4$ which must be determined by other constraint equations, boundary conditions and the consistency relation with infrared limit solution.
To determine the coefficients appearing in the solution (\[generalsolution\]), we impose the constraint equation $\tilde{G}=0$, consistent with our vacuum assumption. A natural choice is to set $c_1=c_2=0$, giving the SAdS solution to the high-derivative gravity theory: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{solution}
A(r)=1-\frac{2G_{p}M}{r}-\frac{r^2}{l_{p}^2}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{p}$ is a gravitational coupling which is varying along with the running of the cutoff scale. The parameter $M$ is an integration constant we identify with the physical mass of the black hole, and $l_{p}$ is the radius of the asymptotic (A)dS space which is also a cutoff dependent function, expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lp2}
l_{p}^2\simeq-\frac{6g_1}{g_0p^2}\left[1+\sqrt{1-\frac{g_0}{3g_1^2} \left(12g_{2a}+3g_{2b}+2g_{2c} \right)} \, \right]
~.\end{aligned}$$ The solution is consistent with the usual vacuum solution from GR when the energy scale flows to the IR limit, but differs significantly at high energy scales, as we shall see. We require a scale identification between the coefficients of the solution and the cutoff scale $p$ which is dependent on the details of the AS gravity theory. Therefore, in the subsequent section we apply the AS scenario of the high-derivative gravity action.
Asymptotically safe high-derivative gravity
===========================================
The functional gravitational RG equation is based on a momentum cutoff for the propagating degrees of freedom and captures the nonperturbative information about the gravitational theory. The RG equation is of the form [@Reuter:1996cp]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial{\ln{p}}}\Gamma_{p}
= \frac{1}{2}{\rm{Tr}}\bigg({\delta^{(2)}\Gamma_{p}}+{\bf{R}}(p)\bigg)
\frac{\partial}{\partial{\ln{p}}}{\bf{R}}(p)~,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf R}$ is an appropriately defined momentum cutoff at the scale $p$ and is usually determined by the so-called optimized cutoff process [@Litim:2000ci; @Litim:2001up]. In the above formula, we suppose the gauge fixing terms have already been included, although they are irrelevant for our present consideration. Additionally, the trace in the RG equation stands for a sum over spacetime indices and a loop integration. Our philosophy then is to effectively integrate out the high momentum fluctuations with momentum larger than the cutoff $p$, and incorporate them via the modified dynamics for the fluctuations having momentum less than $p$.
The high-derivative terms in the effective action (\[action\]) can be regrouped as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{HDaction}
\Gamma_{p}^{\rm HD}=\int
d^4x\sqrt{-g}\bigg[\frac{\omega}{3\lambda}R^2-\frac{1}{2\lambda}C^2+\frac{\theta}{\lambda}E\bigg]~,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
C^2\equiv C_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}C^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}= R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}-2R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}+\frac{R^2}{3}~,\end{aligned}$$ is the square of the 4-dimensional Weyl tensor, and $$\begin{aligned}
E=R_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}R^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}-4R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}+{R^2}~,\end{aligned}$$ is the integrand of the Gauss-Bonnet term which is topological in 4-dimensional spacetime. The re-expressed high-derivative terms in Eq. (\[HDaction\]) are equivalent to the terms appearing in the original action (\[action\]), under the following identifications, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{g2abc}
g_{2a}&=&-\frac{1}{6\lambda}+\frac{\theta}{\lambda}+\frac{\omega}{3\lambda}~,\nonumber\\
g_{2b}&=&\frac{1}{\lambda}-\frac{4\theta}{\lambda}~,\nonumber\\
g_{2c}&=&-\frac{1}{2\lambda}+\frac{\theta}{\lambda}~.\end{aligned}$$
Note that a standard derivation of dimensional regularization with $d=4-\epsilon$ [@Avramidi:1985ki; @deBerredoPeixoto:2004if] indicates that the beta functions of the dimensionless coefficients introduced in (\[action\]) are sensitive to the dimensional corrections for the case, $\epsilon<0$. Therefore, we restrict our attention to the case of $\epsilon\geq0$. Explicitly in the nontrivial limit of $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, the beta functions for the dimensionless coefficients of the high-derivative gravitational terms are given by [@Avramidi:1985ki; @deBerredoPeixoto:2004if; @Codello:2006in], $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_{\lambda}&=& -\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\frac{133}{10}\lambda^2~,\\
\beta_{\omega} &=& -\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(\frac{5}{12}\lambda+\frac{183}{10}\lambda\omega+\frac{10}{3}\omega^2\bigg)~,\\
\beta_{\theta} &=&
-\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}\bigg(-\frac{196}{45}\lambda+\frac{133}{10}\lambda\theta\bigg)~.\end{aligned}$$ To perform the stability analysis, we note that the coefficient $\lambda$ has the familiar logarithmic form which approaches asymptotic freedom, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(p)=\frac{\lambda_0}{1+\frac{133}{(4\pi)^210}\lambda_0\ln{p/M_p}}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_0$ is a fixed value of the coefficient $\lambda$ at the Planck scale. Since the above form is logarithmic, we find $\lambda\simeq\lambda_0$ in a wide range around the Planck scale. We will apply this approximation in deriving the coordinate dependent cutoff scale later. Moreover, the other two parameters $\theta$ and $\omega$, approach a group of fixed points in the UV limit, among which the stable ones take the values $$\begin{aligned}
\theta^{*}\simeq0.327~,~~\omega^{*}\simeq-0.0228~,\end{aligned}$$ where the superscript “$*$" denotes the parameter value at the NG fixed point as introduced in the beginning of this paper.
By solving the beta functions for the gravitational coupling and cosmological constant, we observe a Gaussian fixed point in the IR limit and a NG fixed point in the UV limit. The central result is $$\begin{aligned}
g_0&\simeq&-\frac{({\Lambda}_{IR}+\eta{p^2}G_{N})(1+\xi{p^2}G_{N})}{8\pi{p}^4G_{N}}~,\\
g_1&\simeq&\frac{1+\xi{p^2}G_{N}}{16\pi{p}^2G_{N}}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{N}$ and ${\Lambda}_{IR}$ are the values of the gravitational coupling and the cosmological constant in the IR limit which are determined by astronomical observations. In the UV limit, the coefficients of the Einstein-Hilbert part of the gravity action will flow to a NG fixed point with $g_0\rightarrow{g}_0^*$ and $g_1\rightarrow{g}_1^*$. To obtain the NG fixed point values of the remaining variables in the high-derivative terms we solve the flow equation explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
g_0^* &\simeq& -\frac{\eta\xi{G}_{N}}{8\pi} \simeq-6.331\times10^{-3}~,\\
g_1^* &\simeq& \frac{\xi}{16\pi} \simeq1.432\times10^{-2}~,\end{aligned}$$ by a numerical computation. Notice that the running gravitational coupling $G_p$ is related to the coefficient $g_1$ by, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gp}
G_p=\frac{1}{16\pi{p}^2g_1}=\frac{G_N}{1+\xi{p^2}G_N}~.\end{aligned}$$ From the analysis of $g_1$, we see that $G_p$ coincides with the Newtonian constant $G_N$ at low energy scales but decreases rapidly as the momentum cutoff $p$, which implies a weakening of gravity at high energy scales. We will see that this weakening of the gravitational force in the UV leads to a softening of the singular behavior of the black hole solution near the origin.
Black holes & asymptotically safe gravity
=========================================
From the above analysis, we find that the spherically symmetric vacuum solutions to the high-derivative gravity theory flow to the classical SAdS geometry at low energy scales. However, in order to implement quantum corrections to the running coefficients appearing in the classical geometry, we must determine the relationship between the momentum cutoff $p$ and the radial coordinate $r$.
Relevant scale
--------------
Recall the quantity $\tilde{G}$, introduced in Eq. (\[tildeG\]), vanishes for the vacuum state, $T_{\m\n} =0$. Inserting the solution (\[solution\]) into Eq. (\[tildeG\]) and making use of the redefinition (\[g2abc\]), we could, in principle, solve for the momentum cutoff $p$ as a function of the radial coordinate $r$ by requiring $\tilde{G}=0$, which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{G}=2p^4g_0+p^2g_1R-\frac{2\omega}{\lambda}\Box{R}=0~.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above equation is a fourth-order differential equation and will yield a class of solutions for the momentum cutoff $p(r)$. Consequently, it is necessary to impose the relevant constraints in order to determine the physical solution. We now focus our attention to the black hole solutions at high energy scales and at small radial distances compared with the Planck scale, $l_p$.
As a consequence of requiring $\tilde{G}=0$, we derive a scale identification between the momentum scale $p$ and the coordinate $r$ of the form, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pAS}
p(r)\simeq2.663\left(\frac{M^2}{|\lambda_0|}\right)^{\frac{1}{8}}r^{-\frac{3}{4}}~,\end{aligned}$$ when the energy scale is as high as the AS scale. We note that this relation is different from the result $p\sim{r}^{-3/2}$ appearing in [@Falls:2010he] through a UV matching. The discrepancy is due to the action truncation considered in [@Falls:2010he], which consisted of only the Einstein-Hilbert term and a vanishing cosmological constant. In the present analysis, we include the higher derivative terms and nonzero cosmological constant in addition to the EH term and running $G_N$. Consequently, we consider the effective action in the low energy limit. When the momentum cutoff flows to the IR regime, the high-derivative terms are suppressed automatically and thus becomes negligible. In this case, $p\sim1/r$ which is consistent with the IR matching of [@Falls:2010he]. The asymptotically safe SAdS geometry is obtained by replacing the classical gravitational constant $G_N$ and the (A)dS radius with a RG improved $G_p(r)$ and $l_p(r)$, respectively.
Note that the dS radius $l_p$ has significant cosmological implications and may be related to the nearly exponential acceleration of our universe at early times, as well as, the cosmological acceleration occurring today. The running of $l_p$ can drive an early inflationary period, complete with a successful graceful exit [@Weinberg:2009wa]. For late time cosmological acceleration, we may consider the possibility that the value of $l_p$ in the IR limit is of order of the size of our universe in accordance with the latest cosmological observations. Such cosmological applications are beyond the scope of the present analysis.
Black hole solutions
--------------------
Let us focus our interests on the local quantities of the quantum corrected black hole solutions (especially near the horizon and the origin) and leave the investigation of dS radius to future study. One can finely tune a very small value of $\lambda_0$ in order to let the dS radius be much larger than the black hole horizon. In the following we study this geometry along with the momentum cutoff $p$ flowing from the UV regime to the IR regime.
### UV limit
As the radial coordinate approaches the origin, the energy scale of the cutoff could be very high, and consequently the coupling parameters may already have arrived at their NG fixed point. Correspondingly, the gravitational coupling is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gpo}
G_p(r)=\frac{1}{16\pi{p}^2(r)g_1}\simeq\frac{1}{\xi p^2(r)}~,\end{aligned}$$ when $p\gg{M}_p$. In this case, the coefficient $\lambda$ approaches zero, leading to infinitely large $g_2$. According to Eq. (\[lp2\]), the radius of the asymptotical dS space diverges. Therefore, we can neglect the last term of the solution (\[solution\]) near the origin. Inserting Eqs. (\[pAS\]) and (\[Gpo\]) into (\[solution\]), we derive the approximate form of the metric factor in the UV limit: $$\begin{aligned}
A_{UV}(r)\simeq1-\frac{625}{512\pi}|\lambda_0|^{\frac{1}{4}}(Mr)^{\frac{1}{2}}~.\end{aligned}$$
The above result indicates that the metric factor $A(r)$, unlike its GR counterpart, is no longer singular inside the horizon of the black hole in AS gravity with leading order high-derivative terms. Naively, it may appear that the geometry is glued to an asymptotical Minkowski spacetime near the origin. However, substituting the solution into the expression for the Ricci scalar, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
R\simeq\frac{9375}{2048\pi}
\frac{M^{\frac{1}{2}}|\lambda_0|^{\frac{1}{4}}}{r^{\frac{3}{2}}} ~,\end{aligned}$$ which is singular at the origin of the spacetime. By applying the horizon condition $A_{UV}(r)=0$, we obtain an approximate solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rUV}
r_{UV}\simeq\frac{0.671\pi^2}{|\lambda_0|^{\frac{1}{2}}M}~,\end{aligned}$$ at high energy scales, indicating that the curvature singularity is hidden behind the UV horizon. The other familiar invariants are altered as well and reflect the softening of the singular behavior in the asymptotically safe gravity theory: R\_[ł]{} R\^[ł]{} && ,\
C\_[ł]{} C\^[ł]{} && ,\
R\_R\^ && . These should be compared with their hard singularity partners in General Relativity, for example, the Kretschmann scalar (37) in GR diverges at the origin as $\sim 1/ r^6$.
### IR limit
Along with the increasing of the radial coordinate the momentum cutoff could drop to the regime below the Planck scale as $p\sim1/r$. In this case, $$\begin{aligned}
G_p(r)\simeq{G_N} \left(1-\frac{\tilde\xi{G_N}}{r^2} \right)~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde\xi$ is a constant which deviates from the coefficient $\xi$ by a factor of $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Substituting this gravitational coupling parameter into the black hole solution yields $$\begin{aligned}
A_{IR}(r)\simeq1-\frac{2G_NM}{r} \left(1-\frac{\tilde\xi{G_N}}{r^2} \right)~.\end{aligned}$$
By solving the equation of horizon condition, we obtain another real solution which corresponds to the event horizon at low energy scales. Expanding to the leading order in the coefficient $\tilde\xi$, we obtain the familiar Schwarzschild horizon value, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rIR}
r_{IR}\simeq
2G_NM-\frac{\tilde\xi}{2M}+\mathcal{O}(\tilde\xi^2)~. $$ Hence, the horizon location of the AS black hole is in precise agreement with the usual form for the Schwarzschild radius $r_s = 2G_NM$ in the limit $\tilde\xi\rightarrow0$.
By comparing the solution for the event horizon in the UV limit (\[rUV\]) and the horizon in the IR limit (\[rIR\]), we see there is a critical value for the mass parameter of the black hole: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mc}
M_c\sim|\lambda_0|^{-\frac{1}{4}}G_N^{-\frac{1}{2}}~.\end{aligned}$$ When $M>M_c$, the black hole in AS high-derivative gravity has two horizons. There is an inner Cauchy horizon as well as an outer event horizon corresponding to that of the ordinary black hole solution in GR. At the extremal value $M=M_c$, these two horizons coincide; beyond the extremal value ($M<M_c$ ) the black hole vanishes, corresponding to a naked singularity. The double horizon feature of our solution is in agreement with the results obtained in the AS gravity with Einstein truncation analyzed in [@Bonanno:2000ep].
Here we make further comparison between our results and those obtained in Refs. [@Bonanno:2000ep; @Bonanno:2006eu; @Bonanno:2009nj; @Falls:2010he]. First, due to the presence of higher derivative terms, the form of the scale identification (32) is altered compared with the result obtained in the case of the pure Einstein truncation [@Falls:2010he]. Furthermore, the black hole solutions obtained with Einstein truncation are smooth and nonsingular, but become singular if higher derivative terms are taken into account. The conditions identifying the critical mass are the same in the two scenarios, i.e., both the metric factor and its derivative with respect to the mass are vanishing.
### Numerical analysis
In the above analytic study we made a number of approximations in order to obtain the black hole solutions in the AS high-derivative gravity theory. To better understand the analytic results, we now turn to a quantitative numerical analysis. Our results for the coordinate-dependent momentum cutoff $p(r)$ and the quantum corrected Schwarzschild metric factor $A(r)$ are presented in Figs. \[fig:cutoff\] and \[fig:metric\], respectively.
![Running of the momentum cutoff $p$ as a function of the radial coordinate $r$. Here we take $\lambda_0=G_N=1$.[]{data-label="fig:cutoff"}](cutoff.eps)
![The metric factors $A$ of the spherically symmetric vacuum solutions as functions of the radial coordinate $r$ in both Einstein gravity and the AS high-derivative gravity. In the numerical computation, we take $\lambda_0=G_N=1$. We consider $M=1$, $M=0.403$ and $M=0.1$, which correspond to a RG running black hole, a critical black hole, and a naked singularity, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:metric"}](metric.eps)
Fig. \[fig:cutoff\], shows the slope of the running momentum cutoff curve in the IR and UV regimes. In the IR regime, which corresponds to a large length scale, $p$ scales approximately as $1/r$. However, in the high energy limit, the relation between the momentum cutoff and the radial coordinate becomes $p\propto
r^{-3/4}$ which is in agreement with the analytic result obtained in Eq. (\[pAS\]).
In Fig. \[fig:metric\], we plot the $g_{00}$ metric component of the spherically symmetric vacuum solutions of AS high-derivative gravity for the values of the mass parameter: $M=1$, $M=0.403$ and $M=0.1$. In order to illustrate the significance of the quantum corrections to the vacuum solutions, we compare them with the metric factor of a black hole in classical Einstein gravity as denoted by the black solid curve. The red dash curve corresponds to the metric factor of a double-horizon black hole with $M=1$ in AS high-derivative gravity. When the physical mass decreases to the critical value ($M_c=0.403$ in this example), we obtain an extremal black hole and the outer horizon coincides with the inner horizon. This case is plotted by the green dash-dot curve. Moreover, the blue short dash curve shows that there are no black hole solutions (i.e. there is a naked singularity) for subcritical values of the mass $M<M_c$. In all of the above solutions the metric factors of the background geometries are smooth and nonsingular, but the curvature is divergent at the origin.
Thermodynamics of the IR horizon
--------------------------------
From the above analysis, we have shown how the normal Schwarzschild geometry is corrected by nonperturbative effects in quantum gravity. To further probe the quantum gravity effects we now study the process of black hole evaporation via Hawking radiation [@Hawking:1974sw]. We apply the Euclidean path integral approach to determine the temperature and the specific heat [@Gibbons:1976ue], and employ the method of complex path analysis to study the emission rate of the Hawking radiation [@Srinivasan:1998ty; @Parikh:1999mf]. We now investigate the thermodynamical features of the quantum corrected black hole around the IR horizon in the super-critical solution with $M \geq M_c$.
There has been considerable interest in the study of thermodynamics of quantum corrected black holes. For example, the Hawking radiation of a two dimensional nonsingular black hole [@Easson:2002tg] in the context of dilaton gravity [@Trodden:1993dm; @Mukhanov:1991zn]. Similar to the derivation performed in [@Easson:2002tg], we compute the Bekenstein-Hawking temperature $$\begin{aligned}
\label{htemp}
T &=& \frac{1}{4\pi}A'(r_{IR}) \nonumber\\
&\simeq& \frac{1}{8{\pi}G_NM} \left(1-\frac{\tilde\xi}{4 G_NM^2} \right) ~,\end{aligned}$$ around the IR horizon. In comparison with the standard result, the temperature of the quantum corrected black hole is smaller than that of the classical analog (see Fig. \[fig:htemp\]).
![Approximate Hawking temperature as a function of black hole mass (see Eq. (\[htemp\])). The AS high-derivative solution is the solid (red) curve and is compared with the standard Hawking temperature of General Relativity $T^{-1} = 8 \pi M$, dashed (black) curve, which diverges for small $M$. In the numerical computation, we take $\tilde \xi =.65$ and $G_N=1$. The temperature reaches a maximum at $M = \sqrt{3 \tilde \xi/4 G_N}$ corresponding to $T^{-1}_{max} = 6 \pi \sqrt{3 G_N \tilde \xi} $, and reaches zero at the critical value $M_c = \sqrt{\tilde \xi/4G_N} \simeq .403$.[]{data-label="fig:htemp"}](htemp.eps)
Stefan’s law gives the black hole radiation power law derivation: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P} &=& -\frac{dM}{dt}=4\pi\sigma{r_{I \! R}^2}T^4 \nonumber\\
&\simeq& \frac{\sigma}{256\pi^3G_N^2M^2} \left(1-\frac{3\tilde\xi}{2G_NM} \right)~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma=\pi^2/60$ is a Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Hence, the evaporation of the quantum corrected black hole can only take place when its physical mass is heavier than the critical value. Consider $\lambda_0\sim \mathcal{O}(1)$, this critical value coincides with the critical mass $M_c$ as introduced in the previous subsection. Once the physical mass is smaller than $M_c$, the absorption process will dominate over the emission process of the black hole radiation. Therefore, a critical mass black hole with $M\sim M_c$ is expected to be the most stable. Indeed, from Fig. (\[fig:htemp\]) we see that the extremal black hole ceases to decay because the temperature vanishes for the critical mass.
From the radiation power law obtained above, it is possible to estimate the evaporation time of the black hole taking into account the quantum gravity corrections $$\begin{aligned}
\tau\sim\frac{M}{|{\cal
P}|}\sim\frac{\tau_{S}}{1-\frac{3\tilde\xi}{2G_NM}}~,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{S}$ is the evaporation time of a classical black hole. The quantum corrected evaporation time is infinite when the physical mass of the black hole decreases to the scale around the critical mass $M_c$, in accordance with our expectations.
In the above analysis we studied the black hole thermodynamics in the framework of the AS high-derivative gravity theory using perturbative methods with $\tilde\xi<1$. However, we do not expect these qualitative results to be drastically altered in the nonperturbative regime. This is due to the fact that there is always a critical mass for the black hole solution where its IR horizon coincides with the UV horizon. This corresponds to an extremal black hole with a vanishing temperature (since $T\propto
A'=0$). As a consequence, the black hole evaporation time will be infinite as discussed above.
Conclusions {#conc}
===========
In this paper we have initiated the study of static spherically symmetric vacuum solutions to the theory of asymptotically safe gravity with high-derivative corrections. We find that a generic solution corresponds to a quantum corrected SAdS spacetime due to the RG flows of the gravitational coupling parameters. Under certain simplifying assumptions, we obtain a black hole solution with smooth metric factor and a curvature singularity at the center of the geometry. The singular behavior is mildly softened in the AS high derivative theory compared to the corresponding GR black hole. The quantum gravity corrected black hole solution generically possesses two horizons, which correspond when the physical mass of the black hole decreases to a critical value. The temperature of the black hole is exactly zero when its physical mass reaches the critical value. We find that the temperature of the quantum corrected black hole is, in general, lower than that of a classical black hole and stable critical mass remnants are natural final states of the Hawking evaporation process.
These results are related to many other interesting issues which deserve future study. For example, a collection of critical black holes may serve as an alternative candidate for dark matter if their masses are as low as the ${\rm TeV}$ scale. From Eq. (\[Mc\]), we find that this is a possibility if $\lambda_0\sim10^{64}$ which is also compatible with the theoretical requirement of suppressing gravitational high-derivative terms. The passive thermodynamic properties of the AS black hole with a critical mass may leave significant signals on the matter power spectrum at small length scales. In addition, if sufficient numbers of critical mass holes were produced at the end of inflation, they may leave potentially measurable signals in the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation on small angular scales. A potential concern is that if the critical mass of a black hole is much lower than the Planck scale Minkowski spacetime could become unstable due to the perturbation modes which increase the mass of the black hole. It is then possible that there would be too many primordial black hole remnants produced in a static background. We note that this problem may be alleviated in realistic cosmological models due to the expansion of the universe. As the expansion of the background spacetime dominates over the production rate of black holes, the density of primordial black holes may be significantly diluted after a sufficiently long period. We leave the study of this intriguing possibility for future work.
It is a pleasure to thank R. Brandenberger, R. Emparan, K. Stelle and S. Weinberg for helpful conversations. YFC acknowledges Prof. Xinmin Zhang for extensive support of his research. YFC thanks the Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe and the Research Center for the Early Universe at the University of Tokyo, Tokyo University of Science, and the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University for their hospitality when this work was finalized. The work of YFC is supported in part by the National Science Foundation of China under Grants No. 10533010 and 10803001. DAE would like to thank the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University for their hospitality during YKIS2010 (YITP-T-10-01) where this work was completed. The work of DAE is supported in part by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative), MEXT, Japan and by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (21740167) from the Japan Society for Promotion of Science (JSPS), and by funds from the Arizona State University Foundation, and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY05-51164.
[99]{}
S. Weinberg, ¡°Critical Phenomena for Field Theorists,¡± in [*Understanding the Fundamental Constituents of Matter*]{}, ed. A. Zichichi (Plenum Press, New York, 1977).
in [*General Relativity*]{}, ed. S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, 1979): 790.
H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and M. Ninomiya, “Ultraviolet stable fixed point and scaling relations in (2+epsilon)-dimensional quantum gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B [**404**]{}, 684 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9303123\]. M. Reuter, “Nonperturbative Evolution Equation for Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**57**]{}, 971 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9605030\]. W. Souma, “Non-trivial ultraviolet fixed point in quantum gravity,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**102**]{}, 181 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9907027\]. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, “Ultraviolet fixed point and generalized flow equation of quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 025013 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108040\]. O. Lauscher and M. Reuter, “Is quantum Einstein gravity nonperturbatively renormalizable?,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 483 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0110021\]. D. F. Litim, “Fixed points of quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 201301 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-th/0312114\]. M. Niedermaier, “The asymptotic safety scenario in quantum gravity: An introduction,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**24**]{}, R171 (2007) \[arXiv:gr-qc/0610018\]. A. Codello, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede, “Ultraviolet properties of f(R)-gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**23**]{}, 143 (2008) \[arXiv:0705.1769 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Codello, R. Percacci and C. Rahmede, “Investigating the Ultraviolet Properties of Gravity with a Wilsonian Renormalization Group Equation,” Annals Phys. [**324**]{}, 414 (2009) \[arXiv:0805.2909 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Benedetti, P. F. Machado and F. Saueressig, “Asymptotic safety in higher-derivative gravity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**24**]{}, 2233 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.2984 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Weinberg, “Living with Infinities,” arXiv:0903.0568 \[hep-th\]. S. Weinberg, “Effective Field Theory, Past and Future,” arXiv:0908.1964 \[hep-th\]. S. Weinberg, “Asymptotically Safe Inflation,” arXiv:0911.3165 \[hep-th\]. K. S. Stelle, “Renormalization Of Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**16**]{}, 953 (1977). K. S. Stelle, “Classical Gravity With Higher Derivatives,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**9**]{}, 353 (1978). S. W. Hawking and T. Hertog, “Living with Ghosts,” Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 103515 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0107088\]. T. Clunan and M. Sasaki, “Tensor ghosts in the inflationary cosmology,” arXiv:0907.3868 \[hep-th\].
J. Julve and M. Tonin, “Quantum Gravity With Higher Derivative Terms,” Nuovo Cim. B [**46**]{}, 137 (1978). A. Salam and J. A. Strathdee, “Remarks On High-Energy Stability And Renormalizability Of Gravity Theory,” Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 4480 (1978). R. Floreanini and R. Percacci, “The Renormalization group flow of the Dilaton potential,” Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 896 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9412181\]. D. Benedetti, P. F. Machado and F. Saueressig, “Four-derivative interactions in asymptotically safe gravity,” arXiv:0909.3265 \[hep-th\]. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, “Renormalization group improved black hole spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 043008 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0002196\]. A. Bonanno and M. Reuter, “Spacetime structure of an evaporating black hole in quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 083005 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0602159\]. A. Bonanno, “Astrophysical implications of the Asymptotic Safety Scenario in Quantum Gravity,” arXiv:0911.2727 \[hep-th\]. K. Falls, D. F. Litim and A. Raghuraman, “Black holes and asymptotically safe gravity,” arXiv:1002.0260 \[hep-th\]. S. W. Hawking, “Particle Creation By Black Holes,” Commun. Math. Phys. [**43**]{}, 199 (1975) \[Erratum-ibid. [**46**]{}, 206 (1976)\]. K. Schwarzschild, “On the gravitational field of a sphere of incompressible fluid according to Einstein’s theory,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) [**1916**]{}, 424 (1916) \[arXiv:physics/9912033\]. K. Schwarzschild, “On The Gravitational Field Of A Mass Point According To Einstein’s Theory,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) [**1916**]{}, 189 (1916) \[arXiv:physics/9905030\]. D. F. Litim, “Optimisation of the exact renormalisation group,” Phys. Lett. B [**486**]{}, 92 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0005245\]. D. F. Litim, “Optimised renormalisation group flows,” Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 105007 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0103195\]. I. G. Avramidi and A. O. Barvinsky, “Asymptotic Freedom In Higher Derivative Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**159**]{}, 269 (1985). G. de Berredo-Peixoto and I. L. Shapiro, “Higher derivative quantum gravity with Gauss-Bonnet term,” Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 064005 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-th/0412249\]. A. Codello and R. Percacci, “Fixed Points of Higher Derivative Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 221301 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-th/0607128\]. G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Action Integrals And Partition Functions In Quantum Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2752 (1977). K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan, “Particle production and complex path analysis,” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 024007 (1999) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9812028\]. M. K. Parikh and F. Wilczek, “Hawking radiation as tunneling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 5042 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9907001\]. D. A. Easson, “Hawking radiation of nonsingular black holes in two dimensions,” JHEP [**0302**]{}, 037 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0210016\]. M. Trodden, V. F. Mukhanov and R. H. Brandenberger, “A Nonsingular two-dimensional black hole,” Phys. Lett. B [**316**]{}, 483 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9305111\]. V. F. Mukhanov and R. H. Brandenberger, “A Nonsingular universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1969 (1992).
Curvature invariants
====================
The curvature invariants appearing in the action (\[action\]) evaluated in terms of the line element (\[metric\]): R =
R\^2 &=& (-(r\^2 BA’\^2) + r A ( 2 r B A” + A’ ( r B’+4 B ) )\
&+& 4 A\^2 ( r B’+B-1 ) )\^2
R\_ R\^ &=& (r\^4 B\^2 A’\^4+4 A\^4(4 (-1+B)\^2+4 r (-1+B) B’+3 r\^2 B’\^2)\
&+& 4 r A\^3(A’(4 (-1+B) B+2 r BB’+r\^2 B’\^2)+2 r\^2 B B’ A”)\
&+& r\^2 A\^2(A’\^2(12 B\^2+r\^2 B’\^2) + 4 r B A’(2 B+r B’) A”+4 r\^2 B\^2 A”\^2)\
&-& 2 r\^3 A BA’\^2(r A’ B’+2 B(A’+r A”)))
R\_[ł]{} R\^[ł]{} &=& (r\^4 B\^2 A’\^4+8 A\^4(2 (-1+B)\^2+r\^2 B’\^2)\
&+& -2 r\^4 A B A’\^2(A’B’+2 B A”) + A\^2(r\^2 A’\^2(8 B\^2+r\^2 B’\^2)\
&+& 4 r\^4 B A’B’A”+4 r\^4 B\^2 A”\^2))
[^1]: Here and throughout we use Natural units with $c = \hbar = k_B = 1$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We extend the usual gravitational action principle by promoting the bare cosmological constant (CC) from a parameter to a field which can take many possible values. Variation leads to a new integral constraint equation which determines the classical value of the effective CC that dominates the wave function of the universe. In a realistic cosmological model, the expected value of the effective CC, is calculated from measurable quantities to be $O(t_{\mathrm{U}}^{-2})$, as observed, where $t_{\mathrm{U}}$ is the present age of the universe in Planck units,. Any application of our model produces a falsifiable prediction for $\Lambda $ in terms of other measurable quantities. This leads to a specific falsifiable prediction for the observed spatial curvature parameter of $\Omega _{k0}=-0.0055$. Our testable proposal requires no fine tunings or extra dark-energy fields but does suggest a new view of time and cosmological evolution.'
author:
- 'John D. Barrow'
- 'Douglas J. Shaw'
title: A New Solution of the Cosmological Constant Problems
---
The cosmological constant (CC) was introduced by Einstein in 1917 to ensure that general relativity (GR) admitted a static cosmological solution. Introducing a CC, $\lambda $, required the addition of a term $-\lambda
g_{\mu \nu }$ to the original field equations: $$G^{\mu \nu }=\kappa \left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle \rightarrow
G^{\mu \nu }=\kappa \left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle -\lambda g^{\mu
\nu },$$where $G^{\mu \nu }=R^{\mu \nu }-Rg^{\mu \nu }/2$, $R_{\mu \nu }$ is the Ricci curvature of $g_{\mu \nu }$, and $\left\langle T^{\mu \nu
}\right\rangle $ is the expected energy-momentum tensor of matter; $\kappa
=8\pi G$, $c=\hbar =1$. The discovery that the universe was expanding removed Einstein’s original motivation for $\lambda $ but it was later appreciated that there were other, more fundamental, reasons for its presence. Quantum fluctuations result in a vacuum energy, $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}},$ that contributes to the $\left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle $ $$\left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle =T_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mu \nu }-\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}g^{\mu \nu },$$where $T_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mu \nu }$ vanishes *in vacuo* and hence $$G^{\mu \nu }=\kappa T_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mu \nu }-\Lambda g^{\mu \nu },\qquad
\Lambda =\lambda +\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}}.$$The vacuum energy contributes $\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ to the effective CC, $\Lambda $. Even if the ‘bare’ CC, $\lambda $, is assumed to vanish, the effective CC will generally be non-zero. For $\Lambda =0$, the $\lambda $, and $\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ terms must exactly cancel. Since there is no a priori link between the values of $\lambda $ and $\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ this seems improbable. Without such a cancellation, it is natural that $|\Lambda |\gtrsim O(\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}})$. At late cosmic times $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ does not evolve. Given the standard model of particle physics, and reasonable (e.g. supersymmetric) extensions of it, a late-time $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ of at least $M_{\mathrm{EW}}^{4}$ $\sim (246\,\mathrm{GeV)}^{4}$ appears to be unavoidable. Hence, it seems natural that $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\kappa
^{-1}\Lambda \gtrsim M_{\mathrm{EW}}^{4}$. This *cannot* be the case because measurements of the expansion rate give $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}^{\mathrm{eff}}\approx (2.4\times 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV)}^{4}$ [Komatsu:2010fb]{}, at least $10^{56}$ times smaller than the expected quantum contribution. This is the *cosmological constant problem*.Equivalently, assuming the estimate of $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ from quantum fluctuations is accurate we ask why $\lambda \approx -\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ to at least $56$ decimal places? Furthermore, the time $t_{\Lambda
}=\Lambda ^{-1/2}\approx 9.7\,\mathrm{Gyrs}$ is curiously close to the present age of the universe, $t_{U}\approx 13.7\,\mathrm{Gyrs}$. First Barrow and Tipler [@btip], and then Efstathiou [@ef] and Weinberg [@sw], derived anthropic upper limits on $|\Lambda |$ by requiring that inhomogeneities grow by gravitational instability long enough for galaxies to form. For $\Lambda >0$ this requires $t_{\Lambda }\gtrsim 0.7\,\mathrm{Gyrs}$. However, there is still no reason why the apparently fixed time, $t_{\Lambda },$ should correlate with an observer-dependent time-scale such as $t_{\mathrm{U}}$. This is the *coincidence problem*.
We propose a simple extension of the usual action principle in which the bare CC, $\lambda $, will be promoted from a parameter to a ‘field’. The variation leads to a new field equation which determines the value of $\lambda ,$ and hence the effective CC, in terms of other properties of the observed universe. Crucially, one finds that the observed classical history naturally has $t_{\Lambda }\sim t_{\mathrm{U}}$. Fuller details are presented elsewhere [@longpaper]. When it is applied to GR, $\lambda $ (and hence $\Lambda $ except when $\rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$ evolves due to, say, a phase transition) is a true constant and is *not* seen to evolve. Hence, the resulting history is indistinguishable from GR with the value of $\Lambda $ put in by hand. Nonetheless, for given theory of gravity such as GR, our model produces a firm prediction for $\Lambda $ in terms of other measurable quantities and is testable by future observations. It should be stressed that our proposal is equally applicable to theories of gravity other than GR and to theories with more than 4 spacetime dimensions. As in 4-d GR, $t_{\Lambda }$ is still expected to be $O(t_{\mathrm{U}})$.
If our model is correct, assuming an (approximately) homogeneous and isotropic GR cosmology, the measured value of $\Lambda$ requires a specific value for the dimensionless spatial curvature, $\Omega _{k0}$, of the observable universe. The predicted $\Omega _{k0}$ is consistent with current observational limits and large enough to be detected in the near future. Our model also specifies the probability, $f(\Lambda )\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda $ observing a CC in the range $[\Lambda ,\Lambda +\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda ]$. Crucially, $f(\Lambda )$ is independent of the prior weighting given to different values of $\Lambda $ in the wave function of the universe. We find that the observed value of $\Lambda $ is indeed typical, as is a coincidence between $t_{\Lambda }$ and $t_{\mathrm{U}}$. Our proposal provides a realistic and falsifiable model of the universe that avoids the CC and coincidence problems.
Define the total action of the universe on a manifold $\mathcal{M}$ with boundary $\partial \mathcal{M}$ and effective CC $\Lambda ,$ matter fields $\Psi ^{a},$ and metric $g_{\mu \nu }$, to be $I_{\mathrm{tot}}[g_{\mu \nu
},\Psi ^{a},\Lambda ;\mathcal{M}]$. Usually, $\lambda $ is a fixed parameter and the wave (partition) function of the universe, $Z[\lambda ;\mathcal{M}]\equiv Z_{\Lambda }[\mathcal{M}]$, is given by: $$Z_{\Lambda }[\mathcal{M}]=\sum_{{}}e^{iI_{\mathrm{tot}}}\left[ \times \,\,\mathrm{gauge\,\,fixing\,\,terms}\right] ,$$where $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $ are some fixed boundary quantities (generalized ‘charges’) on $\partial \mathcal{M}$, and the sum is over all histories (i.e. configurations of the metric and matter, $g_{\mu \nu },\Psi
^{a}$) consistent with these fixed charges. The dominant contribution to $Z_{\Lambda }[\mathcal{M}]$ is from the histories for which $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ is stationary for $g_{\mu \nu }$ and $\Psi ^{a}$ variations that preserve the $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $. In these dominant histories, the matter and metric fields obey their classical field equations.
When the surface terms in the gravitational action are chosen to make $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ first order in derivatives of the metric, for a non-null $\partial \mathcal{M}$ with induced 3-metric $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$, a small general metric variation gives $$2\kappa \delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}=\int_{\partial \mathcal{M}}|\gamma |^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\mathrm{d}^{3}x\,N^{\mu \nu }\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }+\int_{\mathcal{M}}|g|^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\mathrm{d}^{4}x\,E^{\mu \nu }\delta g_{\mu \nu }.$$Put $g_{\mu \nu }=\bar{g}_{\mu \nu }+\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathcal{M})}$, $\bar{g}_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(\partial
\mathcal{M})},$ where the $\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathcal{M})}$ vanish on $\partial \mathcal{M}$ but $\delta g_{\mu \nu }^{(\partial \mathcal{M})}$ do not. The vanishing of $\delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ in $\mathcal{M}$ implies that $E^{\mu \nu }[g_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}]=E^{\mu \nu }[\bar{g}_{\mu \nu }]=0$. The classical field equations for the metric are $E^{\mu \nu }=0$ . The variation $\delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}=0$ then requires that $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$ be fixed on $\partial \mathcal{M}$. However, if some part, $\partial
\mathcal{M}_{u}$, of $\partial \mathcal{M}$ lies in the causal future of another part, $\partial \mathcal{M}_{I}$, the choice of fixed $\gamma _{\mu
\nu }$ is constrained by $E^{\mu \nu }=0$. In this example, we define $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $ to be the smallest data set on $\partial \mathcal{M}$ that can be freely specified which, when combined with $E^{\mu \nu }=0$, fixes $\gamma _{\mu \nu }$ up to a gauge choice on $\partial \mathcal{M}$. This definition is then extended to the matter sector (for which the classical field equations are $\Phi _{a}=0$). This is just a restatement of the usual variational principle allowing for a causally interconnected $\partial \mathcal{M}$. Since $E^{\mu \nu }=0$ depends on $\Lambda $, fixed $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $ and $E^{\mu \nu }=\Phi _{a}=0$ only fixes $\gamma
_{\mu \nu }$ and boundary matter fields for given $\Lambda $, and we have $\left. \delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }\right\vert _{\partial \mathcal{M}}=\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }\delta \Lambda $ and $\left. \delta \Psi ^{a}\right\vert
_{\partial \mathcal{M}}=\mathcal{P}^{a}\delta \Lambda ,$which define $\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }$ and $\mathcal{P}^{a}$.
Our proposal for solving the CC problems is simply to promote the bare cosmological constant, $\lambda $, from a fixed parameter to a field (albeit one that is constant in space and time). A similar promotion of $\lambda $ occurs in studies of unimodular gravity. Equally, this promotion can arise in a fundamental theory, e.g. string theory, where there are many distinct vacua each with different minima of the vacuum energy.
The wave function of the universe, $Z[\mathcal{M}],$ now includes a sum over all possible values of $\lambda $ in addition to the usual sum over configurations of $g_{\mu \nu }$ and $\Psi ^{a}$ [@footnote1]. The effective CC, $\Lambda $, is equal to $\lambda +\mathrm{const}$ and so a sum over all possible values of $\lambda $ is equivalent to a sum over all $\Lambda $ and so $$Z[\mathcal{M}]=\sum_{\lambda }\mu \lbrack \lambda ]Z[\lambda ;\mathcal{M}]=\sum_{\Lambda }\mu \lbrack \lambda ]Z_{\Lambda }[\mathcal{M}].$$where $\mu \lbrack \lambda ]$ is some unknown prior weighting on the different values of $\lambda $. Provided $\mu \lbrack \lambda ]$ is not strongly peaked at a particular $\lambda $-value, we find that (at least classically) our model is independent of the choice of $\mu $. The classical histories that dominate the wave function are those for which, with fixed $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $, $\delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}=0$ for variations in the summed-over fields. For variations of $g_{\mu \nu }$ and $\Psi ^{a},$ this gives $E^{\mu \nu }=\Phi _{a}=0$ as before. Since $\lambda $ is summed over, a stationary $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ also now requires $\delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \lambda =\delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \Lambda =0$.
We define $I_{\mathrm{class}}(\Lambda ;\mathcal{M})$ to be $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ evaluated at the classical solution for $g_{\mu \nu }$ and $\Psi ^{a}$ and fixed $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $; $\delta I_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \Lambda =0$ is then equivalent to $$\frac{\,\mathrm{d}I_{\mathrm{class}}(\Lambda ;\mathcal{M})}{\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda }=0, \label{eq:phi:simp}$$Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]) yields a field equation for determining the classical value of the effective CC. An observer sees a classical history with effective CC, $\Lambda $, which satisfies Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]). Since $\lambda $ is a true space-time constant, the effective CC will not be seen to evolve in this classical history.
The solutions of Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]) depend on the definition of $\mathcal{M}$, fixed $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $ and surface terms in $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$; these choices should be well-motivated and consistent with the symmetries of nature. We demand that all observables including $\Lambda $ should be influenced only by parts of the universe causally connected to the observer. As Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]) involves integrals over $\mathcal{M}$ and $\partial
\mathcal{M}$, the only coordinate independent choice consistent with this demand is that $\mathcal{M}$ is the observer’s causal past. If our model’s predictions are accurate, this requirement could indicate that a notion of causal order is a fundamental rather than emergent property of quantum space-time. The wave function, $Z[\mathcal{M}]$, is then a sum over all possible configurations in the causal past, and $\partial \mathcal{M}$ is composed of the observer’s past-light cone, $\partial \mathcal{M}_{u}$, and initial spacelike singularity $\partial \mathcal{M}_{I}$, (where say $\tau =0$) [blackholenote]{}. As we move towards $\partial \mathcal{M}_{I}$, the CC has less and less influence on the evolution of the universe. This motivates specifying the $\left\{ Q^{A}\right\} $ so that the initial state on $\partial \mathcal{M}_{I}$ is fixed independently of $\lambda $. On $\partial
\mathcal{M}_{u}$, the fields then depend on $\Lambda $ through the classical field equations in a calculable fashion. The canonical surface term choice is the minimal term that renders the total action first order in metric and matter derivatives [@footnoteINITIAL]. These choices are well-motivated and natural; indeed there were no obvious and well-motivated alternatives.
There is now a simple argument for why $t_{\Lambda }\sim t_{\mathrm{U}}$ is natural in our model. Schematically, with $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ at most first order in metric and matter derivatives, Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]), is equivalent to $$\int_{\mathcal{M}}|g|^{\frac{1}{2}}\,\mathrm{d}^{4}x=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial \mathcal{M}}|\gamma |^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[ N^{\mu \nu }\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu }+\Sigma _{a}\mathcal{P}^{a}\right] \,\mathrm{d}^{3}x.
\label{eq:phi}$$The left-hand side is just the 4-volume, $V_{\mathcal{M}}$, of $\mathcal{M}$. The right-hand side is a ‘holographic’ term defined on the boundary (of area $A_{\partial \mathcal{M}},$ say). Cosmologically $N^{\mu \nu }\mathcal{H}_{\mu \nu
} + \Sigma _{a}\mathcal{P}^{a} \sim O({{\rm tr}\,}N/\Lambda) \sim O(H/\Lambda)$ where $H$ is the Hubble constant (with $H(t_{U})\equiv $ $H_{0}$ today). Hence the right-hand side of Eq.(\[eq:phi\]) is $O(\Lambda ^{-1}H_{0}A_{\partial
\mathcal{M}})$. So, we expect solutions of Eq.(\[eq:phi\]) to have $\Lambda \sim O(H_{0})A_{\partial \mathcal{M}}/V_{\mathcal{M}}$. Typically, $H_{0}\sim A_{\partial \mathcal{M}}/V_{\mathcal{M}}$ and $H_{0}^{-1}$ is determined by $t_{\Lambda }=\Lambda ^{-1/2}$ and the age of the universe $t_{\mathrm{U}}$. Eq.(\[eq:phi\]) links the values of $t_{\Lambda }$ and $t_{\mathrm{U}}$ and, in the absence of fine-tunings, we naturally expect $t_{\Lambda }\sim O(t_{\mathrm{U}})$ and hence $\Lambda \sim O(1)t_{U}^{-2}$ ($\sim 10^{-122}$ in units where $G\equiv 1$). If there are extra dimensions with volume $V_{D}$, then $A_{\partial \mathcal{M}}$ and $V_{\mathcal{M}}$ would both be multiplied by $V_{D}$ leaving $A_{\partial \mathcal{M}}/V_{\mathcal{M}}$ and the expectation $\Lambda \sim t_{U}^{-2}$ is unaltered [@sorkin]. If Eq.(\[eq:phi\]) admits a classical solution, then the classical value of the effective CC will have the observed magnitude, $O(t_{U}^{-2})\sim 10^{-122},$ without fine-tuning.
We now apply our model to our universe where gravity is described by GR to a good approximation. The observed CC is given by the requirement that the total action $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ be stationary with respect to small changes in $\lambda $, i.e. Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]. We expand this equation by first evaluating $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ as a implicit function of $\lambda $. $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is the total action $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ modulo the matter and metric field equations, with $$I_{\mathrm{tot}}=I_{\mathrm{EH}}+I_{\mathrm{CC}}+I_{\mathrm{GHY}}^{(u)}+I_{\mathrm{m}}+\dots ,$$where the $\dots $ represent the $\lambda $-independent surface terms on $\partial M_{\mathrm{I}}$. $I_{\mathrm{EH}}$ is the usual Einstein-Hilbert action i.e. the integral of $(2\kappa )^{-1}\sqrt{-g}R$ over $\mathcal{M}$; $I_{\mathrm{CC}}$ and $I_{\mathrm{m}}$ are the cosmological constant and matter actions respectively and $I_{\mathrm{GHY}}^{(u)}$ is the standard Gibbons-Hawking-York surface term on $\partial \mathcal{M}_{u}$. We remove the quantum vacuum energy from $I_{\mathrm{m}}$ and absorb it into the effective CC, $\Lambda =\lambda +\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{vac}}$. $I_{\mathrm{CC}}$ and $I_{\mathrm{m}}$ are then the the integrals of $-\kappa ^{-1}\sqrt{-g}\Lambda $ and $\sqrt{-g}\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}}$ over $\mathcal{M}$ respectively. $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}}$ is the effective matter Lagrangian density defined to vanish in vacuo; $T_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mu \nu }$ is the associated energy-momentum tensor. Einstein’s equations give $(2\kappa
)^{-1}R=2\kappa ^{-1}\Lambda -T_{\mathrm{m}}/2$ which we substitute into $I_{\mathrm{EH}}$. $I_{\mathrm{GHY}}^{(u)}$ can be transformed so that $I_{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ can be written as a volume integral on $\mathcal{M}$ (see Ref. [@longpaper] for details).
For simplicity we focus on a homogeneous and isotropic cosmology with metric: $$\,\mathrm{d}s^{2}=a^{2}(\tau )\left[ -\,\mathrm{d}\tau
^{2}+(1+kx^{2}/4)^{-2}\,\mathrm{d}x^{i}\,\mathrm{d}x^{i}\right] ,$$where $k$ determines the spatial curvature. The observer is at $(\tau
,x)=(\tau _{0},0)$ and $\partial \mathcal{M}_{I}$ is the surface $\tau =0$ where $a=0$. We take $T_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mu \nu }=(\rho _{\mathrm{m}}+P_{\mathrm{m}})U^{\mu }U^{\nu }+P_{\mathrm{m}}g^{\mu \nu }$; $U^{\mu
}=-a^{-1}\nabla ^{\mu }\tau $. With $H=a_{,\tau }/a^{2}$, Einstein’s equations give $H^{2}=\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{m}}/3+\Lambda /3-k/a^{2}$ and $a^{-1}\rho _{\mathrm{m},\tau }=-3H(\rho _{\mathrm{m}}+P_{\mathrm{m}})$. We find that to linear order in $O(kx^{2})$, $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is [longpaper]{}: $$I_{\mathrm{cl}}=\frac{4\pi }{3}\int_{0}^{\tau _{0}}a^{4}(\tau )(\tau
_{0}-\tau )^{3}\left[ \kappa ^{-1}\Gamma -P_{\mathrm{eff}}(a)\right] \,\mathrm{d}\tau .$$where $P_{\mathrm{eff}}=P_{\mathrm{m}}-\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{m}}$ and $\Gamma
=(k/a^{2})[2/3+\tau /(\tau _{0}-\tau )]$. Contributions to $P_{\mathrm{eff}}$ can come from radiation, dark matter and baryonic matter (labelled ‘rad’, ‘dm’ and ‘b’ respectively). For radiation and dark matter, $P_{\mathrm{rad}}=\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}/3$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rad}}/\rho _{\mathrm{rad}}\approx 0$ and $P_{\mathrm{dm}}/\rho _{\mathrm{dm}},\,\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{dm}}/\rho _{\mathrm{dm}}\approx 0$. For baryonic matter, $P_{\mathrm{b}}/\rho _{\mathrm{b}}\approx 0$, $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{b}}=-\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\rho _{\mathrm{b}},$ where for some $\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\sim O(1)$ is calculable in principle from QCD. The chiral bag model for baryon structure gives the estimate $\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\approx 1/2$ [@longpaper]. Since $\rho _{\mathrm{b}}\gg \rho _{\mathrm{rad}}$, the dominant contribution to $P_{\mathrm{eff}}$ comes from baryonic matter and $P_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx
\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\rho _{\mathrm{b}}$. The terms in $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ only depend on $\lambda $ through the scale factor $a(\tau )$. We define $\delta
\ln a/\delta \lambda =\mathcal{A}(\tau )$. $\Gamma \propto a^{-2}$ and $P_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx \zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\rho _{\mathrm{b}}\propto 1/a^{3}$, so $\delta (a^{4}\Gamma )/\delta \lambda =2\Gamma \mathcal{A}(\tau )$ and $\delta (a^{4}P_{\mathrm{eff}})/\delta \lambda \approx \zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\rho _{\mathrm{b}}\mathcal{A}(\tau )$; $\mathcal{A}(\tau )$ follows from perturbing Einstein’s equations with respect to $\Lambda $ and using $\delta
\ln a/\delta \Lambda =0$ initially. We find [@longpaper]: $$\mathcal{A}(\tau )=\frac{a(\tau )H(\tau )}{6}\int_{0}^{\tau }\frac{\,\mathrm{d}\tau ^{\ast }}{H^{2}(\tau ^{\ast })}.$$Varying $I_{\mathrm{cl}}$ with respect to $\lambda ,$ we find that Eq.([eq:phi]{}) for the CC is equivalent to: $$k=\frac{\kappa \int_{0}^{\tau _{0}}(\tau _{0}-\tau )^{3}a^{4}\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\rho _{\mathrm{b}}\mathcal{A}(\tau )\,\mathrm{d}\tau }{\int_{0}^{\tau
_{0}}a^{2}(\tau )(\tau _{0}-\tau )^{2}(4(\tau _{0}-\tau )+6\tau )\mathcal{A}(\tau )\,\mathrm{d}\tau }. \label{eq:const}$$ Note that this $k$ is the average spatial curvature in the causal past rather than necessarily the average spatial curvature of the whole space-time; hence $k > 0$ does *not* require the universe to have a closed topology.
Eq.(\[eq:const\]) is a consistency condition that relates the value of $k$ to $\Omega _{\mathrm{b0}}=\kappa \rho _{\mathrm{baryon}}(\tau
_{0})/3H_{0}^{2}$, the observation time $\tau _{0}$ and, through $a(\tau )$ and $\mathcal{A}(\tau ),$ to $\Lambda $. So it gives $k=k_{0}(\Lambda ;\tau
_{0})$ and hence $\Lambda =\Lambda _{0}(k;\tau _{0})$. If our model is valid, a measurement of $\Lambda $ at a given time predicts a specific value of $k$ and hence $\Omega _{\mathrm{k0}}=-k/a_{0}^{2}H_{0}^{2}$. There are no free parameters in this prediction. Eq.(\[eq:const\]) requires $k>0$ i.e. the observable universe has a positive spatial curvature. For our universe, taking $\Omega _{\Lambda 0}\approx 0.73$, $\Omega _{\mathrm{b0}}\approx
0.0423$ and $T_{\mathrm{CMB}}=2.725\,\mathrm{K}$ we predict: $$\Omega _{\mathrm{k0}}=-0.0055(2\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}).$$This is consistent (for all $\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}\in (0,1]$) with the current 95% CI of $\Omega _{\mathrm{k0}}\in (-0.0133,0.0084)$ [@Komatsu:2010fb]. A combination of data from the current Planck satellite CMB survey with measurements of baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) will be able to test this prediction of $\Omega _{\mathrm{k0}}$.
Inflation in the early universe is usually invoked to explain why$\ $the curvature term is so small today. The duration of inflation, given by the number of e-folds $N$, depends on initial conditions since different inflating regions in the same universe will have different $N$. Hence, $\Omega _{k}$ is an environmental parameter which is stochastically different in each inflating region. In our model the extent to which the observed value, $\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}$, of the CC is natural is determined by the probability of living in a bubble universe where $k$ is such that $\Lambda
_{0}(k)\sim O(\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}})$. Larger values of $\Lambda $ require smaller $k,$ and hence larger $N$. We define $f(\Lambda )\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda
$ to be the probability that $\Lambda \in \lbrack \Lambda ,\Lambda +\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda ]$ and $f_{N}(N)\,\mathrm{d}N$ is the probability that $N\in \lbrack N,N+\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda ]$. Gibbons and Turok (GT) calculated $f_{N}(N)=c(N)e^{-3N}$ for single field, slow roll inflation using the natural measure on classical solutions in GR [@Gibbons]; $c(N)$ has a relatively weak $N$-dependence. Arguably, this should be multiplied by a volume weighting factor $e^{3N}$ giving $f_{\mathrm{N}}\approx c(N)$. With $N(k)=\bar{N}-\ln (k/\bar{k})/2$ (and $\bar{N}>50-62$ for $\bar{k}/a_{0}^{2}H_{0}^{2}<0.02$ in realistic models), we find (up to a normalization factor): $$f(\Lambda )=f_{N}\left( N(K_{0}(\Lambda )\right) \left\vert \,\mathrm{d}\ln
K_{0}(\Lambda )/\,\mathrm{d}\Lambda \right\vert ,$$If $f_{\mathrm{N}}(N)\propto e^{-3N}$ then $\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}$ is just inside the 80% CI on $\Lambda $ from $f(\Lambda )$.
Including Bayesian selection makes the observed $\Lambda $ appear even more typical and reduces the dependence on $f_{N}(N)$. If $\Lambda $ is too large the formation of galaxies is greatly suppressed [@btip]. This limits observable values by $\Lambda \lesssim 10^{3}\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}$. Bayesian selection (in the context of a multiverse) is sufficient to explain why $\Lambda $ is not too large, but whether or not the $\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}$ is typical is heavily dependent on the unknown relative weighting of different values of the CC in the multiverse (i.e. the prior distribution, here represented by $\mu \lbrack \lambda ]$). In our theory, the unknown weighting $\mu $ is effectively replaced by the calculable prior $f(\Lambda )
$. In the allowed $\Lambda $-range the $N$ changes by $<2.5\%$ and so $f(\Lambda )$ depends only weakly on $f_{\mathrm{N}}(N)$. We follow Ref. [tegmark]{} and use the number of galaxies as a proxy for the number of observers. If $f_{\mathrm{N}}(N)\approx \mathrm{const}$ in the allowed range, we find that $\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}$ lies just out the 68% CI, whereas with $f_{N}\propto \exp (-3N)$ it lies just inside it. In either case, $\Lambda _{\mathrm{obs}}$ is entirely typical in our model.
The ‘coincidence’ of $t_{U}/t_{\Lambda }\sim O(1)$ or $\Omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/\Omega _{\mathrm{m}}\sim O(1)$ is also a typical occurrence in our model. Observations give $R\equiv \ln (t_{\Lambda }/t_{\mathrm{U}})\approx 0.35$. We calculate $|R|<0.35$ has a probability of 9-15%, depending on $f_{\mathrm{N}}$. For $|R|<\ln 2$ it is 1625%. Bayesian selection with an assumed uniform prior gives $\approx 4\%$ and $8.5\%$ respectively. Similarly seeing $\Omega _{\Lambda 0}\in \lbrack
0.2,0.8]$ has a 14-22% chance in our model, and $6.8\%$ with just Bayesian selection.
At any given location and time, the wave function is dominated by a classical history in which $\Lambda $ takes a single constant value. This means that, classically, no evolution of $\Lambda $ can be observed. Yet the history that dominates, and its associated $\Lambda $ value, is different at different observation times [@footnoteTIME]. We see a history with CC, $\Lambda _{1}$. A observer in our past would see a different history with CC $\Lambda _{2}>\Lambda _{1}$. Yet, for measurements of $\Lambda _{1}$ and $\Lambda _{2}$ to be compared, information would have to be sent from one history to another. At the level of classical physics there is no mechanism for this. Observers will only see a history consistent with the constant $\Lambda $ given by Eq.(\[eq:phi\]). Crucially, this includes registering all previous measurements of $\Lambda $ as being consistent with $\Lambda =\Lambda _{1}$. Put simply, we do not see the past as an observer in the past would have seen it. This behaviour implies a new view of time in which the whole history changes slowly. It arises as a direct consequence of having taken $\mathcal{M}$ to be the observer’s causal past which in turn was necessary to preserve causality when $\lambda $ was promoted from an external parameter to a field.
As this behaviour is an integral part of our model, it is tested indirectly through the $\Omega _{\mathrm{k0}} =-0.0055(2\zeta_{\rm b})$ prediction. Classically, this movement from one history to another has no directly detectable consequences. From a quantum perspective, the wave function is dominated by a superposition of histories with a small spread in $\Lambda $ of $\Delta
\Lambda \sim (\delta ^{2}I_{\mathrm{tot}}/\delta \Lambda ^{2})^{-1/2}$, . This superposition could give rise to new effects if a system were sensitive to shifts of $O(\Delta \Lambda )$. However, with $\Omega _{\Lambda 0}\sim
O(1)$, $\Delta \Lambda /\Lambda \sim \Lambda ^{1/2}/M_{\mathrm{pl}}\sim
10^{-60}\ll 1$ today this effect looks undetectably small.
In summary: we have introduced a new approach to solving the cosmological constant and coincidence problems. The bare CC, $\lambda $, or equivalently the minimum of the vacuum energy, is allowed to take many possible values in the wave function, $Z$, of the universe. The value of the effective CC in the classical history that dominates $Z$ is given by a new equation, Eq.([eq:phi:simp]{}). This proposal is agnostic about the theory of gravity and the number of spacetime dimensions. We have applied it in its simplest and most natural form to a universe in which gravity is described by GR. The observed classical history will be completely consistent with a non-evolving cosmological constant. In an homogeneous and isotropic universe with realistic matter content we find that the observed value of the effective CC is typical, as is a coincidence between $1/\sqrt{\Lambda }$ and the present age of the universe, $t_{U}$. Unlike explanations of the CC problem that rely only on Bayesian selection in a multiverse, our model in independent of the unknown prior weighting of different $\Lambda $ values, and makes a specific numerical prediction for the observed spatial curvature parameter, $\Omega _{k0}=-0.0055\times (\zeta _{\mathrm{b}}/0.5),$ that is consistent with current observations but can be tested in the near future. In conclusion, we have described a new solution of the cosmological constant problems that is consistent with observations and free of fine-tunings, new forms of dark energy, or modifications to GR, implies a new view of time and is subject to high-precision test.
DJS acknowledges STFC.
[99]{} J.D. Barrow and F.J. Tipler, *The Anthropic Cosmological Principle*, Oxford UP, Oxford (1986), chap. 6.9.
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett **59**, 2607 (1987).
G. Efstathiou, Mon. Not. R. astron. Soc. **274**, L73 (1995).
E. Komatsu *et al.*, arXiv:1001.4538. R.P. Geroch, A. Held and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. **14**, 874 (1973). This is unlike the ever-present $\Lambda $ model of R. Sorkin, Int. J. Theo. Phys. **36**, 2759 (1997) S. Dodelson, M. Ahmed, P.B. Greene and R. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D **69**, 103523 (2004), see J.D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D **75**, 067301 (2007).
M. Tegmark *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D **73**, 023505 (2006).
G. W. Gibbons and N. Turok, Phys. Rev. D **77**, 063516 (2008).
D.J. Shaw and J.D. Barrow, arXiv: 1010.4262 (2010).
The sum over matter and metric configurations in $Z[\mathcal{M}]$ is performed with the same set of free boundary data, $\left\{
Q^{A}\right\} $, kept fixed as in the definition of $Z_{\Lambda }[M]$.
We neglect black hole boundaries. They make a negligible contribution to the surface term in Eq.(2).
The singular nature of $\partial \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{I}}$ mandates an extra surface term on $\partial \mathcal{M}_{I}$.See [@longpaper] for further details. The initial state and hence all terms on $\partial \mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{I}}$ are $\lambda $-independent and so these terms make no contribution to Eq.(\[eq:phi:simp\]) for $\lambda $.
Differently placed observers are most to observe when $t\sim t_{\rm ms}$, where $t_{\rm ms} \sim O(10^{10}\,{\rm yrs})$ is the main-sequence lifetime; they will all most likely observe $\Lambda\sim O(t_{\rm ms}^{-2})$ in our model.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We explicitly construct in the $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\otimes(\frac{1}%
{2},\frac{1}{2})$ representation space the operator of the squared Pauli-Lubanski vector and derive from it that the $\left( -6m^{2}\right) $ eigensubspace (spin 2 in the rest frame), with well defined parity, is pinned down by the one sole equation, $[\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\sigma}\epsilon_{\text{
\ }\nu\delta\rho}^{\mu}p^{\sigma}p^{\rho}-m^{2}g_{\alpha\beta}g_{\nu\delta
}]h^{\beta\delta}=0$.
author:
- 'S. Gómez-Avila$^{1}$, Mauro Napsuciale$^{1}$, J.A. Nieto$^{2}$, M. Kirchbach$^{3}$'
title: 'High integer spins beyond the Fierz-Pauli Framework'
---
The description of higher integer spins takes its origin from the 1939 paper by Fierz and Pauli[@FP] who suggested to consider spin $s$ as the highest spin in the symmetric traceless tensor $\varphi_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}..\mu_{s}%
}^{(s)}(x)$ belonging to the $(\frac{s}{2},\frac{s}{2})$ representation of the Lorentz Group. This representation is reducible and contains all values of spin from spin $0$ to $s$. All the lower spin values should be eliminated. A result which can be accomplished by imposing the divergenless condition in addition to the Klein-Gordon condition, i.e. the field $\varphi_{\mu_{1}%
\mu_{2}..\mu_{s}}^{(s)}(x)$ should satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\mu_{1}..\mu_{i}...\mu_{j}..\mu_{s}}^{(s)}(x) & =\varphi_{\mu
_{1}..\mu_{j}..\mu_{i}..\mu_{s}}^{(s)}(x),\label{FP}\\
(p^{2}-m^{2})\varphi_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}..\mu_{s}}^{(s)}(x) & =0,\\
p^{\mu_{1}}\varphi_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}..\mu_{s}}^{(s)}(x) & =0\,
\label{2nd_aux_cond}%\end{aligned}$$ It was noticed in [@FP] that minimally coupling electromagnetism in Eqs.(\[FP\]) lead to immediate algebraic inconsistencies which can be avoided by requiring that all equations involving derivatives must be obtainable from a Lagrangian. Many attempts have been made in the past to construct such Lagrangians [@Fronsdal] a procedure that becomes involved because of the need of the use auxiliary fields in the formalism in order to obtain Eqs.(\[FP\]) from the Lagrangian (see Ref. [@FP]).
A similar formalism was also developed in [@FP] for the fermion case. However, an alternative framework using symmetric spinor-vector quantities $\psi_{\mu_{1}\mu_{2}..\mu_{s}}$ to describe spin $s=k+\frac{1}{2}$ was formulated in [@RS] where a linear equation of motion is obtained from a variational principle without the need for auxiliary fields. The corresponding subsidiary conditions which eliminate the redundant components are obtained from this equation. Soon after its formulation it was discovered that the Rarita-Schwinger formalism suffer from serious inconsistencies [@sudarshan; @VZ1; @VZ2; @offshell] a problem which has been unresolved since.
In a previous work [@KNE] two of the authors proposed a formalism to avoid these problems in the fermionic case. Indeed, based on the facts shown in [@MC] that i) Dirac equation is just the projector over parity eigensubspaces contained in $(\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})$ ii) Proca equation is just the projector over the negative parity egensubspace contained in $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$; and the fact shown in [@KNE] that Proca equation can also be seen as the projector over the $-2m^{2}$ eigensubspace of $W^{2}$ contained in $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$, it was concluded that *the correct equation of motion for a field should be obtained by projecting over the corresponding eigensubspace of $W^{2}$ and parity* in a given representation of the Lorentz Group. Guided by this principle, a new equation of motion for a spin 3/2 particle was formulated in [@KNE] which yields the appropriate subsidiary conditions and can be derived from a variational principle without the need for auxiliary fields. Furthermore, based on a previous study on the propagation of higher spin waves in the framework of projectors over eigensubspaces of $W^{2}$ alone [@NK03], it was argued that this equation is free of the Velo-Zwanziger pathologies.
In this work we apply the same principle to the bosonic case. We construct the equation of motion corresponding to the covariant projectors onto invariant subspaces of the squared Pauli-Lubanski vector and parity. Specifically, we explicitly construct covariant projectors in the representation $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^{s}$ and derive the condition that fixes the invariant subspace of eigenvalue $\left( -m^{2}s(s+1)\right) $. For the sake of transparency and without any loss of generality in the following we carry out all considerations in momentum space and we focus in the case $s=2$ .The generalization to arbitrary integer $s$ is straightforward.
We will work with the $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\otimes(\frac{1}{2},\frac
{1}{2})$ representation of the Lorentz Group. This representation is reducible and can be decomposed into irreducible representations as$$(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\otimes(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})=[(1,0)\oplus
(0,1)]\oplus(1,1)\oplus(0,0),$$ corresponding to the direct sum of an antisymmetric second rank tensor, a symmetric traceless second rank tensor and a scalar. It is the $-6m^{2}$ eigensubspace of $W^{2}$ (spin 2 in the rest frame) contained in the $(1,1)$ representation space (traceless symmetric tensor) which we are interested in here. It is the goal of this paper to show that the highest spin in $\varphi_{\mu_{1}...\mu_{s}}^{(s)}(x)$, can be pinned down by one sole covariant equation quadratic in the momenta.
We begin with recalling that the Pauli–Lubanski (PL) vector for a given Homogeneous Lorentz Group (HLG) representation is defined as $$W_{\mu}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}M^{\nu\alpha}P^{\beta}\,,
\label{paulu}%$$ where $\epsilon_{0123}=1$, while $M^{\nu\alpha}$ are the corresponding generators. This operator can be shown to satisfy the commutators $$\lbrack W_{\alpha},M_{\mu\nu}]=i(g_{\alpha\mu}W_{\nu}-g_{\alpha\nu}W_{\mu
}),\qquad\lbrack W_{\alpha},P_{\mu}]=0, \label{conmrelpl}%$$ i.e. it transforms as a four-vector under Lorentz transformations. Here $g_{\alpha\mu}$ is a flat metric.
We first construct the generators of the HLG for the $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}%
{2})$ representation as $$(M^{\mu\nu})_{\alpha}^{\quad\beta}=i(g_{\alpha}^{\quad\mu}g^{\nu\beta}%
-g^{\mu\beta}g_{\alpha}^{\quad\nu}).\label{generators_hh}%$$ The Pauli-Lubanski operator in $(\frac{1}{2},\frac
{1}{2})$ space denoted by $w_{\mu}$. In substituting Eq. (\[generators\_hh\]) into the defining expression (\[paulu\]) one finds $$(w_{\mu})_{\alpha}^{\quad\beta}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}%
(M^{\nu\rho})_{\alpha}^{\quad\beta}p^{\sigma}=i\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\quad\sigma
}^{\quad\ \beta}p^{\sigma}\,.\label{PL_hh}%$$ From the latter equation one easily deduces $w^{2}$ as $$(w^{2})_{\alpha}^{\quad\beta}=-2\left( g_{\alpha}^{\beta}p^{2}-p_{\alpha
}p^{\beta}\right) \,.\label{W2_hh}%$$ This operator possesses the two different eigenvalues, $0$, and -$2p^{2}$, respectively. States belonging to the latter eigensubspace satisfy $$w^{2}A=-2m^{2}A\,.\label{hh_1}%$$ The matrix form of $w^{2}$ implies $$(w^{2}A)_{\alpha}\equiv(w^{2})_{\alpha}^{~\beta}A_{\beta}\,.\label{hh_2}%$$ Substitution of Eq. (\[W2\_hh\]) into Eq. (\[hh\_2\]) under usage of Eq. (\[hh\_1\]) amounts to $$\left( g_{\alpha}^{\beta}p^{2}-p_{\alpha}p^{\beta}\right) A_{\beta}%
=m^{2}A_{\alpha}\,,\label{hh_3}%$$ or in more conventional form $$p^{\beta}F_{\beta\alpha}-m^{2}A_{\alpha}=0,$$ where $F_{\beta\alpha}=p_{\beta}A_{\alpha}-p_{\alpha}A_{\beta}$. The conclusion is that Proca equation originates directly from the frame independent projector onto the $W^{2}$ eigensubspace that gives spin 1 at rest. As shown in [@MC] , Proca operator is just the covariant parity projector for this representation, hence in this space, projection over parity eigensubspaces is equivalent to the projection over $w^{2}$ eigensubspaces.
Next we construct the Pauli-Lubanski vector for the $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}%
{2})\otimes(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ representation. The HLG generators for the $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\otimes(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ representation is obtained as $$M_{RS}^{\mu\nu}=M_{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}^{\mu\nu}\otimes1_{4}%
+1_{4}\otimes M_{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}^{\mu\nu}\,,\label{ER_gens}%$$ where $M_{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}^{\mu\nu}$, denote the generators in the four vector space, while $1_{4}$ is the four dimensional unit matrix. The Pauli-Lubanski vector for this representation is then calculated as $$(W_{\mu})_{\alpha\beta ab}=(w_{\mu})_{\alpha\beta}\ g_{ab}+g_{\alpha\beta
}\ (w_{\mu})_{ab},\label{W_RS}%$$ where we consider that both Greek and Roman indices are Lorentz ones and we make a distinction only to keep track of quantities coming from the different $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ subspaces. The squared operator is calculated as $$(W^{2})_{\alpha\beta ab}=(w^{2})_{\alpha\beta}\text{ }g_{ab}+g_{\alpha\beta
}\text{ }(w^{2})_{ab}+2[(w_{\mu})_{\alpha\gamma}g_{ac}][(w^{\mu}%
)_{cb}g_{\gamma\beta}].\label{proj}%$$ Next we choose the appropriate $W^{2}$ and parity eigensubspace by restricting the state field $h_{\alpha a}$ to satisfy$$(w^{2})_{\alpha\beta}\text{ }g_{ab}\text{ }h^{\beta b}=-2m^{2}h_{\alpha
a}\qquad g_{\alpha\beta}\text{ }(w^{2})_{ab}\text{ }h^{\beta b}=-2m^{2}%
h_{\alpha a},$$ i.e to be composed as the direct product of fields in $(\frac{1}{2},\frac
{1}{2})$ belonging to the $-2m^{2}$eigensubspace of $w^{2}$. Finally, we impose that $h^{\beta b}$ belongs to the $-6m^{2}$ eigensubspace in the full $(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\otimes(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ space, thus we get $$-6m^{2}h_{\alpha a}=-2m^{2}h_{\alpha a}-2m^{2}h_{\alpha a}+2[(w_{\mu}%
)_{\alpha\gamma}g_{ac}][(w^{\mu})_{cb}g_{\gamma\beta}]h^{\beta b}.\label{eom}%$$ Using the explicit form in Eq.(\[PL\_hh\]) we obtain the equation of motion for a massive spin 2 particle with well defined parity as $$\lbrack\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\sigma}\epsilon_{\ abc}^{\mu}p^{\sigma}%
p^{c}-m^{2}g_{\alpha\beta}g_{ab}]\text{\ }h^{\beta b}=0.\label{diamond}%$$ Equation (\[diamond\]) is our prime result. It defines uniquely the $-6m^{2}$ eigensubspace of $W^{2}$ with well defined parity in the $(\frac
{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\otimes(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})$ representation space. It follows directly from the symmetries of space-time and is unambiguous. Furthermore, in general second order equations containing factors of $p^{\mu
}p^{\alpha}$ are ambiguous with respect to the order of these factors under gauging (see e.g. [@Novello]). This is not the case for our equation since we keep track of the $w^{2}$ sectors where the $p$ factors come from.
In principle $h^{\beta b}$ contains more components than necessary to describe a spin 2 particle. However, from Eq.(\[diamond\]) we obtain subsidiary conditions which eliminate the redundant components. Indeed, the first property of this field which is obvious from this equation is its symmetry under the exchange of Lorentz indices$$h_{\alpha\beta}=h_{\beta\alpha}.
\label{symmetry}%$$ The second set of conditions are obtained contracting our Eq.(\[diamond\]) with $p^{\alpha}$, due to the anti-symmetry of the Levi-Civita tensor one easily finds $$p_{\beta}h^{\beta a}=0\,.
\label{divergenless}%$$ Finally going to the rest frame we can easily convince ourselves that in this frame $$h_{\alpha}^{~\alpha}=0,
\label{cero}%$$ and since this is a scalar quantity this condition is fulfilled in every frame. Eqs.(\[symmetry\],\[divergenless\],\[cero\]) eliminate 11 of the 16 components contained in $h_{\alpha\beta}$ and we are left with only $5$ degrees of freedom which are the same number of d.o.f. for a massive spin 2 particle.
It is worth remarking that in the massless case this equation coincides with the one satisfied by the graviton field in sourceless linearized gravity which describes a free graviton in a flat Minkowski space [@Wheeler] (see also [@nieto]). The propagation of spin 2 waves under minimal coupling in our formalism is presently under investigation. In this concern, our work may be also useful to clarify some aspects about the relation between the mass of the graviton and the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ which recently has been subject of some interest [@Novello; @Deser] in connection with causality for the propagation of a graviton in an electromagnetic background. In this direction, it is worth mentioning that it has been shown [@nieto2] that linearized gravity with cosmological constant admits an $S$ duality prescription $\Lambda\rightarrow\frac{1}{\Lambda}$ or a strong coupling limit [@Hull] via the duality $l_{p}\rightarrow\frac{1}{l_{p}}$. It may be interesting for further research to see if our present study is useful in this direction.
Work supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) Mexico under projects 37234-E and C01-39820 .
[99]{}
M. Fierz, W. Pauli, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) **A173**, 211 (1939).
C. Fronsdal, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. **9** , 416 (1958); J.Chang, Phys. Rev. **161**.1308 (1967); L. P. S. Singh, C. R. Hagen, Phys. Rev. **D9**, 898 (1974).
W. Rarita, J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 60, 61 (1941).
K. Johnson, E. C. Sudarshan, Annals of Physics **13**, 126 (1961).
G. Velo, D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. **186**, 1337 (1969).
G. Velo, D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. **188**, 2218 (1969).
L. M. Nath, B. Etemadi, J. D. Kimel, Phys. Rev. D **3**, 2153 (1971); R. Davidson, N. C. Mukhopadhyay, R. S. Wittman, Phys. Rev. **D** 43, 71 (1991).
M. Kirchbach and M. Napsuciale, “High spins beyond Rarita-Schwinger framework,” arXiv:hep-ph/0407179.
M. Napsuciale and C. A. Vaquera-Araujo, “Equations of motion as projectors and the gyromagnetic factor g(s) = 1/s from first principles,” arXiv:hep-ph/0310106.
M. Napsuciale, M. Kirchbach, *Avoiding superluminal propagation of higher spin waves via projectors onto $W^{2}$ invariant subspaces*, `E-Print ArXiv: hep-ph/0311055`. Accepted for publication in Journal of Mathematical Physics.
Gravitation, C.W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J.A. Wheeler,*W. H. Freeman and Co. Ed*. 1970, page.436 Eq.(18.5).
J. A. Nieto and O. Obregon, Phys. Lett. **A 175**, 11 (1993).
M. Novello and R.P. Neves, Class. Quant. Grav. **20**, L67 (2003); M. Novello, S. E. Perez Bergliaffa, R. P. Neves, “Replay acausality of massive charged spin-2 field”; gr-qc/0304041.
S. Deser and A. Waldron, “Acausality of massive charged spin-2 field”, hep-th/0304050.
J. A. Nieto, Phys. Lett. **A 262**, 274 (1999); hep-th/9910049.
C. M. Hull, Nucl. Phys. **B583**, 237 (2000); hep-th/0004195.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Sahin Cem Geyik, Qi Guo, Bo Hu, Cagri Ozcaglar, Ketan Thakkar,\
Xianren Wu, Krishnaram Kenthapadi
bibliography:
- 'paper.bib'
title: |
Talent Search and Recommendation Systems at LinkedIn:\
Practical Challenges and Lessons Learned
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010553.10010562</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Embedded systems</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010575.10010755</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Redundancy</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>300</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010520.10010553.10010554</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computer systems organization Robotics</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>100</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003033.10003083.10003095</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Networks Network reliability</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>100</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Tensor networks are powerful techniques that widely used in condensed matter physics. In this language, the wave function of a quantum manybody system is described by a network of tensors with specific entanglement structures. Recently, it is shown that tensor network can generate the anti-de Sitter (AdS) geometry by using the entanglement renormalization approach. However, whether the dynamical connections can be found between the tensor network and the gravity is an important unsolved problem. In this paper, we give a novel proposal to integrate ideas from tensor networks, entanglement entropy, canonical quantization of quantum gravity and the holographic principle and argue that the gravitational dynamics can be generated from a tensor network if the wave function of the latter satisfies the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.'
author:
- 'Jia-Rui Sun$^{1}$'
- 'Yuan Sun$^{1}$'
title: On the emergence of gravitational dynamics from tensor networks
---
Introduction
============
In the study of quantum manybody physics, tensor network becomes a natural language in which the wave function of the system is described by a series of tensors which comprise into a network, each tensor can be viewed as a building block of the wave function and the connections between tensors are captured by quantum entanglement among the particles. Typically, the total Hilbert space of a quantum manybody system is too large to handle with due to the large number of particles and their microstates. Efficient ways to deal with the problem is to utilize the idea of real space renormalization group (RG) to make the number of coarse grained effective degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) reduce dramatically. The RG approach for tensor network is called the multi-scale entanglement renormalization, which was shown very powerful both for theoretical and numerical calculations [@Vidal:2007hda].
Recently, an interesting progress was that the entanglement renormalization of tensor networks can be viewed as a discrete version of the AdS/CFT correspondence. More specifically, a discrete time slice of AdS geometry can emerge from the coarse graining of some tensor network at the quantum critical point [@Swingle:2009bg]. Soon after, different kinds of tensor networks have been investigated to generate the AdS geometry, with the attempt to construct the bulk spacetime (or gravity) by using the informations of the boundary quantum theory such as the correlation functions and entanglement entropy [@Pastawski:2015qua; @Hayden:2016cfa].
Indeed, in the construction of bulk geometry, quantum entanglement or entanglement entropy was shown to play a vital important role. Previous evidences include the proposal of calculating entanglement entropy of the boundary CFT from minimal surface in bulk AdS [@Ryu:2006bv], the proposal that spacetime can emerge from the quantum entanglement of boundary CFT, in which disentangling CFTs in two boundary regions can make the bulk spacetime disconnected [@VanRaamsdonk:2010pw], the study of rebuilding bulk AdS geometry from the entanglement wedge of the boundary CFT [@Dong:2016eik] and so on. Among these approaches, the essential point is to find out the underlying connections between the dynamics of the non-gravitational system (such as the CFT) and that of the spacetime geometry, i.e. the gravitational dynamics. Otherwise, the geometries emerged from the non-gravitational systems are only an analogy. Similar situations occurred in the study of analogue gravity [@Barcelo:2005fc], it was not until recently that the dynamical connections between acoustic black holes (one kind of the analogue gravity) and the real black holes have been revealed [@Ge:2015uaa; @Sun:2017eph] .
As for the tensor network approach of building spacetime geometry is concerned, the crucial question is whether the gravitational dynamics, namely, Einstein’s equation can also be constructed (or generated) from the tensor network, and hence, from the non-gravitational quantum manybody systems. In this paper, we present a novel proposal to combine the key ideas from the tensor networks, entanglement entropy, canonical quantization of quantum gravity and holographic principle together and argue that Einstein’s equation can be generated from the tensor network if the Schrödinger equation which satisfied by the wave function of the tensor network can be rewritten as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
Equivalence between the wave functions
======================================
Considering a quantum manybody system (with $N$ particles) in $d$-dimensional flat spacetime, its ground state wave function $|\Psi\rangle$ can be expressed as \[GSWF1\] |=\_[a\_1a\_N]{}T\_[a\_1a\_N]{}|a\_1|a\_N, where $|a_j\rangle$ is the basis of the $j$-th particle, and $T_{a_1\cdots a_N}$ can be viewed as the coefficients of a $N$-rank tensor. In the tensor network representation, the tensor $T_{a_1\cdots a_N}$ can be reduced into a network comprised by $N_{\rm T}$ number of tensors $t_{b_1\cdots b_n}$ with less rank, namely, $n<N$, and for simplicity, we require each index $b_j$ takes the same $q$ number of values.
Note that $|\Psi\rangle$ can also be written into the Euclidean path integral form as [@Casini:2009sr] \[pathintT\]=\^[-]{}\_[0<<]{}D(,x)((0,x)-(x))e\^[-I\_[E]{}\[\]]{}, where $\phi(x)$ are fields, $I_{\rm E}[\phi]$ is the Euclidean action of the manybody system and $\mathcal{N}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ is the normalization factor, respectively.
On the other hand, the wave function $\Psi_{\rm G}[h_{IJ},\varphi]$ of a spacetime can also be expressed as the Euclidean path integral [@Hartle:1983ai] \[pathintGr\]\_[G]{}\[h\_[IJ]{},\]=\_C D\[g\]D\[\]e\^[-I\_[E]{}\[g,\]]{}, where $C$ indicates a class of spacetimes with compact boundary such that the reduced metric $h_{IJ}$ and matter fields $\varphi$ satisfy the given boundary conditions.
Recall that the fundamental equation of the AdS/CFT correspondence is the equivalence between the partition function (generating functional) of the bulk gravity and that of the boundary CFT [@Maldacena:1997re; @Gubser:1998bc; @Witten:1998qj] \[adscft\]Z\_[[AdS]{}]{}=Z\_[CFT]{}. For general spacetime backgrounds, the holographic principle indicates that the partition function of the bulk theory should equal to that of the boundary theory. Furthermore, the wave functionals $\Psi[\phi(x)]$ and $\Psi_{\rm G}[h_{IJ},\varphi]$ contain all of the informations of their corresponding systems respectively and they will reduce to the associated partition functions when the initial states are chosen as the $\delta$ function source. Therefore, if a quantum manybody system is holographically dual to a gravitational theory living in higher dimensional spacetime, we conjecture that the relation \[holowave\]=\_[G]{}\[h\_[IJ]{},\] is held. Eq.(\[holowave\]) can be viewed as a generalization of eq.(\[adscft\]), and it is a bridge to connect the dynamics of the two sides.
Transformation of d.o.f. from the tensor network to the metric
==============================================================
If a tensor network can describe gravity, a crucial question to ask is how are the d.o.f. of the former mapping to those of the latter, similar to the relation of field/operator duality in the gauge/gravity duality. Interestingly, we found that the entanglement entropy obtained from the tensor network plays a vital important role. To see this, note that the open indices of a tensor network correspond to the physical d.o.f. of the quantum manybody system [@Orus:2013kga], for an arbitrary given region (without open indices inside it) in the tensor network with volume $V$ (denoted as region A) and boundary $\partial V$, the number of external indices (legs) $m$ of the region are proportional to its boundary area $\Sigma_A$, when each leg has $q$ number of excitations, there are $q^m$ microstates on $\Sigma_A$, and hence the associated entropy is $S_A=k_B\ln q^m=m k_B\ln q\propto m\propto \Sigma_A$, which just describes the entanglement entropy between regions $V$ and $\bar V$ (denoted as region B) and obeys the area law.
Moreover, assume that the tensor network forms a $d-1$-dimensional flat space (note that this space is not necessarily be the real space), the entanglement renormalization method together with the holographic entanglement entropy proposal suggest that $S_A$ is a quarter of the area $A$ of a bulk co-dimensional-2 minimal surface $\lambda_A$ with boundary $\partial V$ \[Sa\]S\_A=, where $A=\int \sqrt{\tilde{\lambda}}d^{d-1}\xi$, with $\tilde{\lambda}_{ij}$ and $\xi$ the reduced metric and coordinate on $\lambda_A$, and $l_p$ is the fundamental length scale of the $d+1$-dimensional spacetime. We regard this geometry as the one emerged from the tensor network. Nevertheless, for dimensional analysis, it is expected that $l_p^{d-1}$ be the gravitational coupling constant $G_{d+1}$. On the other hand, $S_A$ is calculated from the von Neumann entropy \[von Neumann\]S\_A=-[tr]{}\_A\_A, where $\rho_A$ is the reduced density matrix of the subsystem A, which can be expressed as \[rhoa\] \_A &=&D\_B\^\*\[\_B\_A\]\
&=&\_[(,0\^-)=’\_A]{}\^[(,0\^+)=\_A]{}De\^[-I\_[E]{}\[\]]{}, in which $\phi_B$ are fields belonging to the region B and ${\rm tr}\rho_A=1$.
An important hint from eq.(\[Sa\]) is that it governs the transformation of the d.o.f. from the tensor network to the reduced geometry on $\lambda_A$, namely, $\tilde{\lambda}_{ij}$. In addition, $\tilde{\lambda}_{ij}$ is obtained from the reduced geometry $\tilde{h}_{IJ}$ on a time slice $\Sigma_t$ via $\tilde{\lambda}_{ij}=\frac{\partial y^I}{\partial \xi^i}\frac{\partial y^J}{\partial \xi^j}\tilde{h}_{IJ}$ (for static minimal surface), where $y^I$ is coordinate on $\Sigma_t$. Consequently, the d.o.f. of the tensor network are transformed to those of reduced geometry $\Sigma_t$, namely, $\tilde{h}_{IJ}$, which indicates the similar relation with eq.(\[holowave\]) \[holowave2\]=, since the wave functional $\Psi[\phi(x)]$ is a scalar function, eq.(\[holowave2\]) is just a change of variables in the wave functional. Clearly, if $\tilde{h}_{IJ}$ can represent the real spacetime geometry, eq.(\[holowave2\]) and eq.(\[holowave\]) are the same.
To see more clearly how the d.o.f. of the tensor network and the emerged geometry are connected with each other, let us consider variation on both sides. From eqs.(\[Sa\])(\[von Neumann\]), we have \[variationS\]S\_A=-[tr]{}(\_A\_A )=-d\^[d-1]{}\_[ij]{}\^[ij]{}. When the variation is caused by a single operator perturbation, namely, \[perturbation\]I\^[(0)]{}\_[E]{}I\_[E]{}=I\^[(0)]{}\_[E]{}+g\_sd\^dx (x), where $g_s$ is the coupling constant, the density matrix changes as \[deltarho\]\_A &=&\_A-\_A\^[(0)]{}\
&=&\_[(,0\^-)=’\_A]{}\^[(,0\^+)=\_A]{}De\^[-I\^[(0)]{}\_[E]{}-g\_sd\^dx (x)]{}-\_[(,0\^-)=’\_A]{}\^[(,0\^+)=\_A]{}De\^[-I\^[(0)]{}\_[E]{}]{}, where &=&D\_[(,0\^-)=(,0\^+)=]{}De\^[-I\^[(0)]{}\_[E]{}-g\_sd\^dx (x)]{}\
&=& \^[(0)]{}(1-g\_sd\^dx(x)+d\^dxd\^dx’(x)(x’)+...), then at the first order perturbation, \[deltarho1\] \_A=g\_s\_A\^[(0)]{}(d\^dx(x)-d\^dx(x)). Substituting eq.(\[deltarho1\]) into eq.(\[variationS\]), one then obtain the explicit relationship between $\mathcal{O}(x)$ and $\delta\tilde{\lambda}^{ij}$.
Emergence of the gravitational dynamics
=======================================
In order that the emergent reduced metric $\tilde{h}_{IJ}$ can describe the real spacetime geometry, it needs to satisfy the gravitational dynamical equation, namely, Einstein’s equation or its equivalent form. Considering a real $d+1$-dimensional stationary spacetime with ds\^2=-N\^2 dt\^2+h\_[IJ]{}(N\^I dt+dx\^I)(N\^J dt+dx\^J),the Hamiltonian formalism gives the Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints, and in the canonical quantization, they become the Wheeler-DeWitt equation and the quantum momentum constraint equation that the wave function of the spacetime to satisfy [@DeWitt:1967yk] \[WD\]{-G\_[IJLK]{} - (\^[(d)]{}R -2)}&=&0,\
{}\_[|I]{} &=&0, where $G_{IJKL}=h^{-1/2}\left(\frac 1 2 \left(h_{IK}h_{JL}+h_{IL}h_{JK}\right)-\frac{1}{d-1}h_{IJ}h_{KL}\right)$ is the supermetric and $^{(d)}R$ is $d$-dimensional Ricci curvature constructed from the reduced metric $h_{IJ}$, and here we only consider the bulk to be the vacuum, namely, without the matter fields.
Furthermore, the ground state wave function $\Psi[\varphi(x)]$ described by a tensor network satisfies the Schrödinger equation $\mathcal{\hat{H}}\Psi[\varphi(x)]=0$. Therefore, from eqs.(\[holowave2\]) and (\[holowave\]), if a tensor network can describe a real spacetime, its associated Schrödinger equation should be able to rewritten in the same form as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, i.e. \[holoWD\]={-\_[IJKL]{} - (\^[(d)]{} -2)}&=&0,\
{}\_[|I]{} &=&0, which means that $\tilde{h}_{IJ}$ can describe a real spacetime metric $h_{IJ}$, where $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ is the Hamiltonian density of quantum manybody system.
Projecting the Wheeler-DeWitt equation on the AdS boundary
==========================================================
In the original holographic approach, the CFT or QFT is located at the asymptotical spatial boundary. Therefore, the Hamiltonian $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$ of the tensor network should be expressed as an operator in terms of variables on the spatial boundary. This can be done by projecting the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (\[WD\]) on the AdS boundary. Let’s considering the $d+1$-dimensional static AdS spacetime with metric \[staticads\] ds\^2&=&=g\_[AB]{}dX\^A dX\^B=-N\^2(r)dt\^2+h\_[IJ]{}(r)dy\^I dy\^J\
&=&-N\^2(r)dt\^2+h\_[rr]{}(r)dr\^2+h(r)dx\_i\^2, where the asymptotical spatial boundary $\Sigma_r$ (with induced metric $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ and coordinate $x^\alpha$) is located at $r\rightarrow \infty$. Besides, denoting the spatial boundary of the time slice $\Sigma_t$ to be $\mathcal{B}_t$ (with induced metric $\sigma_{ab}$ and coordinate $\theta^a$), which is the region of taking $\Sigma_t$ to $r\rightarrow\infty$. The Ricci tensor $^{(d)}R_{IJ}=-(d-1)h_{IJ}/L^2$, which gives $^{(d)}R-2\Lambda=0$ for static AdS spacetime case, where $L$ is the curvature radius of the AdS spacetime. Then the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (\[WD\]) becomes \[WDstatic\]{-G\_[IJLK]{} }&=&0. Furthermore, the displacement on $\Sigma_r$ is dX\^A=dt+d\^a=Nn\^A dt+e\^A\_a d\^a, where $n^A$ is the timelike unit normal vector of $\Sigma_t$, then the reduced line-element on $\Sigma_r$ is ds\^2&=&g\_[AB]{}(Nn\^A dt+e\^A\_a d\^a)(Nn\^B dt+e\^B\_b d\^b)\
&=&-N\^2 dt\^2+g\_[AB]{}e\^A\_a e\^B\_b d\^a d\^b\
&=&-N\^2 dt\^2+\_[ab]{}d\^a d\^b\
&&\_dx\^dx\^, which gives $\sqrt{-\gamma}=N\sqrt{\sigma}$. In addition, $h_{IJ}$ and $\sigma_{ab}$ are related by $\sigma_{ab}=h_{IJ}\frac{\partial y^I}{\partial\theta^a}\frac{\partial y^J}{\partial\theta^b}\equiv h_{IJ}e^I_a e^J_b$, then $\frac{\delta}{\delta h_{IJ}}=e^I_a e^J_b \frac{\delta}{\delta\sigma_{ab}}$. Therefore, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (\[WD\]) can be rewritten as \[WDads\]&&{-G\_[IJLK]{} }\
&&=(1 2 (h\_[IK]{}h\_[JL]{}+h\_[IL]{}h\_[JK]{})-h\_[IJ]{}h\_[KL]{})e\^I\_a e\^J\_b e\^K\_c e\^L\_d\
&&=(1 2 (\_[ac]{}\_[bd]{}+\_[ad]{}\_[bc]{})-\_[ab]{}\_[cd]{})\
&&=0. While at fixed time, the reduced metric $\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ on the AdS boundary reduces to $\sigma_{ab}$, namely, $\gamma_{ab}=\sigma_{ab}=h_{IJ}e^I_a e^J_b$. Consequently, eq.(\[WDads\]) is equivalent to \[WDadsbdy\] (1 2 (\_[ac]{}\_[bd]{}+\_[ad]{}\_[bc]{})-\_[ab]{}\_[cd]{}) =0, which is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation on the AdS boundary.
According to our proposal, in order that a tensor network can generate a real AdS spacetime, its associated Schrödinger equation should be expressed as \[holoWDbdy\]=(1 2 (\_[ac]{}\_[bd]{}+\_[ad]{}\_[bc]{})- \_[ab]{}\_[cd]{}) =0. Clearly, not every tensor network can satisfy eq.(\[holoWDbdy\]) and it is nontrivial to find out concrete examples of quantum manybody systems (concrete $\mathcal{\hat{H}}$) which can describe gravity. Besides, it is known that not all of the wave functions of CFTs are dual to classical gravity geometry. A fundamental question is what kinds of conditions a wave function must satisfy in order to have a classical gravity duality. We propose that the answers lie in the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
Conclusions and Discussions {#conclusion}
===========================
The gauge/gravity dualities have provided us very powerful tools to study the CFT or QFT from their dual gravitational theories in the bulk. However, the study in the inverse direction, i.e. from boundary to the bulk, is not so clear and straightforward. The essential questions are how to construct the bulk geometry, and especially, how to construct or generate the bulk gravitational dynamics from the information of the boundary QFT. In this paper, we studied the bulk reconstruction of the AdS spacetime from tensor networks on the boundary and proposed a novel approach to generate the bulk gravitational dynamics by combining the ideas of the holographic entanglement entropy and the canonical quantization of quantum gravity and argue that there is a connection between the boundary Schrödinger equation and the Wheeler-DeWitt equation in the bulk gravity side. Our approach deepens the understanding of the gauge/gravity duality and makes its formalism more complete. Beside, the approach also support the emergent picture of gravity. There remains a lot of works to do, such as finding (or constructing) appropriate tensor networks models to generate the desired gravitational backgrounds and extending our method to stationary spacetime cases.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Ling-Yan Hung and Rong-xin Miao for collaboration at the initial stage of this work, and thank Yi Ling for useful discussions. JRS was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 11675272, YS was supported by by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2019M653137).
G. Vidal, “Entanglement Renormalization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, no. 22, 220405 (2007) \[cond-mat/0512165\].
B. Swingle, “Entanglement Renormalization and Holography,” Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 065007 (2012) \[arXiv:0905.1317 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\].
F. Pastawski, B. Yoshida, D. Harlow and J. Preskill, “Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence,” JHEP [**1506**]{}, 149 (2015) \[arXiv:1503.06237 \[hep-th\]\].
P. Hayden, S. Nezami, X. L. Qi, N. Thomas, M. Walter and Z. Yang, “Holographic duality from random tensor networks,” JHEP [**1611**]{}, 009 (2016) \[arXiv:1601.01694 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, “Holographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 181602 (2006) \[hep-th/0603001\].
M. Van Raamsdonk, “Building up spacetime with quantum entanglement,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**42**]{}, 2323 (2010) \[Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**19**]{}, 2429 (2010)\] \[arXiv:1005.3035 \[hep-th\]\].
X. Dong, D. Harlow and A. C. Wall, “Reconstruction of Bulk Operators within the Entanglement Wedge in Gauge-Gravity Duality,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, no. 2, 021601 (2016) \[arXiv:1601.05416 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Barcelo, S. Liberati and M. Visser, “Analogue gravity,” Living Rev. Rel. [**8**]{}, 12 (2005) \[Living Rev. Rel. [**14**]{}, 3 (2011)\] \[gr-qc/0505065\].
X. H. Ge, J. R. Sun, Y. Tian, X. N. Wu and Y. L. Zhang, “Holographic Interpretation of Acoustic Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, no. 8, 084052 (2015) \[arXiv:1508.01735 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Yu and J. R. Sun, “Note on acoustic black holes from black D3-brane,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**28**]{}, no. 07, 1950095 (2019) \[arXiv:1712.04137 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Casini and M. Huerta, “Entanglement entropy in free quantum field theory,” J. Phys. A [**42**]{}, 504007 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.2562 \[hep-th\]\]. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe,” Phys. Rev. D [**28**]{}, 2960 (1983) \[Adv. Ser. Astrophys. Cosmol. [**3**]{}, 174 (1987)\]. J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1113 (1999) \[Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998)\] \[hep-th/9711200\].
S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{}, 105 (1998) \[hep-th/9802109\].
E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space and holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 253 (1998) \[hep-th/9802150\].
R. Orus, “A Practical Introduction to Tensor Networks: Matrix Product States and Projected Entangled Pair States,” Annals Phys. [**349**]{}, 117 (2014) \[arXiv:1306.2164 \[cond-mat.str-el\]\].
B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 1. The Canonical Theory,” Phys. Rev. [**160**]{}, 1113 (1967).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
During the past few years there has been unprecedented progress in the detection and characterization of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background on small angular scales. The TOCO, BOOMERanG and MAXIMA experiments [@3exp] presented unambiguous evidence for a preferred scale (a “peak”) in the variance of temperature fluctuations as a function of scale, $(\Delta T)^2_\ell\equiv \ell(\ell+1)C_\ell/4\pi$ (where $C_\ell$ is the angular power spectrum at a scale $\ell\simeq 180^{\rm 0}/\theta$). This is a striking result, having been predicted in 1970 from simple assumptions about scale-invariance and linear perturbation theory of General Relativity. During the last six months the possible presence of peaks and troughs in $(\Delta T)^2_\ell$ has been reported by the BOOMERanG [@BOOM], DASI [@DASI] and MAXIMA [@MAXIMA] experiments. This harmonic set of features in the power spectrum could further confirm that the origin of structure was due to a primordial set of fluctuations which set the cosmological plasma “ringing” at very early times. It is the purpose of this short note to quantify the confidence with which one can claim that there are acoustic oscillations present in the current data.
We shall first outline the argument for why we expect oscillations in the power spectrum of the CMB. Let us restrict ourselves to the radiation era, where the photons and baryons are tightly coupled. Its suffices to consider the density contrast in radiation, $\delta_\gamma$ and (in the synchronous gauge) the trace of the spatial metric perturbations $h\equiv h^i_i$. The first order Einstein and continuity equations in Fourier space are: $${\ddot h}+\frac{1}{\eta}{\dot h}+\frac{6}{\eta^2}\delta_\gamma=0 \ \ \mbox{\rm and} \ \
{\ddot \delta_\gamma}+\frac{k^2}{3}\delta_\gamma+\frac{2}{3}{\ddot h}=0
\label{eveq}$$ where $\eta$ is conformal time and $k$ labels the Fourier component. Let us restrict ourselves to adiabatic initial conditions. In this case one has that $\delta_\gamma=-\frac{2}{3}h$. One can solve Eq. \[eveq\] on large scales $k\eta\ll1$ to find two solutions $\delta_\gamma=A_{\bf k}\eta^2,B_{\bf k}\eta^{-2}$; if these are setup early in the radiation era, the growing dominates very rapidly and one can to as excellent approximation set $B_{\bf k}=0$. On small scales one can solve the system using a WKB approximation to find $\delta_\gamma \propto \cos(k\eta/\sqrt{3}), \sin(k\eta/\sqrt{3})$. Matching the large scale solution to the small scale solution one finds that $\delta_\gamma=A_{\bf k}(k\eta)^2\cos(k\eta/\sqrt{3}+\phi)$. The acoustic oscillations in the $\Delta T^2_\ell$ will be primarily the power spectrum of $\delta_\gamma$ at recombination, $\eta_*$ projected until today: $$\Delta T^2_\ell\propto \langle|A_{\bf k}|^2\rangle \cos^2(\frac{k\eta_*}{\sqrt{3}}+\phi)\mid_{\ell=k\chi(\eta_0-\eta_*)}$$ where $\chi(r)$ is the conformal distance corresponding to the coordinate distance $r$. Thus, the oscillations in the baryon-photon plasma will lead to a set of peaks and troughs in the angular power spectrum.
![\[plotFBP\]Data from BOOMERANG, DASI and MAXIMA. Overplotted, our best fit from the class of models described by Eq. 3.](plot0.ps){width="8.cm"}
How general is this argument? As stated above we are considering primordial, passive, perturbations which are in effect initial conditions for the evolution of the coupled baryon/photon plasma responding to gravity and pressure [@decoh]. The most general class of such perturbations was classified in [@BMT] where, in the context of the current menagerie of matter candidates, it is believed that there are five degrees of freedom, possibly correlated among each other (corresponding to a $5\times5$ symmetric matrix of initial conditions). Although we looked at the specific case of adiabatic perturbations, the argument follows through for all other [*pure*]{} primordial perturbations. By pure perturbations we means perturbations in which one only picks one of these degrees of freedom to be non-zero. The key feature is that the large scale solutions to Eq. \[eveq\] have two modes, one of which is decaying and very rapidly becomes subdominant. For example for density isocurvature perturbations a different phase, $\phi$ will be picked out such that the positions of the peaks will be out of phase with regards to the adiabatic models. If one considers sums of initial condition such as in [@BMT], then it is conceivable that the combination of power spectra will interfere in such a way as washout the oscillations.
Clearly, the presence of oscillatory features would be strong evidence that the structure was seeded at some early time, before recombination. With the current CMB data it has been suggested that we are already seeing evidence for such features. One of the reasons for such a claim is that primordial, passive models supply a good fit to the measured angular power spectrum and, as argued above these models have acoustic oscillations. The concern is that, [*all*]{} models which have been compared to the data have oscillations in the $C_\ell$ and one therefore has not strictly tested for the presence of these oscillations. We propose to do this in the following: construct a phenomenological fit to the data points that can smoothly interpolate between a model with no oscillations to one which has oscillations of a well defined frequency and phase. An analogous approach was used in [@KP] to quantify the significance of the presence of a peak at $\ell\simeq200$. The parametrization we shall use is of the following form: $$\Delta T^2_\ell=Ae^{-\frac{(\ell-\ell_{p})^2}{2\sigma^2}}
+B\cos^2[\alpha(\ell-\ell_{p})+\phi]+C \label{eqmod}$$ This is a seven parameter family of models and we can justify it as follows. The goal is to detect the presence of prefered frequency in the $\Delta T^2_\ell$ so the parameters we are ultimately interested in are $\alpha$ and $B$. However we know that there is a well defined peak in the data with a well defined width, and the signal to noise of this peak is sufficiently high that it will dominate any statistical analysis; i.e. the width of the peak, $\sigma$ will tend to peak at a frequency of order $\pi/\sigma$. Given that we wish to be conservative we consider a part of the curve corresponding to the first peak (characterized by $A$, $\ell_{p}$ and $\sigma$) and marginalize over these parameters. Hopefully in this way we decrease the statistical weight of the peak. Finally we introduce an offset, $C$ which allows us to interpolate between a flat and oscillatory curve.
Given that we are interested in the behaviour of the power spectrum in the regime where acoustic oscillations will dominate, i.e. on scales larger than the sound horizon at last scattering, we shall not include the COBE data set. We restrict ourselves to three data sets, BOOMERanG [@BOOM], DASI [@DASI] and MAXIMA [@MAXIMA]. We shall minimize the fitting function of Eq. \[eqmod\] with regards to the three data sets using a standard $\chi^2$. A few comments are in order. We do not consider more refined parametrizations of the band-power distribution functions[@BJK], such as the off-set log-normal or the skewed approximation. We marginalize over the calibration uncertainties quoted in [@BOOM; @DASI; @MAXIMA]. Furthermore the beam uncertainties are taken into account by adding them in quadrature to the noise covariance matrices of each experiment. All these approximations may introduce a modest degree of uncertainty in our results but do not change the essential conclusions.
Experiment $\alpha\times10^{-2}$ $B\times10^3$ ($\mu$K)$^{2}$ $\chi^2$ ($N_D$)
--------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------
All $1.1^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$ $0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $30$ ($42$)
All$_{>400}$ $1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.6}$ $0.8^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $16$ ($27$)
BOOMERanG $0.8^{+0.6}_{-0.7}$ $0.7^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ $6$ ($19$)
MAXIMA $0.7^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$ $1.0^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ $3$ ($14$)
DASI $1.1^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $1.1^{+0.4}_{-0.5}$ $2$ ($9$)
DASI$_{-1}$ $0.9^{+0.6}_{-0.8}$ $0.9^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$ $1$ ($8$)
MOCK $1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $0.7^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $34$ ($42$)
MOCK$_{>400}$ $1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $0.6^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ $27$ ($27$)
: The mean values and 95% errors for the $\alpha$ and $B$ as defined in Equation 3 and the corresponding $\chi^2$ for the best fit models (where $N_D$ is the number of parameters). See text for description of the different data combinations.[]{data-label="table1"}
-.2in
In table \[table1\] we summarize our results for $\alpha$, $B$ and the $\chi^2$ of the best fit model to each subset of data. The different combination and subsets of the data we consider are: data from all three experiments (“All”) and for all three data experiments discarding all points with $\ell<400$ (“All$_{>400}$”), the data from each individual experiment (“BOOMERanG”, “MAXIMA” and “DASI”), data from DASI discarding the point at $\ell=553$ (“DASI$_{-1}$”). We have also generated a mock realization of the best fit adiabatic model to the data with corresponding variance from sampling and noise from the combination of the three experiments (“Mock”) and finally the same realization but discarding all points with $\ell<400$ (“Mock$_{>400}$”). We present the mean values and the $95\%$ confidence limits from the integrated likelihoods. We find that the data does seem to pick out a favorite frequency of oscillation in the $\Delta T^2_\ell$ of $\alpha=1.1^{0.2}_{-0.1}$, corresponding to an interpeak spacing of $\delta\ell=\pi/\alpha=286^{+163}_{-44}$. It is interesting to note that even removing the points that lie in the region of the 1$^{\rm st}$ peak, the detection persists albeit with larger error bars. The three experiments detect similar values of $\alpha$ with varying confidence regions. We should note that the likelihoods in $\alpha$ are extremely skewed and in some cases actually have two local maxima. For example the maximum of the likelihood for BOOMERanG is $\alpha=0.01$ while for MAXIMA there is a local maximum at $\alpha=0.011$. Note also the importance of the point at $\ell=553$ in the DASI data. If we remove this point from our analysis, the DASI confidence region for $\alpha$ enlarges considerably. We have listed the values of the $\chi^2$ for the corresponding best fit models along with the number of data points used in each case. All of the $\chi^2$ are reasonable although correlations between the data points may lead to a smaller number of degrees of freedom than simply $N_D-N_P$ where $N_P=6$ is the number of parameters. The Mock data sets lead to similar values of $\alpha$ and corresponding confidence limits.
Our analysis indicates that there is a marginal presence of oscillations in the measured $\Delta T^2_\ell$ (at the $2-\sigma$ level) [*within the context of the phenomenological model described by Eq. 3*]{}. This caveat is important. Although we have attempted to justify the functional form of our model using rough general arguments, it is conceivable that one could construct other models which interpolate between oscillatory and non-oscillatory behaviour and which reduce or enhance the significance of detection of $\alpha$. For example, if we consider the All$_{>400}$ combination of data and add a term of the form $D\ell$ to Equation 3., the mean value of $\alpha$ is still $0.01$ but now $\alpha=0$ lies within the $95\%$ confidence region. We have, of course, done this by adding yet another parameter. However this does not exclude the possibility that there are models with fewer parameters and no oscillations that may provide a better fit to the data.
Let us pursue the implications of the constrain on $\alpha$ within the context of models which predict oscillations. The above discussion leads us to note that the spacing between peaks $\delta\ell$ can be used to set a constraint on the angular-diameter distance. As noted in [@HW] the physical peak separation is set by the sound-horizon (which we know from atomic physics). Combined with the our knowledge of time of recombination and $\delta\ell$ (which is effectively half the angular scale subtended by the sound horizon at recombination) we can constrain the geometry of the universe. Efstathiou and Bond [@EB] have proposed a convenient parametrization using the “shift” parameter $R=2\sqrt{\Omega_K/\Omega_M}/\chi(\eta_0-\eta_*)$ where $\Omega_K=1-\Omega_\Lambda-\Omega_M$ and $\Omega_M$ ($\Omega_\Lambda$) are the fractional energy densities of matter (cosmological constant) today. Indeed one has that $\delta\ell\simeq290/R$ and one can obtain a likelihood for $R$: one finds that $R=1.01^{+0.18}_{-0.37}$. This can be reexpressed into a constrain on $\Omega=1-\Omega_K$ if we marginalize over $\Omega_\Lambda$ to obtain $\Omega \simeq 1^{+0.24}_{-0.18}$. Note that this constraint is [*independent*]{} from the constraint obtained from the assumption of adiabaticity and the position of the first peak, $\ell_p\simeq215/R$ where one finds $R=1.05^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$ and $\Omega \simeq 1^{+0.2}_{-0.12}$. These two independent constraints on $R$ and $\Omega$ are consistent.
In summary we have attempted to assess the significance of the presence of acoustic oscillations in current CMB data using a model independent method. One could view Eq. \[eqmod\] as a different class of phenomenological models which has the advantage (given the question we are attempting to answer) of smoothly interpolating between the absence and presence of acoustic oscillations. We subsequently use the interpeak separation (or acoustic oscillation frequency) to derive a constraint on the geometry of the universe. Such a constraint is independent to that derived from the position of the first peak. However it is necessarily included in any analysis which considers the full set of initial conditions put forward in [@BMT]. With the rapid progress of CMB experiments, such an analysis will become essential to obtain accurate, model independent constraints on the cosmological parameters.
[*Acknowledgments*]{}: PGF acknowledges support from the Royal Society. The authors thank F. Vernizzi, M. Kunz, A. Melchiorri and the MAXIMA collaboration for discussions and advice.
[99]{} A.D.Miller [*et al*]{} Ap. J. 54, L1 (1999); P. de Bernardis [*et al*]{} Nature, 404, 955 (2000); S. Hanany [*et al*]{} Ap. J. 545 L5 (2000); C.B.Netterfield [*et al*]{} [astro-ph/0104460]{} (2001); C.Pryke [*et al*]{} [astro-ph/0104490]{} (2001); A.T.Lee [*et al*]{} [astro-ph/0104459]{} (2001); A.Albrecht, D. Coulson, P.G. Ferreira & J. Magueijo PRL 76 1413 (1996); J. Magueijo, A.Albrecht, D.Coulson & P.G.Ferreira PRL 76 2617 (1996); M.Bucher, K.Moodley & N.Turok [astro-ph/0007360]{} (2000); L.Knox & L.Page PRL, 85, 1366 (2000); J.R.Bond, A.H.Jaffe & L.Knox PRD, 57, 2117 (1998); J.Bartlett, M.Douspis, A.Blanchard & M. Le Dour A&AS, 146, 507 (2000); W.Hu & M.White Ap.J. 771, 30 (1996); G.Efstathiou & J.R.Bond MNRAS, 304, 75 (1999); A.Melchiorri & L.M.Griffiths, New Ast. Rev, 45, 321 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present an analysis of $13$ observables in Compton scattering on the proton. Cross sections, asymmetries with polarised beam and/or targets, and polarisation-transfer observables are investigated for energies up to the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance to determine their sensitivity to the proton’s dipole scalar and spin polarisabilities. The Chiral Effective Field Theory Compton amplitude we use is complete at [N${}^{4}$LO]{}, ${\mathcal{O}}(e^2\delta^4)$, for photon energies $\omega\sim{\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$, and so has an accuracy of a few per cent there. At photon energies in the resonance region, it is complete at NLO, ${\mathcal{O}}(e^2\delta^0)$, and so its accuracy there is about $20$%. We find that for energies from pion-production threshold to about $250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, multiple asymmetries have significant sensitivity to presently ill-determined combinations of proton spin polarisabilities. We also argue that the broad outcomes of this analysis will be replicated in complementary theoretical approaches, [*e.g.*]{}, dispersion relations. Finally, we show that below the pion-production threshold, $6$ observables suffice to reconstruct the Compton amplitude, and above it $11$ are required. Although not necessary for polarisability extractions, this opens the possibility to perform “complete" Compton-scattering experiments. An interactive *Mathematica* notebook, including results for the neutron, is available from `[email protected]`.'
---
30th November 2017, arXiv:1711.11546\
Revised version 28th February 2018\
Accepted by Europ. Phys. J. **A**.
[**Harald W. Grie[ß]{}hammer$^{a}$**]{}[^1], [**Judith A. McGovern$^{b}$**]{}[^2] *and* [**Daniel R. Phillips$^{c}$**]{}[^3]
[*$^a$ Institute for Nuclear Studies, Department of Physics,\
The George Washington University, Washington DC 20052, USA*]{}\
[*$^b$ School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester,\
Manchester M13 9PL, UK*]{}\
[*$^c$ Department of Physics and Astronomy and Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA*]{}
1.0cm
--------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suggested Keywords: Effective Field Theory, proton, neutron and nucleon polarisabilities, spin polarisabilities, Chiral Perturbation Theory, $\Delta(1232)$ resonance
--------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0cm
Introduction
============
\[sec:introduction\]
Compton scattering from a spin-$\frac 1 2$ target is fully described by six amplitudes, as first shown in ref. [@Prange:1958]. These are functions of the incoming photon energy $\omega$ and the photon scattering angle $\theta$; they become complex above the pion-production threshold. At sufficiently low energy, gauge and Lorentz invariance require that the process reduces to Thomson scattering, depending only on the charge and mass of the target. At somewhat higher energies, deviations become apparent. For nucleons, some deviations are explained by treating the target as a Dirac particle with an anomalous magnetic moment, and by including neutral pion exchange (the pion-pole contribution). Others are due to internal hadronic structure and excitations. The principal such effects at low energy are the nucleon’s electric and magnetic dipole polarisabilities, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$. They reveal the extent to which charge and current distributions in the target shift under the influence of external electromagnetic fields and parametrise the strength of the induced radiation dipoles. Then, in the amplitudes that are sensitive to the target’s spin, four “spin polarisabilities” $\gamma_i$ govern the departure from point-like scattering and parametrise the response of the spin degrees of freedom. Each of these six low-energy parameters is as fundamental a property of the nucleon as its anomalous magnetic moment, and they are equally useful summaries of its composition. However, even for the proton, these $6$ numbers are not well determined: only one combination is known with better than 2% accuracy, while current uncertainties vary from 10% to over 100% for the rest. A rigorous test of our understanding of QCD will be provided by comparing lattice QCD computations of these parameters, the first of which are emerging (see ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu] for a recent compilation), with extractions from Compton data on the proton and light nuclear targets. This will be a new benchmark of our ability to use QCD to compute the proton’s structure.
However, a significant problem is that in the low-energy expansion which parametrises the amplitudes purely as “Born plus pion-pole plus polarisabilities", the polarisabilities, especially the spin ones, have little effect below ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx 100$ MeV. And this expansion breaks down altogether as the pronounced cusp due to photoproduction is approached; see also fig. \[fig:multipoles\]. Thus, the link between the amplitudes and their low-energy limits is lost entirely, unless one can resort to an underlying theoretical description of the process. In this paper, we describe the amplitudes using Chiral Effective Field Theory ([$\chi$EFT]{}), the effective field theory of nucleons and pions, in a variant which also includes the $\Delta(1232)$. [$\chi$EFT]{}is formulated as a perturbative expansion in the ratio of the photon energy and other small scales over the mass of omitted degrees of freedom such as the $\rho$ meson. [$\chi$EFT]{}amplitudes thus have a theoretical uncertainty that can be quantified from the truncation at a given order.
Contributions from short-distance structure can have a significant effect on [$\chi$EFT]{}’s predictions for polarisabilities. However, one can compare [$\chi$EFT]{}’s amplitudes with those of the complementary, dispersion-relation, approach [@Drechsel:2002ar] when common values of the $6$ polarisabilities are adopted. We make this comparison for moderate energies in sect. \[sec:multipoles\] and show that the heavier degrees of freedom omitted from the [$\chi$EFT]{}calculation have very little impact on the residual (beyond dipole polarisabilities) energy dependence of the Compton amplitudes there. Thus, we argue it makes sense to trust the [$\chi$EFT]{}energy dependence up to ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx 250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, while fitting the polarisabilities to Compton data. We then explore the sensitivity of observables to the polarisability values, arguing that those sensitivities should be rather independent of the theoretical approach we have adopted.
The world data set for unpolarised scattering on the proton between $50$ and $170\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ is quite rich and was used to extract the scalar polarisabilities in the [$\chi$EFT]{}framework in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew]. Very similar results were obtained in a related work [@Lensky:2014efa] (see also ref. [@Pasquini:2017ehj]). From $170$ to $250$ MeV, the data are sparse and not fully in agreement. Low-energy data on the deuteron also exist and have been used to extract the neutron’s scalar polarisabilities in ref. [@Myers:2014ace], albeit with larger statistical and theoretical uncertainties. More recently, attention has largely shifted to polarised scattering, in part with the goal of extracting one or more of the spin polarisabilities. Two recent publications from MAMI [@Martel:2014pba; @Sokhoyan:2016yrc] are a promising start, though, for reasons we will explain in sect. \[sec:multipoles\], from our perspective, only the second presents data at energies where a polarisability extraction is substantially free of theory uncertainties [@Griesshammer:2014xla]. In a seminal paper, Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww] carried out a comprehensive study of the relationship between the $6$ Compton amplitudes and the $13$ observables which characterise scattering events in which at most one photon and at most one nucleon, in either the in or out states, is polarised. The primary observables are ratios of cross section differences for different orientations of a particle’s polarisation to sums of those same cross sections. If all polarised particles are incoming, these are termed asymmetries; if one is incoming and one outgoing, polarisation transfers. While measuring the polarisation of outgoing photons at these energies is impractical, recoil nucleon polarimetry is feasible: it has, for example, been done for photoproduction at MAMI. But there has, to date, been no study of the sensitivity of Compton polarisation-transfer reactions to nucleon polarisabilities. As for asymmetries, after initial studies for linear and circular photon polarisations by Hildebrandt [*et al.*]{} [@Hildebrandt:2003md; @Hildebrandt:2005ix], Pasquini [*et al.*]{} [@Pasquini:2007hf] explored their sensitivities to polarisabilities; indeed, this study was instrumental in motivating the MAMI experiments described in refs. [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba; @Collicott:2015; @Huber:2015uza; @Martel:2017pln]. Other partial studies have since been presented elsewhere [@Griesshammer:2015wha; @Mcgovern:2015mgf]. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis of the sensitivities of all $13$ observables to the $6$ polarisabilities. Furthermore, since two combinations of the polarisabilities can be deduced with considerable accuracy from total photoproduction cross sections, we are particularly interested in sensitivity to combinations that are orthogonal to those.
The observables and amplitudes presented in this paper are available via a *Mathematica* notebook from `[email protected]`. It contains routines for cross-sections, rates and asymmetries from zero to about $340$ MeV in the lab frame and allows the scalar and spin polarisabilities to be varied. It also gives all observables for scattering on a free neutron target, for perusal in the context of few-nucleon experiments in quasi-free neutron kinematics.
The paper is organised as follows. In sect. \[sec:formalism\], we briefly review the ingredients of our [$\chi$EFT]{}calculation of Compton scattering and list the pertinent observables. In sect. \[sec:results\], we first discuss the magnitudes of the proton observables without adjusting the polarisabilities, and then present the sensitivities of those observables to changes in the polarisabilities. Finally, we provide selected results for the free neutron. Our conclusions are given in sect. \[sec:conclusions\]. Our reference values of polarisabilities are provided and briefly discussed in appendix \[app:polvalues\], technical details on the observables can be found in appendix \[app:matrices\], and comments on Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww] in appendix \[app:readbabusci\]. This last appendix includes a proof that the observables suffice to reconstruct the Compton amplitudes. A supplement studying the sensitivities of neutron observables is available online and as appendix \[app:moreplots\] of the arXiv version.
Formalism
=========
\[sec:formalism\]
Definition of Polarisabilities {#sec:pols}
------------------------------
As discussed above, the polarisabilities characterise the low-energy response of the target to external electric and magnetic fields, $\vec E$ and $\vec B$. This can be described by the following effective Hamiltonian [@Babusci:1998ww], which includes all terms that contribute up to order $\omega^4$ in the low-energy expansion: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\rm eff}^{(2)} =& -\frac12 \, 4\pi
\left({\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}\vec E^2 + {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}\vec B^2 \right. \nonumber\\
&+
{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}\vec\sigma \cdot \vec E \times \dot{\vec E}
+ {\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}\vec\sigma \cdot \vec B \times \dot{\vec B}
-2 {\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}E_{ij}\sigma_i B_j
+2 {\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}B_{ij}\sigma_i B_j \nonumber\\
&+\left.\alpha_{E1\nu} \dot{\vec E}^2 + \beta_{M1\nu} \dot{\vec B}^2
-\frac1{12}\, 4\pi (\alpha_{E2} E_{ij}^2 + \beta_{M2} B_{ij}^2)\right)+\dots\;\;,\label{eq:H-eff}\end{aligned}$$ where $\vec{\sigma}$ is the nucleon spin operator and $T_{ij} = \frac12 (\nabla_i T_j + \nabla_j T_i)$ with $T=E,B$. Here $\gamma_i$ are the four spin polarisabilities, labelled by the multipolarities of the incident and outgoing photon, $Xl\to X^\prime l^\prime$ with $l^\prime=l\pm\{0,1\}$. Accordingly, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $\gamma_i$ are called dipole polarisabilities, while $\alpha_{E2}$ and $\beta_{M2}$ are quadrupole ones. The coefficients $\alpha_{E1\nu}$ and $\beta_{M1\nu}$ are “dispersive polarisabilities": they contribute to the amplitudes in the same places and with the same angular dependence as ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, but with an extra power of $\omega^2$. The expansion of $\mathcal{H}_{\rm eff}$—and of the Compton amplitude—in photon energies fails as the pion-production threshold is approached because of the non-analyticities that introduces. Another interpretation of eq. is that it reproduces the first few terms of a multipole expansion of those parts of the Compton amplitude which go beyond the Powell amplitude, [*i.e.*]{}beyond that for a point target with an anomalous magnetic moment. This last interpretation is discussed further in sect. \[sec:multipoles\], with details presented in refs. [@Hildebrandt:2003md; @Hildebrandt:2003fm]. Finally, we mention that we quote ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ in units of $10^{-4}\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fm}}}^3$, and the spin polarisabilities in units of $10^{-4}\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fm}}}^4$, throughout our presentation.
As stressed in refs. [@Babusci:1998ww; @Lensky:2015awa], this non-relativistic Hamiltonian is frame-dependent and hence so is the definition of the polarisabilities; like those authors, we choose the Breit frame, which has the advantage over the centre-of-mass (cm) frame (used by ref. [@Holstein:1999uu]) of being crossing-symmetric. The relation between the polarisabilities and the low-energy expansion of the Breit- or cm-frame amplitudes is given in eq. .
[$\chi$EFT]{}is summarised in the next section. It makes predictions based on pion-cloud and Delta-resonance effects for all of these polarisabilities; short-range effects enter the chiral expansion for a particular polarisability at an order which increases with every derivative in the effective Hamiltonian. This short-range nucleon structure—which is not resolved by [$\chi$EFT]{}—affects the $6$ polarisabilities under discussion here quite significantly, but its effect on the remaining energy dependence of the Compton amplitude occurs at a higher order in the chiral expansion. The dipole spin polarisabilities are, strictly speaking, predictions at the chiral order to which we work, but we allow them to vary in order to assess the ways in which they affect observables. Therefore, in sects. \[sec:crosssectionvar\] and \[sec:asymmetriesvar\], we discuss the sensitivity of observables with respect to variations of the polarisabilities around the [$\chi$EFT]{}values quoted in appendix \[app:polvalues\], assuming that—at least for ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim 250$ MeV—the rest of the energy dependence of the Compton amplitude is correctly captured in [$\chi$EFT]{}. Such variation is, in fact, the method by which we determined the static polarisabilities ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ (and gleaned some information on ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$) in our earlier fit to the proton Compton database [@McGovern:2012ew]. It also means that we vary only the $6$ dipole polarisabilities ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $\gamma_i$, and not any higher polarisabilities. In fact, the entire contribution of $l\ge 2$ multipoles to the asymmetries has been shown to be small at the energies we examine here [@Hildebrandt:2005ix]. In addition, the chance of extracting coefficients from a sparse and noisy database in a statistically meaningful way decreases dramatically with multipolarity. We note that our polarisability-variation strategy concurrently provides an assessment of which kinematics and observables give complementary tests of the $\chi$EFT prediction for the Compton amplitude, since it shows places where that prediction is robust against changes in the specific values chosen for the dipole polarisabilities.
Compton Scattering on One Nucleon in ChiEFT {#sec:formalism-chiEFT}
-------------------------------------------
As the [$\chi$EFT]{}Compton amplitudes have been described in great detail in refs. [@Griesshammer:2012we; @McGovern:2012ew; @Griesshammer:2015ahu], we refer to these for notation, the relevant parts of the chiral Lagrangian, and the pertinent amplitudes and parameters. Here, we only briefly recapitulate the main ingredients; full details are given in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew]. Three typical low-energy scales exist in [$\chi$EFT]{}with a dynamical $\Delta(1232)$ degree of freedom: the pion mass ${\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ as the typical chiral scale; the Delta-nucleon mass splitting ${\ensuremath{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle M}}}\approx 300\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$; and the photon energy $\omega$. Each provides a small, dimensionless expansion parameter when measured in units of a natural “high” scale $\Lambda_\chi\gg{\ensuremath{\Delta_{\scriptscriptstyle M}}},{\ensuremath{m_\pi}},\omega$ at which the theory is expected to break down because new degrees of freedom enter. While a three-parameter expansion is possible, it is more economical to follow Pascalutsa and Phillips [@PP03] and take advantage of a convenient numerical coincidence by identifying $$\delta\equiv\frac{\Delta_M}{\Lambda_\chi}\approx
\left(\frac{m_\pi}{\Lambda_\chi}\right)^{1/2}\approx 0.4\ll1\;\;.$$ For simplicity, we count ${\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{N}}}\sim\Lambda_\chi$ and employ one common breakdown scale $\Lambda_\chi\approx650\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, consistent with the masses of the $\omega$ and $\rho$ as the next-lightest exchange mesons. We can then identify two regimes of photon energy $\omega$ where the counting simplifies further [@Griesshammer:2012we; @McGovern:2012ew]. In *regime I*, $\omega\lesssim{\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$ counts like a chiral scale, $\omega\sim{\ensuremath{m_\pi}}\sim\delta^2\Lambda_\chi\ll\Delta_M$, and pion-cloud physics dominates. In contradistinction, in *regime II*, $\omega\sim \Delta_M\sim\delta^1\Lambda_\chi\gg{\ensuremath{m_\pi}}$, and the Delta resonance may be excited so that it strongly dominates the relevant channels and dwarfs contributions from the pion cloud through its large width and strong ${\gamma \mathrm{N}}\Delta$ coupling. Because of the increasing photon energy and the reordering of contributions expected around the Delta resonance, the level of theoretical uncertainty is actually different in these two regimes. The ingredients of our calculation ensure that the Compton amplitude contains in regime I all contributions at ${\mathcal{O}}(e^2\delta^4)$ ([N${}^{4}$LO]{}, accuracy $\delta^5 \approx2\%$); and in regime II at ${\mathcal{O}}(e^2\delta^0)$ (NLO, accuracy $\delta^2\approx 20\%$). For even higher energies, the expansion parameter approaches one, and the EFT series does not converge.
As detailed in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew], the ingredients are covariant nucleon-Born, pion-pole and Delta-pole graphs, and heavy-baryon $\pi N$ and $\pi \Delta$ loop graphs to order $e^2\delta^4$ ([*i.e.*]{}chiral order $p^4$ plus leading Delta loops). The $\pi N$ loop corrections to the $\gamma N \Delta$ vertex are added to ensure Watson’s theorem is satisfied in photoproduction. These are higher order in regime I but NLO in regime II. Most physical constants that enter are taken from the Review of Particle Physics [@Patrignani:2016xqp]; the $\gamma N\Delta$ coupling constants are close to those determined from photoproduction in ref. [@Pascalutsa:2006up] but are adjusted slightly to fit the strength of the unpolarised differential Compton cross section at the Delta peak [@McGovern:2012ew] (see also [@Cawthorne:2015orf]). At ${\cal O}(e^2\delta^4)$, there are two Compton-specific low-energy constants $\delta{\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and $\delta{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ for each nucleon; these encode short-distance contributions to the scalar polarisabilities and have been fit to unpolarised Compton scattering data. To obtain a good description of this data, it was also necessary to fit ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}$, though strictly speaking it is not a free parameter at this order; in this fit, the other spin polarisabilities were left at their predicted values.
For reference, we repeat (from ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu]) the [$\chi$EFT]{}values of the proton and neutron scalar and spin polarisabilities, together with their theoretical and (for extracted quantities) statistical errors, in appendix \[app:polvalues\]. Table 1 of ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu] shows that, within the respective uncertainties, all values adopted here are compatible with those of other approaches and with available experimental information. And, in fact, while the exact results for rates and asymmetries depend on these particular values, we are more concerned here with the sensitivities of observables to polarisabilities; those are not markedly affected by the baseline polarisability values chosen. Those sensitivities should also be less dependent on details of the calculational framework used to compute them, as discussed in the Introduction and in sect. \[sec:multipoles\].
Comparing Theories via a Multipole Expansion {#sec:multipoles}
--------------------------------------------
The basic output of this [$\chi$EFT]{}calculation is the $6$ energy- and angle-dependent amplitudes of eq. , and all observables are directly constructed from these. Any extraction of polarisabilities from experiment is only as good as the reliability of these amplitudes. We have already mentioned the fact that the power-counting provides an *a priori* estimate of theoretical uncertainties and indicates that they are intrinsically less reliable as the energy increases. However, even at low energies, other than the extent to which they have already been confronted with data [@McGovern:2012ew; @Myers:2014ace; @Sokhoyan:2016yrc], external validation is not easy. One important test, therefore, is the extent to which different approaches agree.
A useful summary is provided by the dynamical polarisabilities. They are the coefficients of the multipole expansion of the non-Born amplitudes in the cm frame at fixed energy, with a polynomial energy dependence divided out. At fixed photon energy, they are distinguished by different angular dependencies, and are single-variable functions of the photon energy. Dynamical polarisabilities were defined in refs. [@Griesshammer:2001uw; @Hildebrandt:2003fm] and further explained in refs. [@Hildebrandt:2003md; @Hildebrandt:2005ix; @Lensky:2015awa], so we will not repeat the definitions here. We do stress though that, as with any multipole expansion, they do not contain more information than the amplitudes themselves; it is just that the information is more readily accessible[^4].
![(Colour online) Real parts of the dominant dynamical polarisabilities for low-energy Compton scattering from the proton, plotted as a function of cm photon energy. The units are $10^{-4}~{\rm fm}^n$ where $n=3$ for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, $n=4$ for the $\gamma_i$, and $n=5$ for $\alpha_{E2}$ and $\beta_{E2}$. Red (solid): this work; green (dashed): DR-based by Pasquini [*et al.*]{} [@Hildebrandt:2003fm]; blue (dotted) 3rd-order covariant [$\chi \mathrm{PT}$ ]{}by Lensky [*et al.*]{} [@Lensky:2015awa]. Note that each row has its distinct plot scale.[]{data-label="fig:multipoles"}](proton-dynpols2017.pdf){width="0.93\linewidth"}
For calculations and plots in the subsequent sections, we use the full amplitudes, and not the multipoles. But here, fig. \[fig:multipoles\] shows the first $8$ multipoles in the present theory (after fitting as described above), in the ${\cal O}(e^2\delta^3)$ covariant framework of Lensky [*et al.*]{} [@Lensky:2009uv; @Lensky:2015awa] (without fitting to data), and in the dispersion-relation framework of Pasquini [*et al.*]{} [@Drechsel:2002ar; @Hildebrandt:2003fm; @barbaraprivate], based on integrals over pion-photoproduction multipoles (with ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $\gamma_\pi$ fit to Compton scattering data)[^5]. We will compare these approaches shortly. The evolution of each dynamical polarisability with $\omega$ displays the relevant physics in each channel (cusps at the pion-production threshold, the Delta resonance, etc.). The value of a dynamical polarisability at $\omega=0$ is then the corresponding static polarisability. For the three sets of curves shown in fig. \[fig:multipoles\], these are the values tabulated in Table 1 of ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu] (see also [@Lensky:2015awa]). Varying a static polarisability is identical to simply shifting the corresponding dynamical polarisability up or down.
As first noted in ref. [@Hildebrandt:2003fm], based on more limited results, there is a substantial degree of agreement on the *shape* of the polarisabilities up to around $250$ MeV lab energy ($200$ MeV cm energy in the figure). The same pion-loop and Delta-resonance physics is encoded in all three calculations. Furthermore, after adjusting the static polarisabilities to a common value, the results generically lie very close to one another. Indeed, they agree more closely than the theoretical error estimates shown in ref. [@Lensky:2015awa] might suggest. In the Delta-dominated multipoles, this agreement continues up to surprisingly high energies, but overall disagreement creeps in above $250$ MeV lab energy, where one also expects polarisabilities beyond the dipole ones to play an increasing role. (The imaginary parts of the multipoles are much smaller than the real parts in this region, so we do not show them. They may actually be more easily accessible via pion photoproduction, see ref. [@Hildebrandt:2003fm]. For the Delta-dominated multipoles, for which the real parts vanish near the Delta pole, the imaginary parts agree well [@Lensky:2015awa].)
It is important to remember that the units of the polarisabilities are not all the same. The large numerical factors in the definitions of $\alpha_{E2}$ and $\beta_{E2}$, and the dividing out of $\omega^4$ from these, conspire to make them look more important than they actually are, at least at low energies. Conversely, discrepancies between the polarisabilities are multiplied in the amplitudes by the appropriate powers of $\omega$, and hence are rather down-played by this depiction at high energies.
On the theory side, two main differences exist between the ingredients of this work and those of Lensky [*et al.*]{} [@Lensky:2009uv; @Lensky:2015awa], which is also a [$\chi$EFT]{}calculation. First, in the latter, the pion loops are calculated in a kinematically-covariant framework. Second, their work is at ${\cal O}(e^2\delta^3)$, [*i.e.*]{}one order lower than in ours. The most important physical consequence is that they, unlike us, omit the anomalous part of the magnetic moment of the nucleons in the pion-nucleon loops. Both differences imply that deviations between their approach and ours are indicative of the typical sizes of ${\cal O}(e^2\delta^4)$ corrections (which are fully included in our approach).
A complementary approach is provided by dispersion relations [@Drechsel:2002ar] for the Compton amplitude, but these inherit uncertainties from the photoproduction database (which deteriorates at higher energies) and from the need to model the high-energy part of the dispersive integrals. Neither [$\chi$EFT]{}alone nor dispersion relations alone should be taken as the gold standard for the theory of Compton scattering. Rather, comparing the output of these two different approaches allows one to assess the reliability of each; where they agree, the results can confidently be described as framework-independent.
In ref. [@Martel:2014pba], data for $\Sigma_{2x}$ at a lab energy of approximately $300\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ have been analysed in the dispersion-relation framework [@Drechsel:2002ar], and in Lensky’s covariant [$\chi$EFT]{} [@Lensky:2009uv]. The results extracted for spin polarisabilities using the two theory approaches are consistent within the–somewhat sizeable—statistical uncertainties. However, the appreciable differences of their individual dynamical polarisabilities in fig. \[fig:multipoles\] at this energy suggest the similarity may mask rather different physics in the individual Compton amplitudes. From our perspective, therefore, this energy is too high to reliably conclude that polarisability extractions are framework-independent.
Thus, the message we take from fig. \[fig:multipoles\] is that there is a concurrence of theory approaches for the energy dependence of all $6$ dynamical polarisabilities up to around $250$ MeV lab energy. [$\chi$EFT]{}predictions of high intrinsic reliability only exist for energies up to a point not far beyond the pion-production threshold. However, up to ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx 250$ MeV, [$\chi$EFT]{}and dispersion relations agree quantitatively. We thus claim that there is an understanding of the energy dependence of dynamical polarisabilities in this energy domain which does not rely on the theoretical framework used. It is this range, therefore, on which we focus our attention when varying the polarisabilities. Planning of experiments then needs to balance the improved sensitivity to the polarisabilities at higher energies with the decreasing reliability of any extrapolation back to the zero-energy point.
Observables {#sec:Observables}
-----------
We follow Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww] closely. The interested reader is directed to this invaluable resource for further details; some elucidation of certain subtleties in ref. [@Babusci:1998ww] is given in appendix \[app:readbabusci\].
We first define the kinematics and coordinate system. Unless otherwise specified, we work in the laboratory frame. The incident photon momentum is ${\vec{k}}$ ($|{\vec{k}}|={\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}$); the outgoing one is ${\vec{k}}'$ ($|{\vec{k}}'|={\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}={\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}/(1+{\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}(1-\cos\theta)/{\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{N}}})$); the scattering angle $\theta$ is the angle between them, so ${\vec{k}}\cdot{\vec{k}}'={\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\,{\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}\cos\theta$. As illustrated in fig. \[fig:spinkinematics\], the $z$-axis is defined as the incoming beam direction, ${\vec{k}}=k\;\vec e_z$; the scattering plane is the $xz$-plane, with the $y$-axis perpendicular to it to form a right-handed triplet, [*i.e.*]{}${\vec{k}}\times{\vec{k}}'= {\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\,{\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}\sin\theta\;\vec e_y$. The angle from the scattering plane to the polarisation axis of a linearly-polarised photon is ${\ensuremath{\varphi_\text{lin}}}$. The nucleon recoils in the scattering plane; its momentum defines the $z^\prime$ axis; and a primed coordinate system $\{x',y',z'\}$ is obtained from $\{x,y,z\}$ by a clockwise rotation through the recoil angle $\theta_R$ about the $y$ axis (which is also the $y'$ axis).
For asymmetries with a polarised target, the target nucleon’s polarisation density is $$\rho(P,\vec n)={\frac{1}{2}}\bigl(1+P\;\vec\sigma\cdot\vec n\bigr)$$ where $\vec{n}=(\sin{\ensuremath{\vartheta_{\vec{n}}}}\cos{\ensuremath{\varphi_{\vec{n}}}},\sin{\ensuremath{\vartheta_{\vec{n}}}}\sin{\ensuremath{\varphi_{\vec{n}}}},\cos{\ensuremath{\vartheta_{\vec{n}}}})$ ($|\vec n|=1$) is the nucleon spin direction, and $P\in[0;1]$ its degree of polarisation (Basel convention). We define the azimuthal angle ${\ensuremath{\vartheta_{\vec{n}}}}$ from the $z$-axis to $\vec{n}$ and polar angle ${\ensuremath{\varphi_{\vec{n}}}}$ from the $x$-axis to the projection of $\vec{n}$ onto the $xy$-plane; see fig. \[fig:spinkinematics\]. For polarisation-transfer observables, it is customary to resolve the recoil polarisation direction $\vec{n}^\prime$ in the primed coordinate system, defining angles ${\ensuremath{\vartheta_{\vec{n}}}}^\prime$ and ${\ensuremath{\varphi_{\vec{n}}}}^\prime$ with respect to the $z'$ axis and the scattering plane.
“Primed” indices are used to indicate the nucleon spin direction for polarisation-transfer observables, while unprimed ones are used for polarised targets. For example, $\Sigma_y$ is an asymmetry with the target nucleon polarised along the $y$ axis, while $\Sigma_{y^\prime}$ is a polarisation transfer observable from an unpolarised target to a recoil nucleon polarised along the $y^\prime$ direction.
![(Colour online) Kinematics and variables for polarisation asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables.[]{data-label="fig:spinkinematics"}](totalspinkinematics-nobirdseye-smallertext.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The photon beam polarisation is characterised by the three Stokes parameters $\xi_{i}$, all of which satisfy $\xi_i\in[-1;1]$. $\xi_2$ is the degree of circular polarisation, with $\xi_2=\pm1$ describing a fully right/left circularly polarised photon (positive/negative helicity); $\xi_1$ and $\xi_3$ describe linear polarisation with degree $\sqrt{\xi_1^2+\xi_3^2}\in[0;1]$ and polarisation angle specified by $\cos[2{\ensuremath{\varphi_\text{lin}}}]=\xi_3/\sqrt{\xi_1^2+\xi_3^2}$ and $\sin[2{\ensuremath{\varphi_\text{lin}}}]=\xi_1/\sqrt{\xi_1^2+\xi_3^2}$. Therefore, $\xi_3=\pm1$ with $\xi_1=0$ describes a beam which is linearly polarised within/perpendicular to the scattering plane, and $\xi_1=\pm 1$ with $\xi_3=0$ one which is linearly polarised at angle ${\ensuremath{\varphi_\text{lin}}}=\pm\pi/4$ relative to the scattering plane.
With these definitions, Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww] parametrise the cross section with polarised beam and/or target and without detection of final-state polarisation as $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:babcross}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}=\left.\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}
\right|_\text{unpol}\;\bigg[1&\;+\;\xi_3\;\Sigma_3(\omega,\theta)\;+
\;P\,n_y\;\Sigma_y(\omega,\theta)\;
+\;P\,\xi_1\Big(n_x\;\Sigma_{1x}(\omega,\theta)+
n_z\;\Sigma_{1z}(\omega,\theta)\Big)\\
&\;+\;P\,\xi_2\Big(n_x\;\Sigma_{2x}(\omega,\theta)
+n_z\;\Sigma_{2z}(\omega,\theta)\Big)
\;+\;P\,\xi_3\;n_y\;\Sigma_{3y}(\omega,\theta)
\bigg]\;\;,
\end{split}$$ where $n_i$ are the components of the polarisation vector $\vec{n}$ of the spin-${\frac{1}{2}}$ target in its rest frame[^6]. This parametrisation can also be related to a more generally applicable one which uses spherical multipoles [@3Hetobe; @Griesshammer:2013vga].
The $8$ linearly independent asymmetries are:
- $1$ differential cross section ${\displaystyle}\left.\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\right|_\text{unpol}$ of unpolarised photons on an unpolarised target.
- $1$ beam asymmetry of a linearly polarised beam on an unpolarised target: $$\label{eq:asym3}
\Sigma_3=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{||}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\perp}}{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{||}+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\perp}}\;\;.$$ Here and below, ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma$ is shorthand for ${{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}/{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}$; superscripts refer to photon polarisations (“$\parallel$” for polarisation in the scattering plane, “$\perp$” for perpendicular to it); subscripts to nucleon polarisations; and the absence of either means unpolarised.
- $1$ target asymmetry for nucleons polarised out of the scattering plane along the $\pm y$ direction and an unpolarised beam: $$\label{eq:asymy}
\Sigma_y=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_{y}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_{-y}}{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_{y}+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma_{-y}}\;\;.$$
- $2$ double asymmetries of right/left-circularly polarised photons on a target polarised along the $\pm x$ or $\pm z$ directions: $$\label{eq:asym2}
\Sigma_{2x}=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{R}_{x}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{L}_{x}}{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{R}_x+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{L}_{x}}
\;\;,\;\;
\Sigma_{2z}=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{R}_{z}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{L}_{z}}{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{R}_z+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{L}_{z}}\;\;.$$
- $3$ double asymmetries of linearly-polarised photons on a polarised target: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:asym1}
\Sigma_{1x}&=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\pi/4}_{x}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{-\pi/4}_{x}}{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\pi/4}_x+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{-\pi/4}_{x}}\;\;,\;\;
\Sigma_{1z}=\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\pi/4}_{z}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{-\pi/4}_{z}}{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\pi/4}_z+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{-\pi/4}_{z}}\\
\Sigma_{3y}&=\frac{({\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{||}_y-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\perp}_y)-({\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{||}_{-y}-{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\perp}_{-y})}
{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{||}_y+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\perp}_y+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{||}_{-y}+{\mathrm{d}}\sigma^{\perp}_{-y}}\;\;.\label{eq:asym3y}\end{aligned}$$
The decomposition of eq. holds in both the lab and centre-of-mass frames, but the functions are frame-dependent. By time-reversal invariance, the $8$ recoil polarisations $\Sigma_{1^\prime x^\prime}$ etc. are related (but usually not identical) to the functions above.
Turning to polarisation-transfer observables, final-state photon polarisation is very hard to detect in the energy range of interest. Thus, we concentrate on those observables in which a polarised photon beam transfers its polarisation to a recoil nucleon, with an unpolarised target and undetected scattered-photon polarisation. (Polarisation transfer from a polarised target to a polarised scattered photon follows from time-reversal invariance.) The kinetic energy of the recoil nucleon increases near-linearly as a function of $\cos\theta$ from zero at $\theta=0^\circ$ to a maximum at $\theta=180^\circ$. The maximum recoil kinetic energy is $18\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=100\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ and $62\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$. In polarisation transfer to the nucleon, an ideal experiment places an analyser in front of the detector to allow only certain recoil polarisations to be detected. Actual experiments use polarisation-dependent scattering, [*e.g.*]{}, from [${}^4$He]{}or ${}^{12}$C [@Ohlsen:1972zz; @Sikora:2013vfa].
Polarisation-transfer observables are defined by a parametrisation of the cross section very similar to that of eq. (\[eq:babcross\]), but with the target polarisation axis $(\vartheta_n,\varphi_n)$ replaced by the orientation of the axis of the ideal analyser ($P^\prime\equiv1$), with $({\ensuremath{\vartheta_{\vec{n}}}}^\prime,{\ensuremath{\varphi_{\vec{n}}}}^\prime)$ measured in the “primed” coordinate system specified above: $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:babrecoil}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}=\left.\frac 1 2\;\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}
\right|_\text{unpol}\;\bigg[1&\;+\;n_{y^\prime}\;\Sigma_{y^\prime}(\omega,\theta)\;
+\;\xi_3\;\Sigma_3(\omega,\theta)\;
+\;\xi_1\Big(n_{x^\prime}\;\Sigma_{1x^\prime}(\omega,\theta)+
n_{z^\prime}\;\Sigma_{1z^\prime}(\omega,\theta)\Big)\\
&\;+\;\xi_2\Big(n_{x^\prime}\;\Sigma_{2x^\prime}(\omega,\theta)
+n_{z^\prime}\;\Sigma_{2z^\prime}(\omega,\theta)\Big)
\;+\;\xi_3\;n_{y^\prime}\;
\Sigma_{3y^\prime}(\omega,\theta)\bigg]\;\;.
\end{split}$$ The overall factor of $\frac 1 2$ arises from the fact that, as we specify the final nucleon polarisation, we are no longer summing over final states. Of the $6$ extra functions introduced here, $\Sigma_{y^\prime}$ is equal to $\Sigma_y$ by time-reversal invariance, so there are $5$ new ones:
- $\Sigma_{2x^\prime}$ and $\Sigma_{2z^\prime}$ are polarisation transfers from circularly-polarised photons to a polarised recoiling nucleon;
- $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$, $\Sigma_{1z^\prime}$ and $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$ are polarisation transfers from linearly-polarised photons to a polarised recoiling nucleon.
Their definitions exactly follow eqs. , and , but with the target spin labels $\{x,y,z\}$ replaced by $\{x',y',z'\}$ and now referring to the analyser orientation $\vec{n}^\prime$ in the primed coordinate frame.
Only $6$ of the $13$ distinct observables are non-zero below the first strong inelasticity, which is set by the pion-production threshold: the cross section, the three asymmetries $\Sigma_3$, $\Sigma_{2x}$, $\Sigma_{2z}$, and the two polarisation-transfer observables $\Sigma_{2x^\prime}$ and $\Sigma_{2z^\prime}$. These suffice to determine the $6$ real Compton amplitudes $A_i$. Above threshold, these combine with any $5$ of the additional $7$ observables to provide all information on the $11$ independent real functions ($12$ minus an overall phase) of the complex Compton amplitudes. We prove this in appendix \[app:completeness\].
This reconstruction could potentially provide valuable information on Compton amplitudes—in the same way that complete photoproduction experiments enhance our understanding of meson photoproduction. Complete low-energy Compton experiments would allow the extraction of polarisabilities from experiments at a single angle with no other theoretical biases, though the implementation of this approach may be some way off. They may prove to be more interesting at high energies, where the multipole expansion breaks down and the full amplitude needs to be reconstructed.
But this is not the type of experiment we focus on here. Instead, in what follows, we present the sensitivity of observables to the leading structure effects in the proton Compton amplitude, as encoded by the static dipole polarisabilities, with the goal of identifying a diverse set of observables, over a range of energies and angles, that together can provide constraints on those polarisabilities.
Results
=======
\[sec:results\]
We now present results for the $13$ observables defined in the previous section. These are given as contour plots, presentational details of which we explain in sects. \[sec:noteonplots\] and \[sec:sensitivities\]. The plots in sects. \[sec:crosssection\] and \[sec:asymmetries\] concern magnitudes of observables, while sects. \[sec:crosssectionvar\] and \[sec:asymmetriesvar\] show sensitivities of observables to variations in the dipole scalar and spin polarisabilities (“sensitivity plots”). Unless otherwise stated, the kinematics are for Compton scattering on a proton in the lab frame (with the obvious exception being in sect. \[sec:neutron\], where results for the neutron are presented), and the baseline values for polarisabilities are those given in appendix \[app:polvalues\]. Before continuing, we reiterate that in all subsequent figures, we use the *full* Compton amplitudes, and not a truncated multipole expansion.
A Note on Contour Plots {#sec:noteonplots}
-----------------------
We first discuss contour plots as a quick and intuitive way to assess both magnitudes of observables and their sensitivity to polarisabilities. A detailed analysis and extraction will of course need a more thorough comparison.
In all plots, we use a “heat scale” colour gradient, from deep blue to deep red. Except for the unpolarised cross section, deep blue indicates large and negative, while deep red is large and positive. The white region indicating “numerical zero” separates regions of small sensitivities, [*i.e.*]{}slightly blue and yellow tints. For asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables, the extreme values of $1$ and $-1$ set the range naturally. For sensitivities, a common range was chosen by hand to maximise the information conveyed across all plots.
In fig. \[fig:clover\], we use the asymmetry $\Sigma_{2x}$ as an example of how a contour plot translates into transects along lines of constant photon energy or scattering angle. In it, a transect at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=100\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ is red and to the left, one at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ black and to the right. The transect at ${\ensuremath{\theta}}=70^\circ$ is at the bottom of the contour plot and colour-coded blue, and the one at ${\ensuremath{\theta}}=110^\circ$ is at the top and in green. They are chosen to be two of the angles at which MAMI has published data [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba]; the width of the energy bin is indicated as well. The coloured bands shown in these one-dimensional transects reproduce the heat scale used in the two-dimensional contour plot.
![(Colour online) Illustration of a contour plot: the asymmetry $\Sigma_{2x}$, with transects at fixed ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=100\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ (left, red), ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ (right, black), ${\ensuremath{\theta}}= 70^\circ$ (bottom, blue) and ${\ensuremath{\theta}}=110^\circ$ (top, green), and MAMI data [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba] added as open (red) circles. In the central plot, the size of the circles reflects neither data uncertainties, nor the size of the energy or angle bins. In the transects, statistical and systematic uncertainties, added in quadrature, are indicated, as is the width of the energy bins. Further comments in the text.[]{data-label="fig:clover"}](proton-cloverplot-2X-variant1a-withdata-withshading.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
In the constant-angle transects and contour plots, the one-pion production threshold at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}^\pi=149.95\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ is marked: the cusp there can also usually be discerned. For observables which are zero below this first inelasticity, the contour plot is shaded grey for ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}< {\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}^\pi$. Plots also indicate the energies and angles where data is available (without experimental uncertainties), so that regions which are already explored experimentally can be quickly identified. We have, however, not attempted to judge data quality. As it happens, the transects in fig. \[fig:clover\] reveal that the agreement between the [$\chi$EFT]{}prediction and the published MAMI data [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba] is quite good.
Finally, the figures also indicate the reliability of our predictions. As discussed in sect. \[sec:formalism-chiEFT\], the [$\chi$EFT]{}expansion in momenta can systematically be improved but always becomes gradually less accurate with increasing photon energy. A more extensive discussion of these features and a less-handwaving, statistical interpretation using Bayesian degrees of belief can be found in refs. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu] and [@McGovern:2012ew]. Here, we pragmatically indicate the fact demonstrated in sect. \[sec:multipoles\] that predictions from the two [$\chi$EFT]{}variants and from dispersion relations agree less well at higher energies by putting a grey mist over the colours in the contour plots. The grey mist begins to roll in at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\gtrsim200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, and makes things opaque above about $300\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$. In fig. \[fig:clover\], this indicates the MAMI data on $\Sigma_{2x}$ are in a region where polarisabilities cannot be extracted with high confidence.
There could be an exception to this trend of lower accuracy at higher energy. Since we tuned the parameters to reproduce the Delta peak, incorporated its width and made sure Watson’s theorem is approximately satisfied, we surmise that observables which are Delta-dominated are somewhat more reliable than the discussion in sect. \[sec:multipoles\] would suggest. The sensitivity of Delta-dominated observables to polarisability variations may thus perhaps be reliably predicted. However, there could be a similar degree of sensitivity to omitted physics: that would render polarisability extractions problematic. We also note that plots of most observables reveal quite a simple angular dependence at high energies. Given the limited accuracy of data at higher energies, different fits which each have just a few parameters but use different theoretical descriptions of the amplitudes may compare equally well with data there, but correspond to quite different static polarisability values.
Cross Section {#sec:crosssection}
-------------
Figure \[fig:crosssection\] is a contour plot of the differential cross section for Compton scattering on a proton, with contours on a logarithmic scale. As is well-known, below $140\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ the cross section is rather flat, staying between $10$ and $20$ $\mathrm{nb/sr}$ except at forward angles. The cusp at the pion-production threshold is prominent for forward scattering, where the cross section decreases to less than $2\;\mathrm{nb/sr}$ at the threshold, but is hard to see for back angles. At higher energies, the broad width of the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance leads to a rapid increase by about two orders of magnitude. The maximum around $320\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ is most pronounced at forward angles, where the cross section exceeds $400\;\mathrm{nb/sr}$, but it still reaches $170\;\mathrm{nb/sr}$ at backward angles.
![(Colour online) Contour plot of the unpolarised differential cross section as a function of ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\theta}}$, on a logarithmic scale, and with additional contours for very small and very large values. The colour coding is unique to this plot. The location of extant data is also indicated.[]{data-label="fig:crosssection"}](proton-crosssection-heatplot-withdata.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
In refs. [@Griesshammer:2012we; @McGovern:2012ew], the world proton Compton database is listed and discussed extensively. Below 170 MeV, a few very old data sets as well as a small number of individual points must be discarded to obtain a statistically-consistent database. Above about $150\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, data sets of purported high-precision experiments from different labs appear incompatible, and one is forced to choose the more copious set over the others in order to obtain a database for which the standard likelihood is a meaningful objective function. The result is that between ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}=164$ MeV and $250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, the remaining data is very sparse and confined to only a couple of angles. This data gap is not, however, immediately apparent in plots such as fig. \[fig:crosssection\] because there the data are shown as black circles, without discriminating between experiments or indicating their quality. One can hence not discern all regions of poor kinematic coverage, but only those where data is completely absent. More details on the cross-section database, as well as comparisons with our [$\chi$EFT]{}results, can be found in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew].
Lastly, we note that data has recently been taken on the differential cross section at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx 85$ MeV at three different scattering angles at [HI$\gamma$S]{}and is presently being analysed [@Ahmed:2017].
Magnitudes of Asymmetries and Polarisation-Transfer Observables {#sec:asymmetries}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In fig. \[fig:asymmetries\], all $12$ asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables are shown, with symbols at the energies and angles of available data: for $\Sigma_3$ from LEGS [@Blanpied:2001ae], MAMI [@Sokhoyan:2016yrc] and MAMI (preliminary) [@Collicott:2015; @Martel:2017pln]; and from MAMI for $\Sigma_{2x}$ [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba] and $\Sigma_{2z}$ (preliminary) [@Martel:2017pln]. As in the case of the cross section, the symbols do not indicate data quality or statistical consistency. We also mention that recent [HI$\gamma$S]{}data on $\Sigma_3$ at $85\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ is being analysed [@Ahmed:2017].
![(Colour online) Contour plots of the asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables; see text and sect. \[sec:noteonplots\] for details. Data included as available, for $\Sigma_3$: open (green) triangles $\protect\textcolor{green}{\bm\bigtriangleup}$ from LEGS [@Blanpied:2001ae], open (red) squares $\protect\textcolor{red}{\bm\square}$ from MAMI [@Sokhoyan:2016yrc], open (blue) diamonds preliminary from MAMI [@Collicott:2015; @Martel:2017pln]; for $\Sigma_{2x}$: open (red) circles $\protect\textcolor{red}{\bm\circ}$ MAMI data from [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba]; open (red) inverted triangle $\protect\textcolor{red}{\bm\bigtriangledown}$ preliminary from MAMI [@Martel:2017pln]. Symbol sizes do not reflect error bars, nor the size of energy or angle bins.[]{data-label="fig:asymmetries"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-withdata.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Contour plots of the rates associated with asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables, with a unique colour coding on a logarithmic scale and additional contours for very small and very large values; see text for details. Data symbols as in fig. \[fig:asymmetries\]; their sizes do not reflect errors bars, nor the size of energy or angle bins.[]{data-label="fig:asymmetries-rates"}](proton-asymmetries-rates-heatplot-withdata.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
It is worth pointing out that most of the observables are guaranteed to vanish at $\theta=0^\circ$ and $180^\circ$; the exceptions are $\Sigma_{2z}$, $\Sigma_{2x'}$ and $\Sigma_{2z'}$, with the last two vanishing at $\theta=180^\circ$ and $0^\circ$, respectively. When these observables do not vanish at $\theta=0^\circ$ or $180^\circ$, their contours meet the top and bottom of the frame at right angles. $\Sigma_{2z}$, $\Sigma_{2x'}$ and $\Sigma_{2z'}$ also tend to have the largest magnitudes, reaching $0.7$ in regions that are experimentally accessible.
The only asymmetry which does not vanish as the photon energy tends to zero is the beam asymmetry $\Sigma_{3}$. Its exact shape at zero energy is dictated by the Thomson term; this scattering on a point target without spin effects leads to a $(1-\cos^2\theta)/(1+\cos^2\theta)$ shape which is well-known from classical electrodynamics [@jackson1975classical]. This behaviour dominates at low energies, although its importance has decreased dramatically by the pion-production threshold, with $\Sigma_3$ even changing sign above about $240\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$. It will turn out that $\Sigma_3$ has limited sensitivity to any polarisability at the energies where [$\chi$EFT]{}can be trusted to converge. Additional plots which compare to data can be found in ref. [@Sokhoyan:2016yrc].
In general, all the observables which do not vanish below pion-production threshold are strongly driven by the Born and pion-pole amplitude at low energies, with small contributions from polarisabilities. At higher energies, all asymmetries are driven to a large degree by structure, namely pion-cloud, Delta-resonance and short-distance physics. Those observables which vanish below the pion-production threshold increase to magnitudes of at least $0.2$ for some angles around $200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ and thus can provide reasonable count rates there.
To facilitate run-time estimates, fig. \[fig:asymmetries-rates\] provides the differences of the rates, $\Delta_\alpha$, for different orientations associated with each asymmetry or polarisation-transfer observable, using colour coding on a logarithmic scale. These are the numerators in eqs. to for the asymmetries, and their analogues for polarisation transfers, for instance $\Delta_{3}=2\,\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\,\Sigma_{3}$; see eq. and appendix \[app:matrices\] for details.
General Comments on Sensitivities to Polarisabilities {#sec:sensitivities}
-----------------------------------------------------
After these plots of the $13$ observables with all values of the polarisabilities fixed, figs. \[fig:crosssection-polsvar\] to \[fig:polsvar-2Zp\] display the sensitivity of each observable ${\mathcal{O}}$ to varying individual polarisabilities, measured by the derivative $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}{\mathcal{O}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\zeta}$$ with respect to one of the $6$ polarisabilities, generically denoted $\zeta$. This corresponds to the effect of a change of static polarisability values (or, equivalently, of shifting a dynamical polarisability in fig. \[fig:multipoles\] up or down by a constant amount). In all such plots, we use the same heat scale as described in sect. \[sec:noteonplots\]. This allows one to quickly identify large sensitivities. Where necessary, more contours are added to display sensitivities beyond the extremes of the colour scale.
In what follows, our focus is on the region where three essential conditions are met: there are significant sensitivities to spin polarisabilities (usually ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\gtrsim100\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$); theoretical frameworks can extract polarisabilities reliably and with high accuracy (${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$); and experiments are not overwhelmed by backgrounds ($30^\circ\lesssim\theta\lesssim160^\circ$).
In a brave new world of high-accuracy experiments with well-controlled systematic experimental uncertainties, high luminosities and 100% beam and target polarisations, an ideal observable should be very sensitive to one polarisability or a simple combination, while being rather insensitive to all others. Unfortunately, these plots show that one-nucleon Compton scattering does not admit such a simple picture. Spin polarisabilities will need to be extracted from a global analysis of a carefully selected set of observables. Redundancies can be built into this process, so as to ameliorate experimental and extraction uncertainties.
We therefore also explore sensitivities to particular linear combinations of polarisabilities. So long as data is incomplete, it is likely that any fit of polarisabilities to polarised cross sections and asymmetries will need to take advantage of the two famous sum rules for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $\gamma_0$ which are based on total photoabsorption cross sections. The Baldin sum rule constrains ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and has been evaluated most recently to give $14.0\pm0.2$ [@Gryniuk:2015eza]. The sum rule for the spin-dependent amplitude constrains the combination ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ of spin polarisabilities encountered under forward angles, and the most recent evaluation gives $0.93\pm0.1$ [@Gryniuk:2016gnm]. Both numbers are in good agreement with, but more precise than, earlier evaluations [@OlmosdeLeon:2001zn; @Pasquini:2010zr; @Martel:2014pba].
Our plots confirm that the sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ dominates forward scattering, and that ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ can best be measured at back-angles. The difference, unlike the sum which is known to $1.5\%$, carries a combined theory and statistical uncertainty of greater than 10%. Errors of the spin polarisability combinations are greater than 20%; see ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu]. Overall, the sensitivities to scalar polarisabilities extend to lower energies than for the spin ones. In turn, an extraction of spin polarisabilities must also address uncertainties induced by the errors in the scalar ones. In particular at low energies, where the Born amplitudes are large and the scalar polarisabilities are the dominant deviation from Born, the sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ cannot be ignored when discussing the potential for spin-polarisability extractions. New experimental information at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim140\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ can thus play a valuable—if indirect—role in reducing uncertainties in spin polarisabilities that are induced by the present error bars on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$.
Likewise, the two combinations $${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}:=-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}\;\;,\;\;
{\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}:=-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}+{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}$$ of the spin polarisabilities are best measured at forward and backward angles, respectively[^7]. Finally, we include the two combinations $${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}:={\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}\;\;\mbox{ and } \;\;{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}:={\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}\;\;,$$ which complement ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ to form an orthogonal basis for the space of spin polarisabilities: an alternative to the multipole basis $\gamma_i$. We will see below, [*e.g.*]{}, in fig. \[fig:crosssection-polsvar\], that some observables display strong sensitivities to many or all of the polarisabilities $\{{\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}\}$, but that looking at the set $\{{\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}\}$ reveals that a smaller number of linear combinations actually accounts for the variability.
Sensitivity of the Cross Section to Polarisabilities {#sec:crosssectionvar}
----------------------------------------------------
In fig. \[fig:crosssection-polsvar\], we present the derivative $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\zeta}\left(\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\right)$$ in units of $\mathrm{nb\;sr}^{-1}\times 10^4\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fm}}}^{-3}$ for the scalar polarisabilities, and $\mathrm{nb\;sr}^{-1}\times 10^4\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fm}}}^{-4}$ for the spin polarisabilities, on a logarithmic scale unique to this figure. As the cross sections are small below the pion-production threshold, the resulting sensitivities are more pronounced at higher energies.
As an example of our assertion in sect. \[sec:sensitivities\] that using different bases for the polarisabilities can reduce correlations, consider scattering around the Delta peak. As the red areas in the central column of fig. \[fig:crosssection-polsvar\] indicate, there appear to be large sensitivities to all spin polarisabilities $\gamma_i$. However, when we instead look at the right-hand column, we see that at forward angles the sensitivity is indeed (and not surprisingly) only to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$. More interestingly, even non-forward angles show little sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$, and only some limited sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$.
The plot also provides a good example of correlations between variations of different polarisabilities, some of which are not captured by the alternative basis. At all energies and angles, the dependencies on changing ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}$ are near-identical, and especially so at ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ where one expects the biggest signals. The three polarisabilities are thus extremely hard to disentangle in cross-section data. In the alternative basis, the correlation is weaker for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$, and for the anti-correlation between ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$. Still, such degeneracies remain. A global analysis of a data base containing several high-accuracy measurements of a diverse set of observables will ultimately be the best way to pin down the proton’s static dipole polarisabilities.
Since the cross section increases by two orders of magnitude, this plot provides only an incomplete picture of the sensitivities at lower energies, where extractions and predictions are naturally more reliable. Figure \[fig:crosssection-relative-change-polsvar\] shows thus the relative change of the cross section, [*i.e.*]{}its logarithmic derivative $$\left[\frac{{\mathrm{d}}}{{\mathrm{d}}\zeta}\left(\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\right)\right]
\bigg/\left(\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\right)\;\;,$$ in inverse canonical units of the polarisabilities. It provides a measure which is more akin to variations in the subsequent sensitivity studies of asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables, for which we use the same colour coding and linear scale.
However, these relative changes are often very pronounced when the cross section itself is small, [*i.e.*]{}around the pion-production threshold, especially at forward angles. Therefore, the combination of absolute and relative sensitivities in figs. \[fig:crosssection-polsvar\] and \[fig:crosssection-relative-change-polsvar\] allows those planning experiments to balance appreciable rates with significant sensitivities, as well as taking into account the diminished reliability of extractions at higher photon energies, indicated in our plots by the fading colours.
Which polarisabilities can reliably be extracted from cross sections? Sensitivities to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ occur in the same kinematic regions, largely because the Baldin-constrained combination ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ influences forward angles, while its counterpart ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ dominates at backward angles. However, around ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx180$ MeV, there is almost no sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ at any angle. Similarly, the plots show that sensitivities to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}$ and, to a lesser degree, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}$ are quite similar and not simple to disentangle. Below about 170 MeV, for scattering angles that are neither forward not backward and hence where most of the current low-energy data is, the greatest sensitivity is to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}$, which enabled it to be fit in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew]. However, significant and simpler dependence to our alternative combinations of spin polarisabilities exists between the pion-production threshold and about $250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$:
- Extremely strong sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\theta}}\lesssim90^\circ$.
- Strong sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ for $30^\circ\lesssim{\ensuremath{\theta}}\lesssim130^\circ$.
- Some sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ for ${\ensuremath{\theta}}\gtrsim90^\circ$.
- Very little sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ below $200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$.
Complementary cross-section experiments, which use the well-established sum-rule value of ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ as input, may therefore have an opportunity to disentangle the dipole spin polarisabilities from precise cross-section measurements alone. The plots also confirm that little data exists between about $170$ and $200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, where an extraction would be quite reliable. We note, though, that measurements of cross sections usually carry larger systematic uncertainties than those of asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables, where many experimental systematic uncertainties cancel. We therefore now explore these other observables.
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the cross section to varying the polarisabilities, with a colour coding unique to this plot; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:crosssection-polsvar"}](proton-crosssection-heatplot-polsvar-withdata-lnscale.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the cross section to varying the polarisabilities, normalised to the cross section; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:crosssection-relative-change-polsvar"}](proton-crosssection-heatplot-relative-change-polsvar-withdata.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Sensitivity of Asymmetries and Polarisation-Transfer Observables to Polarisabilities {#sec:asymmetriesvar}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figures \[fig:polsvar-1X\] to \[fig:polsvar-2Zp\] all use the same colour coding to indicate sensitivities to the polarisabilities as in fig. \[fig:crosssection-relative-change-polsvar\], now for the variation $$\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\Sigma_\alpha}{{\mathrm{d}}\zeta}$$ of the asymmetry or polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_\alpha$ with respect to one of the polarisabilities $\zeta$. It varies between deep red ($\ge+0.045$ inverse canonical units) and deep blue ($\le-0.045$), with additional contours when the extreme values of the colour scale are exceeded. All contours are separated by $0.005$ inverse canonical units.
The variations are in inverse units of $10^{-4}\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fm}}}^3$ for the scalar polarisabilities, and of $10^{-4}\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{fm}}}^4$ for the spin ones. By a lucky coincidence, on these different scales the individual uncertainties are numerically roughly comparable (with all errors combined in quadrature): $\pm0.9$ units for ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$; $\pm0.5$ for the individual scalar polarisabilities; and between $\pm0.5$ and $\pm0.8$ (different) units for the spin ones, with the exception of $\pm1.9$ for ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}$ [@Griesshammer:2015ahu]. Therefore, similar colours in the sensitivity plots also loosely correlate to similar impacts on improving the absolute size of polarisability values, even between scalar and spin polarisabilities, which are measured in different units.
It is important to reiterate the need for caution over the strong signals that exist for some variables around the Delta resonance. In this region, the theory is complete only at NLO, while the spin polarisabilities enter at a higher order than other neglected physics. The sensitivity that we see is genuine, but without an accurate description of the amplitudes, an extraction of the actual value of the polarisabilities should not be made.
We now list some observations. First, we consider the observables and make general comments on sensitivities, largely concentrating again on energies below 250 MeV, where the three essential conditions of sect. \[sec:sensitivities\] are met. At this point, we are more concerned with the strength of signals than with their uniqueness, and indeed some of the most sensitive observables are affected by several of the polarisabilities. We will consider possible “sweet spots" that may allow the targetting of particular polarisabilities or combinations next. A cursory glance at the plots shows that there is almost no place with sensitivity to only one of the multipole-basis spin polarisabilities, whereas sensitivities to the combinations defined above are in general better separated. We will therefore confine our comments to those combinations.
- $\Sigma_{2x}$, $\Sigma_{2z}$, $\Sigma_{2x^\prime}$, and to a lesser extent $\Sigma_{2z^\prime}$ and $\Sigma_{3y}$, show the largest sensitivities. This is particularly notable, as it occurs not very far above the pion-production threshold. The sensitivity of $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$, while sizeable, is largely at higher energies. For the other five, in most cases there is marked sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+ {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, and not exclusively at very forward angles. None has strong dependence on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}- {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, but $\Sigma_{2z}$ is something of an exception, with at least some sensitivity even below threshold. ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ does not feature, either. The possible exceptions are again $\Sigma_{2z}$ and $\Sigma_{2z'}$, which are also the only ones that do not vanish at backward angles. $\Sigma_{2x}$ and $\Sigma_{2x'}$ display a strong dependence on ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ around $\theta\approx60^\circ$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, and particularly for $\Sigma_{2x}$ this is paired with little sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and the other spin polarisability combinations. $\Sigma_{2z}$ at mid angles and $\Sigma_{3y'}$ at more forward angles have some sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$, and to some degree to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ as well. $\Sigma_{3y}$ has some very strong sensitivities at forward angles very close to threshold, but both its absolute magnitude and the cross section there are small.
MAMI data, preliminary and published, exists for both $\Sigma_{2x}$, and $\Sigma_{2z}$ [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba; @Martel:2017pln], all of which lies above the ideal energy region. Taking the sensitivity plots at face value, though, we see that the 288 MeV $\Sigma_{2x}$ data, though at a higher energy than peak sensitivity, is still sensitive primarily to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and, to a lesser extent, to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, with almost no sensitivity to the other combinations. The $\Sigma_{2z}$ data probes all the spin polarisabilities except ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, with little dependence on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$.
- $\Sigma_3$: While the beam asymmetry has a reliably large magnitude below threshold, its sensitivity to the polarisabilities is limited there, see fig. \[fig:polsvar-3\]. This is expected from the discussion in sect. \[sec:asymmetries\], as the Thomson term provides a low-energy theorem for this observable. As noted in Ref. [@Krupina:2013dya], at very low energy there is a linear dependence on ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, which however vanishes at $90^\circ$. It can easily be seen, though, that at most angles above 80 MeV, the dependence on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, though formally higher-order in the low-energy expansion, is actually as important as the one to ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and that the sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is particularly weak. Of the spin polarisabilities, though, only $\gamma_0$ has any influence below pion-threshold. This implies that below-pion-threshold, measurements of $\Sigma_3$, like those of ref. [@Sokhoyan:2016yrc], or the $\Sigma_3$ data recently taken at [HI$\gamma$S]{} [@Ahmed:2017], will require high precision—and tight control of systematics—if they are to provide useful information on polarisabilities.
Above 200 MeV, at mid angles, dependence on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ sets in, peaking around 250 MeV. There is no sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$, almost none to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, and even $\gamma_0$ has little effect in this region. If we exploit the Baldin sum rule, $\Sigma_3$ provides an opportunity to fix ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ with only a little sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$.
- $\Sigma_y$: The region somewhat above the pion-production threshold and at moderate forward angles is sensitive to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, with marked dependence on ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ and some on ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ developing at slightly higher energies. In view of the information already given by sum rules, this observable does not look very promising.
- $\Sigma_{1x}$ and, to a lesser extent, $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$ show a strong pocket of sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ just above the pion-production threshold and at moderate forward angles. In $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$, the sensitivity region is somewhat larger, shifted to less acute angles, and shows little dependence on the scalar polarisabilities. However, we also note that the cross section is quite small at forward angles around the pion threshold.
- $\Sigma_{1z}$ and $\Sigma_{1z^\prime}$: At moderate forward angles and at energies above 200 MeV, the polarisation transfer has increasing sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$, with no contamination at all from ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. The best sensitivity, though, is at energies where results of different theoretical approaches may differ. Below 240 MeV, the asymmetry $\Sigma_{1z}$ has the smallest overall sensitivities of any observable. This would be a good place to test how well different theoretical approaches describe the non-structure part. Around $\theta\approx60^\circ$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx200\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$, there is some mild sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$, with only a slight contamination from ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$.
Turning this around, we now list, in no particular order, regions of marked sensitivity to various polarisability combinations, within the kinematic domain where we trust the theoretical extraction and cross sections are not exceedingly small. We are now particularly interested in isolated sensitivities, or at least those that become so when the forward sum rules are used to fix ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$.
- ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ in $\Sigma_{2x}$ for $30^\circ \lesssim \theta \lesssim 60^\circ$ and $200~{\rm MeV} \lesssim {\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim 250$ MeV. Though the sensitivity decreases with energy, it is still present in the region of some of the data of ref. [@Martel:2012; @Martel:2014pba]. However, those data are at high enough energies that we begin to significantly mistrust theoretical extractions. In fact, our prediction is that the peak (absolute) sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ in this observable is at lower energies and more forward angles than these data. At higher angles, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ starts to play a role.
- ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ in $\Sigma_3$ for $60^\circ \lesssim \theta \lesssim 90^\circ$ and $200~{\rm MeV} \lesssim {\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim 250~{\rm MeV}$, though sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ is not absent. The LEGS data [@Blanpied:2001ae] overlaps this region, and re-examination of it in [$\chi$EFT]{}is likely worthwhile (cf. ref. [@Pascalutsa:2003zk; @Mcgovern:2015mgf; @Lensky:2015awa]), especially in light of the preliminary MAMI results [@Collicott:2015; @Martel:2017pln] at kinematics which overlap the data of ref. [@Blanpied:2001ae]. $\theta\lesssim 60^\circ$ and energies of around 230 MeV in $\Sigma_{2z}$ are also promising for this polarisability.
- ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ affect almost every observable to some degree, and there is rarely contamination from ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ for angles less than $90^\circ$. For $\Sigma_{2x'}$ and $\Sigma_{2z'}$ and, to a lesser extent, for $\Sigma_{3y'}$, $\Sigma_{3y}$ and $\Sigma_{1z'}$, sensitivity to both combinations is present below 200 MeV. There is even a noticeable effect below pion-production threshold in $\Sigma_{2x'}$. Strong dependence on both ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ is also found for $60^\circ\lesssim \theta\lesssim 90^\circ$ and energies around 230 MeV in $\Sigma_{2z}$. At lower energies, ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is a confounding variable.
- ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ is hard to isolate. The vast majority of observables are almost completely insensitive to it below 240 MeV. Exceptions are $\Sigma_{2z}$ at around $150^\circ$ and 240 MeV, where fortunately sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ happens to be small, and $\Sigma_{2z'}$ in a somewhat similar region. However, in the latter observable, sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is not negligible.
- ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ is another combination with very limited opportunities for determinative measurements in asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables. At central angles around the pion-production threshold, there is good sensitivity in $\Sigma_{2z}$ and $\Sigma_{2z'}$, but not independent of ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$.
- ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+ {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ affects many observables at forward angles, most notably $\Sigma_{2x'}$ and $\Sigma_{2z}$, though usually in conjunction with ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$. The strongest isolated sensitivity is well below threshold at moderate forward and backward angles in $\Sigma_{3}$ and $\Sigma_{2z'}$, but it is hard to see experiments here reaching an accuracy that could rival the error bars of the Baldin sum rule.
- ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ dominates the sensitivities for a reasonable-sized region in $\Sigma_{1x'}$: angles around $30^\circ$ and ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx 200$ MeV, and in $\Sigma_y$ in a rather narrower energy range at similar angles. Again, it is hard to see the sum rule being rigorously tested in any practical experiment here.
The bottom line is encouraging. If ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ are regarded as well-constrained by the forward sum rules, there are multiple opportunities to extract the spin-polarisability combinations ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ in regions that are experimentally accessible, theoretically clean and largely independent of the values of ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. Access to the scalar polarisabilities, to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ and to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ is best achieved through cross-section measurements, with coverage of markedly forward and backward angles being very useful in that regard.
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{1x}$ (linearly polarised photons on a proton target polarised along the $x$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-1X"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1X.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{1z}$ (linearly polarised photons on a proton target polarised along the $z$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-1Z"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1Z.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{2x}$ (circularly polarised photons on a proton target polarised along the $x$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details. Data symbols as in fig. \[fig:asymmetries\]; their size does not reflect the error bars, nor the size of energy or angle bins.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-2X"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2X-withdata.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{2z}$ (circularly polarised photons on a proton target polarised along the $z$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details. Data symbols as in fig. \[fig:asymmetries\]; their size does not reflect the error bars, nor the size of energy or angle bins.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-2Z"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2Z-withdata.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the beam asymmetry $\Sigma_{3}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised proton target) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details. Data symbols as in fig. \[fig:asymmetries\].[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-3"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-3-withdata.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the target asymmetry $\Sigma_{y}$ (unpolarised photons on a proton target along the $y$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-Y"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-Y.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{3y}$ (linearly polarised photons on a proton target polarised along the $y$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-3Y"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-3Y.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised proton target, recoil polarised along the $y^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-3Yp"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-3Yp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised proton target, recoil polarised along the $x^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-1Xp"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1Xp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{1z^\prime}$ (linearly polarised photons to an unpolarised proton target, recoil polarised along the $z^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-1Zp"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1Zp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{2x^\prime}$ (circularly polarised photons on an unpolarised proton target, recoil polarised along the $x^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-2Xp"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2Xp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{2z^\prime}$ (circularly polarised photons to an unpolarised proton target, recoil polarised along the $z^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:polsvar-2Zp"}](proton-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2Zp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Neutron Observables {#sec:neutron}
-------------------
There are no free neutron targets stable and dense enough for meaningful Compton scattering experiments. But inelastic processes in quasi-free neutron kinematics can be approximated as free-neutron processes multiplied by the momentum distribution of the neutron inside a nucleus; see refs. [@Levchuk:1994; @Levchuk:2000; @Demissie:2016ktr] and references therein for descriptions of the unpolarised process on the deuteron. However, such an “Impulse Approximation" description is accurate only for energies well above the pion-production threshold. With these caveats in mind, in this section we present an overview of free-neutron Compton scattering observables in figs. \[fig:crosssection-neutron\] to \[fig:asymmetries-rates-neutron\]. The atlas of sensitivities of observables to variations of the neutron polarisabilities is available in the online supplement (appendix \[app:moreplots\] of the arXiv version), and also covered by the *Mathematica* notebook. For observables corresponding to $\Sigma_{2z}$, $\Sigma_{2x}$, $\Sigma_{2z}$, $\Sigma_{1x}$, $\Sigma_{1z}$ and $\Sigma_3$, results to order $e^2\delta^3$ for $\omega\lesssim170\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ were already presented in refs. [@Hildebrandt:2003md; @Hildebrandt:2005ix], and the effects of higher-multipole polarisabilities were again shown to be small. Here, we add one order, extend to higher energies, and provide a more comprehensive sensitivity study.
The neutron cross section is of course much smaller than the proton one at low energies due to the absence of the charged contributions to the Born amplitudes. Only pion-pole, magnetic-moment and structure effects are non-zero. Interestingly, it exceeds the proton cross section around the pion-production threshold, where charge-contributions are overwhelmed by the other Born and structure effects. Isospin symmetry guarantees that the two cross sections are very similar closer to the Delta resonance.
The sensitivity of all asymmetries and polarisation transfers to the spin polarisabilities is also much bigger than for the proton analogues. Quasielastic kinematics for ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$ may therefore be an interesting venue to extract neutron spin polarisabilities: it is possible there are even better signals there than for the proton case.
![(Colour online) Contour plot of the unpolarised differential cross section for the neutron as a function of ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\theta}}$, on a logarithmic scale, and with additional contours for very small and very large values. The colour coding is identical to that of the corresponding fig. \[fig:crosssection\] for the proton.[]{data-label="fig:crosssection-neutron"}](neutron-crosssection-heatplot.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
![(Colour online) Contour plots of the asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables for the neutron; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:asymmetries-neutron"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Contour plots of the rates associated with asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables for the neutron, with additional contours for very small and very large values; see text for details. The colour coding is identical to that of the corresponding fig. \[fig:asymmetries-rates\] for the proton. []{data-label="fig:asymmetries-rates-neutron"}](neutron-asymmetries-rates-heatplot.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
\[sec:conclusions\]
In this paper, we have provided a comprehensive study of asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables for polarised photon scattering from a nucleon, including both polarised-target and recoil-polarisation-detection observables. Our main goal is to provide guidance to experimentalists planning the next generation of polarised Compton scattering experiments. We have used Chiral Effective Field Theory to calculate the magnitudes of the observables over the full range of angles and energies up to the peak of the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance. We have investigated the effects of varying the scalar and spin polarisabilities, with a view to identifying regions of particular sensitivity. The results presented here, supplemented by additional ones for the neutron, are also available as an interactive *Mathematica* notebook from `[email protected]`.
We have also shown that, at a given energy and angle, the $6$ observables that do not vanish below the pion-production threshold suffice to determine the Compton amplitudes there. They form a “complete set of experiments" and in principle could be used to obtain the energy-dependence of the scalar and spin dipole polarisabilities from purely sub-threshold data—without the use of any sum-rule constraints. Above pion threshold, $5$ additional observables are needed if the Compton multipoles are to be completely determined from experiment. Polarisation-transfer observables are essential to such a programme. This is however not necessary to determine the static polarisabilities which were our focus.
The Baldin and forward-spin-polarisability sum rules constrain the polarisability combinations ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+ {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and $\gamma_0$ quite tightly. While achieving concurrence with the sum-rule values is a worthy goal, it will be challenging for the experiments discussed here to improve upon them. Because of this, we placed particular emphasis on opportunities to pin down individual polarisabilities, as well as combinations such as ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}- {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}:={\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{E1M2}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}:={\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}}}-{\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1E2}}}$. This shows that a concerted effort to measure several asymmetries and polarisation transfers, in the various kinematics where we have identified sensitivities, is the optimum overall strategy. Definitive values of the spin polarisabilities will ultimately be established through the same procedure by which ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}- {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ has been determined: a comprehensive fit to a statistically consistent experimental database, with carefully formulated correlated and point-to-point systematic errors, that has been compiled at several labs around the world.
By comparing different approaches to calculating Compton amplitudes and by considering where the particular [$\chi$EFT]{}amplitude we used here is reliable, we have identified two distinct energy regions where such a campaign could be carried out with a minimum of theoretical bias.
In the low-energy region, [*i.e.*]{}below the pion-production threshold, we are confident in the [$\chi$EFT]{}predictions, with almost the only residual uncertainty being the precise value of the polarisabilities themselves. At these energies, plenty of high-quality cross section data is available, but there is only limited information on the asymmetries—only one is measured at all. Accurate experiments with good energy and angular range that explore the $6$ observables which do not vanish in this region are required to pin down all $6$ polarisabilities. However, though asymmetries can be large, the absolute rates are not huge and the sensitivities to the spin polarisabilities are quite modest in the main. Demands on beam time and control of systematics will certainly be high.
In the intermediate-energy region, namely between the pion threshold and ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\approx250$ MeV, the agreement between [$\chi$EFT]{}and dispersion-relation calculations remains rather good, and both the cross section and sensitivities tend to rise rapidly. This is a region for which very limited data exist. It is therefore a promising avenue for further exploration. Once again, only one asymmetry has been explored, with limited coverage and accuracy. Indeed, significant gaps exist even in the $\gamma$p cross section data base. Measurements motivated by sensitivities to spin polarisabilities in this energy regime would thus likely have the added benefit of also delivering high-quality unpolarised data. This could help to resolve the disagreement between those proton Compton scattering experiments that accrued significant cross section data in this energy range (see Table 3.1 of ref. [@Griesshammer:2012we] and discussion in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew]). Indeed, we argued that further information on ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ will be most easily and reliably obtained from cross-section measurements—perhaps especially from cross-section measurements at markedly forward or backward angles.
At even higher energies, the cross sections and certain sensitivities become quite sizeable; however, the theoretical predictions of the underlying amplitudes in [$\chi$EFT]{}and the dispersion-relation approach start to diverge. Though high-statistics measurements in this region will challenge and discriminate between these two approaches, the comparisons may do little to shed light on the specific value of the polarisabilities. Accurate connection to the static polarisabilities, which are defined in the low-energy limit, is likely to be very challenging here.
Therefore, we propose that future explorations focus on a region in which three essential conditions are met: there are significant sensitivities to spin polarisabilities (usually ${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\gtrsim100\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$); theory can extract polarisabilities reliably and with high accuracy (${\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\lesssim250\;{\ensuremath{\mathrm{MeV}}}$); and experiments are not overwhelmed by backgrounds ($30^\circ\lesssim\theta\lesssim160^\circ$). Within these constraints, we identified several kinematic regions where various asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables are significantly affected by the spin-polarisability combinations ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$, while being rather insensitive to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}-{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$.
We hope this presentation has provided indications of which proton Compton-scattering data are most promising for polarisability extractions. Nevertheless, complex sensitivities and the experimental challenges of small rates paired with polarised targets and/or recoils mean that no single experiment will suffice to determine a polarisability, or a simple combination thereof, in particular when it comes to the spin polarisabilities. Instead, what is needed is a comprehensive programme of mutually complementary experiments—ideally conducted at different facilities. As theorists, we recognise that there are many experimental realities that can prevent a promising observable or kinematic region from being the best place to do an experiment, and look forward to a lively exchange regarding the planning and analysis of the experiments at the new generation of experiments at high-luminosity facilities with polarised beams and targets such as [HI$\gamma$S]{}and MAMI.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We gratefully acknowledge discussions with J. R. M. Annand, M. W. Ahmed, E. J. Downie, D. Hornidge, V. Lensky and B. Pasquini. We are particularly grateful to the organisers and participants of the workshop <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lattice Nuclei, Nuclear Physics and QCD - Bridging the Gap</span> at the ECT\* (Trento), and of the US DOE-supported <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Workshop on Next Generation Laser-Compton Gamma-Ray Source</span>, and for hospitality at KITP (Santa Barbara; supported in part by the US National Science Foundation under grant NSF PHY-1125915) and at KPH (Mainz). HWG is indebted to the kind hospitality and financial support of the Institut für Theoretische Physik (T39) of the Physik-Department at TU München and of the Physics Department of the University of Manchester, where much of this work was completed, and to both for the quick and unbureaucratic help when hardware issues threatened to derail carefully crafted plans. This work was supported in part by UK Science and Technology Facilities Council grants ST/L005794/1 and ST/P004423/1 (JMcG), by the US Department of Energy under contracts DE-FG02-93ER-40756 (DRP) and DE-SC0015393 (HWG), and by the Dean’s Research Chair programme of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences of The George Washington University (HWG).
Dipole Polarisabilities of the Nucleon
======================================
\[app:polvalues\]
For the convenience of the reader, we repeat in table \[tab:pols\] the values and uncertainties of the proton’s and neutron’s dipole scalar and spin polarisabilities obtained at ${\mathcal{O}}(e^2\delta^4)$ in [$\chi$EFT]{}with explicit $\Delta(1232)$ degrees of freedom [@McGovern:2012ew; @Myers:2014ace; @Griesshammer:2015ahu]. The theoretical uncertainties ($68\%$ degree-of-belief intervals) are derived from order-by-order convergence of the EFT. The scalar polarisabilities are determined from data [@McGovern:2012ew; @Myers:2014ace], with $\chi^2=113.2$ for $135$ degrees of freedom for the proton, and $45.2$ for $44$ for the neutron. The respective Baldin sum rules have been used as a constraint. (Note, though, that the extraction used ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}=13.8\pm0.4$ [@OlmosdeLeon:2001zn]. This agrees within error bars with the more recent value ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}+{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}=14.0\pm0.2$ [@Gryniuk:2015eza].) The proton spin polarisability ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}^{(\mathrm{p})}}}$ has been fitted as described in ref. [@McGovern:2012ew], but ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M1M1}^{(\mathrm{n})}}}$ is then predicted from that. Scalar polarisabilities are quoted in $10^{-4}~{\rm fm}^3$, spin ones in $10^{-4}~{\rm fm}^4$. A thorough discussion of all aspects can be found in ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
proton neutron
--------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
[$\alpha_{E1}$]{} $10.65\pm0.35_\text{stat}\pm0.2_\text{Baldin}\pm0.3_\text{theory}$ $11.55\pm1.25_\text{stat}\pm0.2_\text{Baldin}\pm0.8_\text{theory}$
[$\beta_{M1}$]{} $\phantom{0}3.15\mp0.35_\text{stat}\pm0.2_\text{Baldin} $\phantom{0}3.65\mp1.25_\text{stat}\pm0.2_\text{Baldin}
\mp0.3_\text{theory}$ \mp0.8_\text{theory}$
[$\gamma_{E1E1}$]{} $-1.1\pm1.9_\text{theory}$ $-4.0\pm1.9_\text{theory}$
[$\gamma_{M1M1}$]{} $ {\phantom{-}}2.2\pm0.5_\text{stat}\pm0.6_\text{theory}$ ${\phantom{-}}1.3\pm0.5_\text{stat}\pm0.6_\text{theory}$
[$\gamma_{E1M2}$]{} $-0.4\pm0.6_\text{theory}$ $-0.1\pm0.6_\text{theory}$
[$\gamma_{M1E2}$]{} ${\phantom{-}}1.9\pm0.5_\text{theory}$ ${\phantom{-}}2.4\pm0.5_\text{theory}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: The dipole polarisabilities of the proton and neutron in [$\chi$EFT]{}with explicit $\Delta(1232)$ degrees of freedom at ${\mathcal{O}}(e^2\delta^4)$ [@McGovern:2012ew; @Myers:2014ace; @Griesshammer:2015ahu].
\[tab:pols\]
Matrices for Observables
========================
\[app:matrices\]
We provide here the definition of the Compton scattering amplitude in the Breit or cm frame and the relations between the $6$ independent amplitudes $A_i$ and the asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables.
All the expressions required are given in Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww]. Those authors use a covariant basis to define $6$ independent amplitudes (which they denote simply $A_i$ but we will call $A_i^{\text{L}}$ as they are due to L’vov), and construct invariants $W^{\pm}_{ij}$ from these (the first index, $i=0,1,2,3$, refers to the photon polarisation, and the second, $j=0,1,2,3$, to the nucleon polarisation). Linear combinations of these invariants ($13$ of which are non-vanishing) give cross sections for polarised photons and nucleons (incoming or outgoing), and from these, in turn, asymmetries (absolute or relative) can be constructed.
In order to see the influence of the polarisabilities, though, it is more customary to use a basis of independent tensors constructed from Pauli matrices as follows: $$\label{eq:Tmatrix}
\begin{array}{rcl}
T({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)&=& A_1({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)\;(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\cdot \vec{\epsilon}) +
A_2({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)\;(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\cdot\hat{\vec{k}})\;(\vec{\epsilon}
\cdot\hat{\vec{k}}') \\&&
+{\mathrm{i}}\,A_3({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)\;\vec{\sigma}\cdot\left(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\times\vec{\epsilon}\,\right)
+{\mathrm{i}}\,A_4({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)\;\vec{\sigma}\cdot\left(\hat{\vec{k}}'\times\hat{\vec{k}}\right)
(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\cdot\vec{\epsilon}) \\&&
+{\mathrm{i}}\,A_5({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)\;\vec{\sigma}\cdot
\left[\left(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\times\hat{\vec{k}}
\right)\,(\vec{\epsilon}\cdot\hat{\vec{k}}')
-\left(\vec{\epsilon}\times\hat{\vec{k}}'\right)\,
(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\cdot\hat{\vec{k}})\right] \\&& +{\mathrm{i}}\,A_6({\ensuremath{\omega}},z)\;\vec{\sigma}\cdot
\left[\left(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\times\hat{\vec{k}}'\right)\,
(\vec{\epsilon}\cdot\hat{\vec{k}}') -\left(\vec{\epsilon}
\times\hat{\vec{k}} \right)\,
(\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*\cdot\hat{\vec{k}})\right] \; \;. \end{array}$$ where $\hat{\vec{k}}$ ($\hat{\vec{k}}'$) is the unit vector in the momentum direction of the incoming (outgoing) photon with polarisation $\vec{\epsilon}$ ($\vec{\epsilon}\,'^*$), $\theta$ is the scattering angle, and $z=\cos\theta$. This form holds in the Breit and centre-of-mass (cm) frames, and defines amplitudes $A_i^{\text{cm}}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{cm}, z_\text{cm})$ or $A_i^{\text{Br}}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}, z_\text{Br})$.
The low-energy expansion of the non-Born parts of the Breit-frame amplitudes in terms of the polarisabilities, defined in eq. , is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:polamp}
A_1^\mathrm{Br}&= 4\pi \left({\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}+z_\text{Br}{\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}\right) {\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^2
+{\cal O}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^4)\;\;,\nonumber\\
A_2^\mathrm{Br}&= -4\pi \;\beta_{M1}\,{\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^2+{\cal O}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^4)\;\;,
\nonumber\\
A_3^\mathrm{Br}&=-4\pi\left(\gamma_{E1E1}+ \gamma_{E1M2}+z_\text{Br}( \gamma_{M1M1}+ \gamma_{M1E2})\right){\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^3
+{\cal O}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^5)\;\;,\nonumber\\
A_4^\mathrm{Br}&= 4 \pi\left(\gamma_{M1E2} -\gamma_{M1M1}\right){\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^3
+{\cal O}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^5)\;\;,\nonumber\\
A_5^\mathrm{Br}&= 4\pi\;\gamma_{M1M1}\,{\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^3
+{\cal O}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^5)\;\;,\nonumber\\
A_6^\mathrm{Br}&= 4 \pi\;\gamma_{E1M2}\,{\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^3+{\cal O}({\ensuremath{\omega}}_\text{Br}^5)\;\;.\end{aligned}$$ The expression for the cm-frame amplitudes in terms of the cm photon energy and scattering angle is identical, except that the omitted terms all start at one order lower in $\omega$ because manifest crossing symmetry is lost. These new terms are all boost corrections and depend only on the same polarisabilities that already enter above.
When, in sects. \[sec:crosssectionvar\] and \[sec:asymmetriesvar\], we vary the polarisabilities, we add to the chiral amplitudes terms mirroring eq. with polarisability shifts $\delta {\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$, $\delta {\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, $\delta\gamma_i$ in place of full polarisabilities.
The relations between the covariant, cm and Breit amplitudes provided in ref. [@Lensky:2015awa] allow the invariants that are expressed in terms of the $A_i^{\text{L}}$ in ref. [@Babusci:1998ww] to be written in terms of the cm or Breit amplitudes. Writing the amplitudes as a vector, $\vec{A}=(A_1,\dots,A_6)^T$, invariants and observables are conveniently expressed as bilinears in $\vec{A}$: $\vec{A}^\dagger\,{\mathcal{M}}_\alpha\,\vec{A}$.
In the cm frame, these matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_\alpha$ for the observables ${\mathcal{O}}_\alpha$ all have a simple form and are independent of the photon energy, so we give those here. In what follows, $z=\cos\theta_{\text{cm}}$ and $A_i=A_i^{\text{cm}}$. As mentioned in sect. \[sec:pols\], the polarisabilities are most easily defined in the Breit frame, and that is the frame we use for our numerical work. However, the expressions for the matrices are the same in the ${\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{N}}}\to\infty$ limit, and the simpler forms in the cm frame allow one to see more clearly where the various amplitudes, and hence polarisabilities, play a role.
The unpolarised differential cross section is given by $$\label{eq:dsigma-domega}
\left.\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\right|_{\text{unpol}}=\Phi^2\;|T|^2=\Phi^2\;
\left(\vec{A}^\dagger\,{\mathcal{M}}_\TsqUnpol\,\vec{A}\right)$$ where $\Phi$ is the frame-dependent flux factor which tends to $1/4\pi$ at low energy (see, [*e.g.*]{}, the review [@Griesshammer:2012we]). $|T|^2$ is calculated by averaging over the initial photon polarisation and nucleon spin, and summing over the final states. (It is what Babusci [*et al.*]{} call $W_{00}$, up to a normalisation factor of $4{\ensuremath{M_\mathrm{N}}}^2$.)
The matrix associated with $|T|^2$ is
$$\label{eq:ampsquared}
{\mathcal{M}}_\TsqUnpol=\frac 1 2 {{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
z^2+1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
z \left(z^2-1\right) & \left(z^2-1\right)^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 3-z^2 & z-z^3 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 4-4 z^2 \\
0 & 0 & z-z^3 & 1-z^4 & -2 z^2 \left(z^2-1\right) & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
0 & 0 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & -2 z^2 \left(z^2-1\right) & -4 z^4+2 z^2+2 & -6 z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
0 & 0 & 4-4 z^2 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & -6 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 6-6 z^2
\end{pmatrix}}.$$
The asymmetries and polarisation-transfer observables $\Sigma_\alpha$ are then expressed by matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_\alpha$ which can also be derived from the customary relation between a cross section and the density matrices, see sect. \[sec:Observables\]: $\rho^{(\gamma)}(\vec{\xi})$ for the photon beam in terms of the Stokes parameters; $\rho(P,\vec{n})$ for the target; and $\rho(P^\prime\equiv1,\vec{n}^\prime)$ for the recoil. When the recoil polarisation is not detected, the cross section for a specific polarisation state is $$\label{eq:crossforasym}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}(P,\vec{n};\vec{\xi})=
\Phi^2\;{\mathrm{tr}}[T\;\rho^{(\gamma)}(\vec{\xi})\;\rho(P,\vec{n})\;T^\dagger]\;\;.$$ For polarisation-transfer observables, one uses $\rho(P=0,\vec{n})=\frac{1}{2}$ for an unpolarised target: $$\label{eq:crossforasym2}
\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}(\vec{n}^\prime;\vec{\xi})=
\frac{1}{2}\;\Phi^2\;{\mathrm{tr}}[T\;\rho^{(\gamma)}(\vec{\xi})\;T^\dagger\;
\rho(P^\prime\equiv1,\vec{n}^\prime)]\;\;.$$ The matrix ${\mathcal{M}}_\alpha$ is then derived by inserting these relations into the definition of the corresponding observable $\Sigma_\alpha$ in eqs. to for the asymmetries and their analogue for the polarisation-transfer coefficients, with the normalisation such that $$\label{eq:obstomatrix}
\Sigma_\alpha=\frac{\vec{A}^\dagger\,{\mathcal{M}}_\alpha\,\vec{A}}
{2\;\vec{A}^\dagger\,{\mathcal{M}}_\TsqUnpol\,\vec{A}}\;\;.$$
A similar derivation yields the difference $\Delta_\alpha$ of the rates for the different orientations associated with each asymmetry or polarisation-transfer observable (see figs. \[fig:asymmetries-rates\] and \[fig:asymmetries-rates-neutron\] for plots). These are given by the numerator of eqs. to and the polarisation-transfer analogues, and are proportional to the numerator of , $$\label{eq:deltamatrix}
\Delta_\alpha=\frac{g}{2}\;\Phi^2\;\vec{A}^\dagger\,{\mathcal{M}}_\alpha\,\vec{A}
=g\;\Sigma_\alpha\;\left.\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\sigma}{{\mathrm{d}}\Omega}\right|_{\text{unpol}}\;\;,$$ with $g=4$ for $\Delta_{3y}$, $g=2$ for all other asymmetries and for $\Delta_{3y'}$, and $g=1$ for the other polarisation-transfer observables. The denominator in the definition of each observable $\Sigma_\alpha$ (eqs. to and analogues) is $g\;\Phi^2\;\vec{A}^\dagger\,{\mathcal{M}}_\TsqUnpol\,\vec{A}$.
For the asymmetries, one finds: $$\label{eq:matsig3}
{\mathcal{M}}_3= (1-z^2){{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
-1 & -z & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
-z & 1-z^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & z & 2 z & 2 \\
0 & 0 & z & z^2-1 & 2 z^2 & 2 z \\
0 & 0 & 2 z & 2 z^2 & 4 z^2 & 4 z \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 2 z & 4 z & 4\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsigy}
{\mathcal{M}}_y= {\mathrm{i}}\sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -z & -z^2-1 & -2 z^2 & -2 z \\
0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & z-z^3 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 2-2 z^2 \\
z & z^2-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
z^2+1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
2 z^2 & 2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
2 z & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig1x}
{\mathcal{M}}_{1x}= {\mathrm{i}}\sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & z & 0 & z^2+1 & 2 z \\
0 & 0 & z^2-1 & 0 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & z^2-1 \\
-z & 1-z^2 & 0 & z^2-1 & z^2+1 & 2 z \\
0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & 0 & z-z^3 & 1-z^2 \\
-z^2-1 & z-z^3 & -z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) \\
-2 z & 1-z^2 & -2 z & z^2-1 & 2-2 z^2 & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig1z}
{\mathcal{M}}_{1z}= {\mathrm{i}}(1-z^2){{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -z & -1 \\
0 & 0 & -z & 0 & 1-z^2 & 0 \\
1 & z & 0 & -z & -z & -1 \\
0 & 0 & z & 0 & z^2+1 & 2 z \\
z & z^2-1 & z & -z^2-1 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1 & -2 z & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig2x}
{\mathcal{M}}_{2x}= \sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -z & 0 & 1-z^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & 0 & z-z^3 & 1-z^2 \\
-z & 1-z^2 & 2 z & z^2+1 & 3 z^2-1 & 2 z \\
0 & 0 & z^2+1 & 0 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 1-z^2 \\
1-z^2 & z-z^3 & 3 z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 4 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) \\
0 & 1-z^2 & 2 z & 1-z^2 & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig2z}
{\mathcal{M}}_{2z}={{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -z^2-1 & 0 & z-z^3 & z^2-1 \\
0 & 0 & z-z^3 & 0 & -\left(z^2-1\right)^2 & 0 \\
-z^2-1 & z-z^3 & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 3 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 3 \left(z^2-1\right) \\
0 & 0 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & \left(z^2-1\right)^2 & 0 \\
z-z^3 & -\left(z^2-1\right)^2 & 3 z \left(z^2-1\right) & \left(z^2-1\right)^2 & 4 z^2 \left(z^2-1\right) & 4 z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
z^2-1 & 0 & 3 \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 4 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 4 \left(z^2-1\right)\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig3y}
{\mathcal{M}}_{3y}= {\mathrm{i}}\sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -z & 1-z^2 & -2 z^2 & -2 z \\
0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & z-z^3 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 2-2 z^2 \\
z & z^2-1 & 0 & 0 & -2 & -2 z \\
z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
2 z^2 & 2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 2 & 0 & 0 & 2-2 z^2 \\
2 z & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) & 2 z & 0 & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ And for the polarisation-transfer observables: $$\label{eq:matsig1xp}
{\mathcal{M}}_{1x^\prime}= {\mathrm{i}}\sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & -2 z & -z^2-1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & z-z^3 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 2 z & z^2+1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
2 z & z^2-1 & -2 z & 1-z^2 & 0 & 2 z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
z^2+1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & -z^2-1 & z-z^3 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig1zp}
{\mathcal{M}}_{1z^\prime}= {\mathrm{i}}(1-z^2){{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -z \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 1-z^2 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & -1 & 1 & z \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 2 z & z^2+1 \\
1 & 0 & -1 & -2 z & 0 & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) \\
z & z^2-1 & -z & -z^2-1 & 2-2 z^2 & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig2xp}
{\mathcal{M}}_{2x^\prime}= \sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & z^2-1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
-1 & 0 & 2 & 2 z & 2 z & 3-z^2 \\
0 & 0 & 2 z & 0 & z^2-1 & z-z^3 \\
0 & z^2-1 & 2 z & z^2-1 & 0 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 3-z^2 & z-z^3 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 4-4 z^2\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig2zp}
{\mathcal{M}}_{2z^\prime}={{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & 2 z & 0 & z^2-1 & z-z^3 \\
0 & 0 & z^2-1 & 0 & 0 & -\left(z^2-1\right)^2 \\
2 z & z^2-1 & 0 & 1-z^2 & z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) \\
0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & 0 & 0 & \left(z^2-1\right)^2 \\
z^2-1 & 0 & z^2-1 & 0 & 4 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 2 \left(z^4-1\right) \\
z-z^3 & -\left(z^2-1\right)^2 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & \left(z^2-1\right)^2 & 2 \left(z^4-1\right) & 4 z \left(z^2-1\right)\end{pmatrix}}$$ $$\label{eq:matsig3yp}
{\mathcal{M}}_{3y^\prime}= {\mathrm{i}}\sqrt{1-z^2}{{}\arraycolsep=0.3\arraycolsep\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 0 & -z & 1-z^2 & -2 z^2 & -2 z \\
0 & 0 & 1-z^2 & z-z^3 & -2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & 2-2 z^2 \\
z & z^2-1 & 0 & 0 & 2 & 2 z \\
z^2-1 & z \left(z^2-1\right) & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
2 z^2 & 2 z \left(z^2-1\right) & -2 & 0 & 0 & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) \\
2 z & 2 \left(z^2-1\right) & -2 z & 0 & 2-2 z^2 & 0\end{pmatrix}}$$
The matrices are either real or imaginary, but are, of course, always Hermitean. The matrices for $\Sigma_y$, $\Sigma_{1x}$, $\Sigma_{1z}$, $\Sigma_{3y}$, $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$, $\Sigma_{1z^\prime}$ and $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$ are pure imaginary but the observables are real because the observables are nonzero only when the amplitudes have imaginary parts, [*i.e.*]{}above the first inelasticity, namely in our case above the pion-production threshold.
It is, of course, possible to take linear combinations of amplitudes to form a new set, each of which depends on a single polarisability or polarisability combination. The corresponding “rotation” matrices can be used to transform the matrices above, in order to see whether particular combinations of amplitudes dominate in either basis. The most noticeable result is that both $\Delta_3$ and $\Delta_y$ turn out to be completely independent of both ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$—in the cm frame. This is particularly significant for $\Delta_3$, since it raises the possibility that for energies around the photoproduction threshold, once ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$ are well-determined, sensitivity to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{E-}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{M-}}}$ is not contaminated by lack of knowledge of ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. For higher energies, the boost corrections which arise in the lab frame reduce the significance of these observations, see below.
In fact, all matrices except ${\mathcal{M}}_{\TsqUnpol}$, ${\mathcal{M}}_{3y}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{3y'}$ have two zero eigenvalues, which means that there are two linear combinations of amplitudes to which they are insensitive. However, other than in the cases of ${\mathcal{M}}_3$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_y$, the corresponding eigenvectors do not indicate simple combinations of polarisabilities. Even more interesting results emerge if we look at combinations of double polarisation observables ${\mathcal{M}}_{ij}\pm {\mathcal{M}}_{ij'}$. ${\mathcal{M}}_{3y}+{\mathcal{M}}_{3y^\prime}$ has two zero eigenvalues, and all other combinations of this form have four, and so are sensitive to only two combinations of amplitudes. However, only some of these zero modes correspond to simple combinations of amplitudes. This analysis does reveal, though, that the sum of ${\mathcal{M}}_{3y}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{3y'}$ is insensitive to ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$, while the difference is insensitive to ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$. The combinations ${\mathcal{M}}_{1x}-{\mathcal{M}}_{1x'}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{1z}+{\mathcal{M}}_{1z'}$ are completely insensitive to both $\alpha-\beta$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{0}}}$, while the opposite combinations are insensitive to $\alpha+\beta$ and ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$. Sums and differences of ${\mathcal{M}}_{2x}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{2x'}$, or of ${\mathcal{M}}_{2z}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{2z'}$, pair the insensitivities up the opposite way round.
Though this is an intriguing observation, the asymmetry and polarisation-transfer reactions are sufficiently different that it may not be significant for experimental design. And experiments are not conducted in the cm frame, in which the above decomposition holds, but in the lab frame; this complicates matters. That complication is least important for observables which transform easily between frames.
The incident photon and target nucleon polarisations are identical in all frames which share the same orientations of the $x$, $y$ and $z$ axes; this includes the Breit, cm, and lab frames. Therefore, all asymmetries are form-invariant, [*i.e.*]{}to find the lab results, one only has to convert the scattering angle and photon energy from the cm to the lab frame: $$\label{eq:forminv}\Sigma_\alpha^\mathrm{lab}({\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}},\theta_\mathrm{lab})=
\Sigma_\alpha^\mathrm{cm}(\omega_\mathrm{cm}[{\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}},\theta_\mathrm{lab}],
\theta_\mathrm{cm}[{\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}},\theta_\mathrm{lab}])\;\mbox{ for } j\not\in\{x^\prime,z^\prime\}$$ The situation is slightly more complicated for polarisation-transfer coefficients, as the polarisation of the outgoing nucleon is measured relative to its momentum vector, [*i.e.*]{}the $z^\prime$ axis is oriented along ${\vec{p}}^{\, \prime}$, and the $x^\prime$ axis is perpendicular to it but in the scattering plane. In this case, the appropriate coefficients are different for cm and lab frames, and are given for both in ref. [@Babusci:1998ww]. They are simply related by a rotation in the reaction plane through $\theta_R$, the angle in the lab frame from the $z$- to the $z^\prime$-axis, see fig. \[fig:spinkinematics\]. In order to conserve momentum perpendicular to the incoming photon direction, they must satisfy $$\label{eq:recoil}
\sin\theta_R=\frac{{\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}\sin{\ensuremath{\theta}}}{|{\vec{p}}'|},\qquad 0\le \theta_R \le \pi/2,$$ where ${\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}$ is the outgoing photon energy. Then, for $i=1,2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_{ix'}^\mathrm{lab}&=\cos\theta_R\Sigma_{ix'}^\mathrm{cm}-
\sin\theta_R\Sigma_{iz'}^\mathrm{cm}, \nonumber \\
\Sigma_{iz'}^\mathrm{lab}&=\sin\theta_R\Sigma_{ix'}^\mathrm{cm}+
\cos\theta_R\Sigma_{iz'}^\mathrm{cm}.
\label{eq:rotate}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, the orientation of the $y$ axis is unchanged, and so the polarisation transfer $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$ is form-invariant and obeys an equation like .
Comments on Babusci [*et al.*]{}
================================
\[app:readbabusci\]
Interpreting Coefficients {#sec:coefficients}
-------------------------
For the dedicated student of the invaluable paper of Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww], in an aside which is not intended to be read independently, we note that the lab-frame coefficients defined there as rather ugly expressions in their eq. (3.29) can also be written more intuitively as $$\label{eq:coefficients}
\begin{split}
C_{x'}^K&=-\textfrac 1 2 \left[{\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\sin(\theta_R)+{\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}\sin(\theta+\theta_R)\right] \\
C_{z'}^K&=\textfrac 1 2 \left[{\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\cos(\theta_R)+{\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}\cos(\theta+\theta_R] \right)\\
C_{z'}^Q&=\textfrac 1 2
\left[{\ensuremath{\omega_\mathrm{lab}}}\cos(\theta_R)-{\ensuremath{\omega'_\mathrm{lab}}}\cos(\theta+\theta_R)\right]
\;\;.
\end{split}$$ It may seem odd that, up to signs, these are just the $x'$ and $z'$ coefficients of the *lab-frame* vectors $\vec K$ and $\vec Q$ (defined as $\textfrac 1 2({\vec{k}}'\pm{\vec{k}})$), even though the struck nucleon is not at rest in that frame. The explanation is that a boost into its rest frame just exchanges ${\vec{k}}$ and ${\vec{k}}'$ and changes the sign of the $z'$ components, so that $\vec K$ and $\vec Q$ are trivially related in the rest frames of the target and recoiling nucleons.
Proving Completeness {#app:completeness}
--------------------
Babusci [*et al.*]{} [@Babusci:1998ww] provide a complete set of observables in which at most one nucleon and one photon are polarised or analysed, and, at the beginning of their sect. III.B, they hint that the amplitudes can be reconstructed from them. We now use the definition of observables in terms of the quadratic forms with matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_\alpha$ in appendix \[app:matrices\] to provide an explicit proof of this, following the presentation in Arenhövel [*et al.*]{} [@Arenhovel:1998vj].
We start with the $6$ observables ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma/{\mathrm{d}}\Omega$, $\Sigma_3$, $\Sigma_{2x/z}$ and $\Sigma_{2x^\prime/z^\prime}$ which are nonzero below the first inelasticity (pion-production threshold). We denote these observables ${\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$, with $\alpha\mathbb{R}=1,\dots,6$. They are related to the real, independent amplitudes $A_{1\text{-}6}$ as before, $$\label{eq:scalarproduct}
{\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}\propto\vec{A}^\dagger\;{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}\;\vec{A}\;\;,$$ where the six $6\times6$ matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$ are real as well. The constants of proportionality are irrelevant for the present purpose.
To show that at fixed $(\omega,\theta)$, the amplitudes $\vec{A}$ can be constructed from $6$ observables ${\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$, one follows Arenhövel [*et al.*]{} [@Arenhovel:1998vj] to combine (any) one column from each of the ${\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$ into a new $6\times6$ matrix $H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}$. Here, the superscript reminds us that there are $6^6$ choices possible. If at least one of these has a nonzero determinant, $$\det H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}\ne0\;\;\mbox{ for some choice of columns,}$$ then the column vectors residing in that $H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}$ are linearly independent and span the $6$-dimensional space in which the scalar product eq. lives. The vector $\vec{A}$ can be reconstructed, and therefore the observables ${\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$ form a complete set of observables. Taking column $1$ from ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma/{\mathrm{d}}\Omega$, $\Sigma_3$, $\Sigma_{2x}$ and $\Sigma_{2x^\prime}$, and column $3$ from $\Sigma_{2z}$ and $\Sigma_{2z^\prime}$ produces one of many $H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}$ of non-zero determinant, and so shows that these $6$ observables suffice to reconstruct the $6$ amplitudes below the pion-production threshold. Possible (discrete) sign ambiguities can be removed by requiring that amplitudes evolve continuously in $\omega$ and $\theta$ from the Thomson limit.
We now apply this method to the situation above the first inelasticity. There, the amplitudes are complex, $\vec{A}={\mathrm{Re}}\vec{A}+{\mathrm{i}}\,{\mathrm{Im}}\vec{A}$, and the matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}$ ($\alpha\mathbb{I}=7,\dots,13$) of the $7$ additional observables are all purely imaginary. Therefore, the scalar product in eq. takes on two different forms for the two types of observables (Einstein’s Summation Convention is understood):
$$\label{eq:scalarprodabove}
{\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}= ({\mathrm{Re}}[A_i]{\mathrm{Re}}[A_j]+{\mathrm{Im}}[A_i]{\mathrm{Im}}[A_j])\;{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}^{ij}
\;\;\mbox{ and }\;\;
{\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}=-2{\mathrm{i}}\,\; {\mathrm{Re}}[A_i]{\mathrm{Im}}[A_j]\,{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}^{ij}$$
We turn this quadratic form into a scalar product between real vectors by defining a $12$-dimensional vector space via $\vec{u}^T=({\mathrm{Re}}[\vec{A}]^T,{\mathrm{Im}}[\vec{A}]^T)$ in which the observables are found from real and symmetric $12\times12$ matrices $$\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}&0\\0&{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}
\end{pmatrix}\;\;\mbox{ and }\;\;
\begin{pmatrix}
0&({-{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}})^T\\{-{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}&0
\end{pmatrix} \;\;.$$ However, one can only determine $11$ real parameters of the amplitudes, with the overall phase free. Therefore, one may without loss of generality choose one imaginary part $y_{j_0}$, $j_0\in\{7,\dots,12\}$, and eliminate it from the vector space by deleting the $j_0$th row of the vector $\vec{u}$. We denote the resulting $11$-dimensional vector by $\vec{u}^{{\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}}$. The matrices then turn into $11\times11$ objects $$\label{eq:eleven}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}&0\\0&{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}^{{\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}{\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}}
\end{pmatrix}\;\;\mbox{ and }\;\;
\begin{pmatrix}
0&({-{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}^{{\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}})^T\\{-{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}^{{\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}}&0
\end{pmatrix} \;\;,$$ where the superscripts indicate that the lower ${\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$ block has become a $5\times5$ matrix by elimination of the $j_0$th row and column, and ${\mathcal{M}}_{\alpha\mathbb{I}}$ an object with $6$ columns and $5$ rows by elimination of its $j_0$th row.
We now construct matrices analogous to $H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}$. First, pick any $11$ of the available $13$ observables, then assemble one column of each into an $11\times11$ matrix $H_\mathbb{C}^\text{col}$. If $$\det H_\mathbb{C}^\text{col}\ne0\;\;\mbox{ for some choice of columns,}$$ then this set of observables suffices to determine $\vec{u}^{{\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}}$ and hence the amplitudes $A_{1\text{-}6}$, up to the overall phase. This method described by Arenhövel [*et al.*]{} [@Arenhovel:1998vj] for complex quadratic forms is more general, but we will now take advantage of the fact that our matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_\alpha$ are either real or imaginary.
Our search simplifies if we start by choosing the $6$ observables which were already used to find $\vec{A}$ below threshold. In this way, we exploit the block-diagonal structure of the matrices in Eq. (\[eq:eleven\]), by writing $$H_\mathbb{C}^\text{col} = \begin{pmatrix}A&0\\0&B\end{pmatrix}\;\;.$$ and choosing $A=H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}$. We then only need to augment these $6$ observables by $5$ linearly-independent columns from the set of matrices of the additional above-threshold observables, ${\cal M}_{\alpha
\mathbb{I}}$, which will then make up the matrix $B=H_\mathbb{I}^\text{col}$, and finally show that $$\det H_\mathbb{I}^\text{col}\ne0\;\;\mbox{ for some choice of columns.}$$ This can be done by picking one column apiece from any $5$ of the $7$ new observables, with any one row $({\ensuremath{\bcancel{j}_0}}-6)$ eliminated. For example, one can construct $B$ by dropping $\Sigma_{3y}$ and $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$, combining column $1$ of $\Sigma_y$, $\Sigma_{1x}$ and $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$ with column $3$ of $\Sigma_{1z}$ and $\Sigma_{1z^\prime}$, and eliminating the $1$st row.
Therefore, this set of observables suffices to determine the amplitudes $A_i$ up to discrete ambiguities and an overall phase. This is not the most general set of observables above threshold, since we used the fact that the observables ${\mathcal{O}}_{\alpha\mathbb{R}}$ already can be turned into matrices $H_\mathbb{R}^\text{col}$ with nonzero determinants, but it suffices.
It should be mentioned that the imaginary parts of the amplitudes may also be reconstructed as multipoles of the total photoproduction cross sections [@Hildebrandt:2003fm]. This may provide alternative input or valuable cross checks, in particular in order to reduce error bars or sign ambiguities. The sign ambiguity $\vec{A}\to-\vec{A}$ and the overall phase may be resolvable by requiring that amplitudes evolve continuously in $\omega$ and $\theta$ from low-energy theorems (like the Thomson limit), whose phases are determined by choice.
Finally, our proof resorted to the observables expressed in terms of the matrices ${\mathcal{M}}_\alpha$ in the cm frame. The Lorentz boost into the lab frame only involves kinematic factors and cannot generate new linear or quadratic dependencies. Unsurprisingly then, the lab frame Compton amplitudes for spin-${\frac{1}{2}}$ targets can also be reconstructed from the $6$ observables ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma/{\mathrm{d}}\Omega$, $\Sigma_3$, $\Sigma_{2x/z}$ and $\Sigma_{2x^\prime/z^\prime}$, supplemented above the pion-production threshold with *any* $5$ of the $7$ observables $\Sigma_y$, $\Sigma_{1x/z}$, $\Sigma_{1x^\prime/z^\prime}$, $\Sigma_{3y}$ and $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$. To do a “complete experiment" below the first inelasticity, it is therefore mandatory to perform at least two polarisation transfer experiments, and at least one more is necessary above threshold.
Online Supplement: Sensitivity of Neutron Observables
=====================================================
\[app:moreplots\]
For ease of comparison, each plot uses the same contour map as the corresponding proton plot. The values of the neutron polarisabilities, including theoretical and experimental uncertainties, are summarised in ref. [@Griesshammer:2015ahu] and appendix \[app:polvalues\].
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the neutron cross section to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-crosssection-polsvar"}](neutron-crosssection-heatplot-polsvar-lnscale.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the neutron cross section to varying the polarisabilities, normalised to the cross section.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-crosssection-relative-change-polsvar"}](neutron-crosssection-heatplot-relative-change-polsvar.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{1x}$ (linearly polarised photons on a neutron target polarised along the $x$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-1X"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1X.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{1z}$ (linearly polarised photons on a neutron target polarised along the $z$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-1Z"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1Z.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{2x}$ (circularly polarised photons on a neutron target polarised along the $x$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities; see text for details.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-2X"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2X.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{2z}$ (circularly polarised photons on a neutron target polarised along the $z$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-2Z"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2Z.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the beam asymmetry $\Sigma_{3}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised neutron target) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-3"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-3.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the target asymmetry $\Sigma_{y}$ (unpolarised photons on a neutron target along the $y$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-Y"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-Y.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the double asymmetry $\Sigma_{3y}$ (linearly polarised photons on a neutron target polarised along the $y$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-3Y"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-3Y.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{3y^\prime}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised neutron target, recoil polarised along the $y^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-3Yp"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-3Yp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{1x^\prime}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised neutron target, recoil polarised along the $x^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-1Xp"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1Xp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{1z^\prime}$ (linearly polarised photons on an unpolarised neutron target, recoil polarised along the $z^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-1Zp"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-1Zp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{2x^\prime}$ (circularly polarised photons on an unpolarised neutron target, recoil polarised along the $x^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-2Xp"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2Xp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![(Colour online) Sensitivity of the polarisation-transfer observable $\Sigma_{2z^\prime}$ (circularly polarised photons on an unpolarised neutron target, recoil polarised along the $z^\prime$ axis) to varying the polarisabilities.[]{data-label="fig:neutron-polsvar-2Zp"}](neutron-asymmetries-heatplot-polsvar-2Zp.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
[99]{}
R. E. Prange, Phys. Rev. **110** (1958) 240.
H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, J. A. McGovern and D. R. Phillips, Eur. Phys. J. A [**52**]{}, no. 5 (2016) 139 [\[arXiv:1511.01952 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. D. Drechsel, B. Pasquini and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rept. [**378**]{} (2003) 99 [\[arXiv:hep-ph/0212124\]]{}. J. A. McGovern, D. R. Phillips and H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, Eur. Phys. J. A [**49**]{} (2013) 12 [\[arXiv:1210.4104 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. V. Lensky and J. A. McGovern, Phys. Rev. C [**89**]{} (2014) 032202 [\[arXiv:1401.3320 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. B. Pasquini, P. Pedroni and S. Sconfietti, [\[arXiv:1711.07401 \[hep-ph\]]{}\]. L. S. Myers [*et al.*]{} \[COMPTON@MAX-lab Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{} (2014) no.26, 262506 [\[arXiv:1409.3705 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\]. P. P. Martel [*et al.*]{} \[A2 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{} (2015) 112501 [\[arXiv:1408.1576 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\]. V. Sokhoyan [*et al.*]{} \[A2 Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. A [**53**]{}, no. 1 (2017) 14 [\[arXiv:1611.03769 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\]. H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, A. I. L’vov, J. A. McGovern, V. Pascalutsa, B. Pasquini and D. R. Phillips, [\[arXiv:1409.1512 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. D. Babusci, G. Giordano, A. I. L’vov, G. Matone and A. M. Nathan, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{} (1998) 1013 [\[hep-ph/9803347\]]{} . R. P. Hildebrandt, H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer and T. R. Hemmert, Eur. Phys. J. A [**20**]{} (2004) 329 [\[arXiv:nucl-th/0308054\]]{}.
R. P. Hildebrandt, [*PhD thesis*]{}, Technische Universität München (2005) [\[nucl-th/0512064\]]{}. B. Pasquini, D. Drechsel and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. C [**76**]{} (2007) 015203 [\[arXiv:0705.0282 \[hep-ph\]]{}\]. P. Martel, [*PhD Thesis*]{}, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (2012) <https://wwwa2.kph.uni-mainz.de/images/publications/phd/pmartel_dis.pdf>
C. Collicott, [*PhD Thesis*]{}, Dalhousie University (2015) <https://wwwa2.kph.uni-mainz.de/images/publications/phd/thesis_Collicott-Cristina-2015.pdf>
G. M. Huber and C. Collicott, [\[arXiv:1508.07919 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\]. P. Martel [*et al.*]{} \[A2 Collaboration\], EPJ Web Conf. [**142**]{} (2017) 01021.
H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, J. A. McGovern and D. R. Phillips, AIP Conf. Proc. [**1735**]{} (2016) 040010 [\[arXiv:1509.09177 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. J. McGovern, H. Grie[ß]{}hammer and D. Phillips, PoS CD [**15**]{} (2015) 024. R. P. Hildebrandt, H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, T. R. Hemmert and B. Pasquini, Eur. Phys. J. A [**20**]{} (2004) 293 [\[nucl-th/0307070\]]{}. V. Lensky, J. McGovern and V. Pascalutsa, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{} (2015) no.12, 604 [\[arXiv:1510.02794 \[hep-ph\]]{}\]. B. R. Holstein, D. Drechsel, B. Pasquini and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. C [**61**]{} (2000) 034316 [\[hep-ph/9910427\]]{}. H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, J. A. McGovern, D. R. Phillips and G. Feldman, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**67**]{} (2012) 841 [\[arXiv:1203.6834 \[nucl-th\]]{}\] V. Pascalutsa and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C [**67**]{} (2003) 055202 [\[nucl-th/0212024\]]{}.
C. Patrignani [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group\], Chin. Phys. C [**40**]{}, no.10 (2016) 100001. V. Pascalutsa, M. Vanderhaeghen and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rept. [**437**]{} (2007) 125 [\[hep-ph/0609004\]]{}. L. W. Cawthorne and J. A. McGovern, PoS CD [**15**]{} (2016) 072 [\[arXiv:1510.09136 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer and T. R. Hemmert, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{} (2002) 045207 [\[nucl-th/0110006\]]{}. H. W. Griesshammer, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**55**]{} (2005) 215 [\[nucl-th/0411080\]]{}. N. Krupina, V. Lensky and V. Pascalutsa, [\[arXiv:1712.05349 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. V. Lensky and V. Pascalutsa, Eur. Phys. J. C [**65**]{}, 195 (2010) [\[arXiv:0907.0451 \[hep-ph\]]{}\]. B. Pasquini, private communication.
B. Strandberg, A. Margaryan, H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, J. A. McGovern, D. R. Phillips and D. Shukla, in preparation.
H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, Eur. Phys. J. A [**49**]{} (2013) 100; Erratum: \[Eur. Phys. J. A [**53**]{} (2017) no.5, 113\] [\[arXiv:1304.6594 \[nucl-th\]]{}\].
G. G. Ohlsen, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**35**]{} (1972) 717. M. H. Sikora [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, no. 2 (2014) 022501 [\[arXiv:1309.7897 \[nucl-ex\]]{}\]. M. Ahmed, private communication (2017).
G. Blanpied, M. Blecher, A. Caracappa, R. Deininger, C. Djalali, G. Giordano, K. Hicks and S. Hoblit [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**64**]{} (2001) 025203. J.D. Jackson, *Classical Electrodynamics*, Wiley, 1998.
O. Gryniuk, F. Hagelstein and V. Pascalutsa, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{} (2015) 074031 [\[arXiv:1508.07952 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. O. Gryniuk, F. Hagelstein and V. Pascalutsa, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 3 (2016) 034043 [\[arXiv:1604.00789 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. V. Olmos de Leon [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**10**]{} (2001) 207. B. Pasquini, P. Pedroni and D. Drechsel, Phys. Lett. B [**687**]{} (2010) 160 [\[arXiv:1001.4230 \[hep-ph\]]{}\]. N. Krupina and V. Pascalutsa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, no. 26 (2013) 262001 [\[arXiv:1304.7404 \[nucl-th\]]{}\]. V. Pascalutsa and D. R. Phillips, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{} (2003) 055205 [\[nucl-th/0305043\]]{}. M. I. Levchuk, A. I. L’vov and V. A. Petrun’kin, Few-Body Syst. [**16** ]{} (1994) 101.
M. I. Levchuk and A. I. L’vov, Nucl. Phys. A [**674**]{} (2000) 449 [\[arXiv:nucl-th/9909066\]]{}.
B. Demissie and H. W. Grie[ß]{}hammer, PoS CD [**15**]{} (2016) 097. H. Arenhovel, W. Leidemann and E. L. Tomusiak, Nucl. Phys. A [**641**]{} (1998) 517 [\[nucl-th/9806017\]]{}.
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
[^3]: Email: [email protected]
[^4]: There is an approach, pioneered by Hildebrandt [@Griesshammer:2004yn; @Hildebrandt:2005ix], of fitting only the $l = 1$ multipoles to cross-section data, exploiting the existence of such data at a range of angles for a particular energy. After the current paper was submitted, Krupina [*et al.*]{} [@Krupina:2017pgr] presented an extended version of such an analysis; they supplement this information with low-energy theorems and sum-rule determinations of forward scattering amplitudes to extract both static and dynamical dipole polarisabilities.
[^5]: As this article was being completed, Pasquini [*et al.*]{} [@Pasquini:2017ehj] published a new analysis of the proton Compton database employing the dispersion-relation amplitudes. They used the bootstrap technique to obtain new static values of ${\ensuremath{\alpha_{E1}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\beta_{M1}}}$, as well as the first results for the corresponding “dispersive polarisabilities" (see eq. (\[eq:H-eff\]) and the subsequent discussion). The curves of fig. \[fig:multipoles\] do not reflect the new analysis, but the changes are quite small.
[^6]: Babusci [*et al.*]{} denote them by $\zeta_i$ [@Babusci:1998ww].
[^7]: ${\ensuremath{\gamma_{\pi}}}$ is often quoted including the large contribution of about $46\times 10^{-4}$ fm$^4$ from the exchange of a neutral pion between the photon and the nucleon. However this is normally excluded from the definition of “structure" effects, and by convention is not included in the individual spin polarisabilities.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper is concerned with the initial boundary value problem for one dimensional strongly damped wave equation involving $p$-Laplacian. For $p>2$, we establish the existence of weak local attractors for this problem in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times L^{2}(0,1)$. Under restriction $2<p<4$, we prove that the semigroup, generated by the considered problem, possesses a strong global attractor in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times L^{2}(0,1)$ and this attractor is a bounded subset of $W^{1,\infty }(0,1)\times W^{1,\infty }(0,1)$.'
address:
- '[Department of Mathematics,]{} [Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Beytepe 06800]{}, [Ankara, Turkey]{}'
- '[Department of Mathematics,]{} [Faculty of Science, Hacettepe University, Beytepe 06800]{}, [Ankara, Turkey]{}'
author:
- Azer Khanmamedov
- Zehra Şen
title: 'Attractors for the Strongly Damped Wave Equation with $p$-Laplacian'
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider the following strongly damped wave equation with $p$-Laplacian:$$u_{tt}-u_{txx}-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \left\vert
u_{x}\right\vert ^{p-2}u_{x}\right) +f\left( u\right) =g. \tag{1.1}$$The strongly damped wave equations occur in so many physical areas, such as heat conduction, solid mechanics and so on, which has considerably attracted many authors to analyze, in particular, the long time dynamics of these types of equations. It is well known that the long time dynamics of evolution equations can be described in terms of attractors. The attractors for (1.1), with $p=2$, have been widely studied by several authors in multidimensional case under different hypothesis. We refer to \[1-11\] for wave equations with the linear strong damping, and to \[12-13\] for wave equations with the nonlinear strong damping. These works, as has been mentioned above, deal with attractors of strongly damped wave equations involving linear Laplacian. For the strongly damped wave equation with nonlinear Laplacian, we refer to [@14] and [@15]. In [@14], the authors studied the long time behaviour of regular, precisely from the space $H^{2}$, solutions of the strongly damped wave equation involving nonlinear Laplacian in the form $\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\sigma (u_{x})$, with $\sigma \in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}
)$ and $\sigma ^{\prime }(\cdot )\geq r_{0}>0$. Because, under these conditions on $\sigma $, the nonlinear term $\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\sigma (u_{x})$ behaves like $u_{xx}$ for the $H^{2}$-solutions, the authors were able to successfully apply the splitting method to prove the asymptotic compactness of the solutions. Although, in [@15], the authors studied the attractors (in the weak topology) for the weak solutions of strongly damped wave equation with more general nonlinear Laplacian, the equation considered in that article contains the additional term $-\Delta u$, in comparison with (1.1). This term, together with nonlinear degenerate Laplacian, generates indeed non-degenerate Laplacian and thereby allows to obtain some additional estimates for weak and strong solutions. Unlike the equations considered in [@14] and [@15], the equation (1.1) involves degenerate Laplacian and therefore we are not able to apply the approaches of those papers, especially in the study of the strong global attractor. On the other hand, there are some difficulties also in application of the asymptotic compactness methods developed in \[16-18\]. The difficulties are caused by the absence of the energy equality for a weak solution and the energy inequality for the difference of two weak solutions of (1.1). To overcome these difficulties, we require an additional restriction on the exponent $p$. Namely, under restriction $2<p<4$, by using specificity of the one dimensional case, we show that weak local attractors, the existence of which we establish for every $p>2$, are bounded subsets of $W^{1,\infty
}(0,1)\times $ $W^{1,\infty }(0,1)$. This fact implies the validity of the energy equality for the trajectories from the weak local attractors, and applying the methods of \[16-18\], we establish the asymptotic compactness of the weak solutions, which, together with the presence of strict Lyapunov function, leads to the existence of a strong global attractor in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times L^{2}(0,1)$.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we give the statement of the problem and main results. In Section 3, we prove the existence of the weak local attractors in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times
L^{2}(0,1) $ and show that these attractors attract trajectories in the topology of $H_{0}^{1}(0,1)\times L^{2}(0,1)$. In Section 4, we first prove the regularity of the weak local attractors, for $p\in (2,4)$, and then we establish the existence of the strong global attractor in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times L^{2}(0,1)$. Finally, in the last section, we give some auxiliary lemmas.
Statement of the problem and main results
=========================================
We deal with the following initial-boundary value problem: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
u_{tt}-u_{txx}-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \left\vert
u_{x}\right\vert ^{p-2}u_{x}\right) +f\left( u\right) =g\left( x\right) ,\text{ \ in }\left( 0,\infty \right) \times \left( 0,1\right) , \\
u\left( \cdot ,0\right) =u\left( \cdot ,1\right) =0,\text{ in }\left(
0,\infty \right) ,\text{ } \\
u\left( 0,\cdot \right) =u_{0}\left( \cdot \right) \ ,\ \ \ u_{t}\left(
0,\cdot \right) =u_{1}\left( \cdot \right) ,\text{ \ in }(0,1).\end{array}\right. \tag{2.1}$$Here $$p>2,\text{ \ }g\in L^{2}(0,1), \tag{2.2}$$and the function $f$ satisfies the following conditions:$$f\in C^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) \text{ \ , \ }\liminf_{\left\vert s\right\vert \rightarrow \infty }\frac{f\left( s\right) }{\left\vert s\right\vert ^{p-2}s}>-\lambda ^{p},
\tag{2.3}$$where $\lambda =\inf\limits_{\varphi \in W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1),\varphi \neq 0}\frac{\left\Vert \varphi ^{\prime }\right\Vert _{L^{p}(0,1)}}{\left\Vert
\varphi \right\Vert _{L^{p}(0,1)}}.$
Let us recall the following definitions.
The function $u\in L^{1}(0,T;W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1))$ satisfying $u_{t}\in
L^{1}(0,T;W_{0}^{1,\frac{p}{p-1}}(0,1))\cap C([0,T];W^{-1,\frac{p}{p-1}}(0,1))$, $u(0,x)=u_{0}(x)$, $u_{t}(0,x)=u_{1}(x)$ and the equation$$\frac{d}{dt}\int\limits_{0}^{1}u_{t}(t,x)v(x)dx+\int\limits_{0}^{1}u_{tx}(t,x)v^{\prime }(x)dx+\int\limits_{0}^{1}\left\vert
u_{x}(t,x)\right\vert ^{p-2}u_{x}(t,x)v^{\prime }(x)dx$$$$+\int\limits_{0}^{1}f(u(t,x))v(x)dx=\int\limits_{0}^{1}g(x)v(x)dx,$$in the sense of distributions on $(0,T)$, for all $v\in W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)$, is called a weak solution to the problem (2.1) in $\left[ 0,T\right] \times
\lbrack 0,1]$.
Let $\{V(t)\}_{{\small t\geq 0}}$ be an operator semigroup on a linear normed space $E$ and $B$ be a bounded subset of $E$. A set $\mathcal{A}_{B}\subset E$ is called a strong (weak) local attractor for $B$ and the semigroup $\left\{ V(t)\right\} _{t\geq 0}$ iff
$\bullet $ $\mathcal{A}_{B}$ is strongly (weakly) compact in $E$;
$\bullet $ $\mathcal{A}_{B}$ is invariant, i.e. $V(t)\mathcal{A}_{B}=\mathcal{A}_{B}$, $\ \forall t\geq 0$;
$\bullet $ $\mathcal{A}_{B}$ attracts the image of $B$ in the strong (weak) topology, namely, for every neighborhood $\mathcal{O}$ of $\mathcal{A}_{B}$ in the strong (weak) topology of $E$ there exists a $T=T(\mathcal{O}$ $)>0$ such that $V(t)B\subset \mathcal{O}$ for every $t\geq T$.
Let $\{V(t)\}_{{\small t\geq 0}}$ be an operator semigroup on a linear normed space $E$. A set $\mathcal{A}\subset E$ is called a strong (weak) global attractor for the semigroup $\left\{ V(t)\right\} _{t\geq 0}$ iff
$\bullet $ $\mathcal{A}$ is strongly (weakly) compact in $E$;
$\bullet $ $\mathcal{A}$ is invariant, i.e. $V(t)\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}$, $\ \forall t\geq 0$;
$\bullet $ $\mathcal{A}$ attracts the images of all bounded subsets of $E$ in the strong (weak) topology, namely, for every bounded subset $B$ of $E$ and every neighborhood $\mathcal{O}$ of $\mathcal{A}$ in the strong (weak) topology of $E$ there exists a $T=T(B,\mathcal{O}$ $)>0$ such that $V(t)B\subset \mathcal{O}$ for every $t\geq T$.
By using the method of [@15], one can prove the following well-posedness result.
Assume that the conditions (2.2) and (2.3) are satisfied. Then, for any $T>0$ and $u_{0}\in W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1),$ $u_{1}\in L^{2}(0,1)$, the problem (2.1) admits a unique weak solution $u(t,x)$ which satisfies $u\in L^{\infty
}\left( 0,T;W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\right) ,$ $u_{t}\in L^{\infty }\left(
0,T;L^{2}(0,1)\right) \cap L^{2}\left( 0,T;H_{0}^{1}(0,1)\right) ,$ $u_{tt}\in L^{2}\left( 0,T;W^{-1,\frac{p}{p-1}}(0,1)\right) $ and the energy inequality$$E(u(t))+\int\limits_{s}^{t}\left\Vert u_{tx}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau \leq E(u(s)),\text{ \ \ }\forall t\geq
s\geq 0. \tag{2.4}$$Moreover, if $\ v\in $ $L^{\infty }\left( 0,T;W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\right) \cap
W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,T;L^{2}(0,1)\right) \cap W^{1,2}\left(
0,T;H_{0}^{1}(0,1)\right) \cap $$W^{2,2}(0,T;W^{-1,\frac{p}{p-1}}(0,1))$ is also a weak solution to (2.1) with initial data $(v_{0},v_{1})\in W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times $$L^{2}(0,1)$, then $$\left\Vert u(t)-v(t)\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(0,1)}+\left\Vert
u_{t}(t)-v_{t}(t)\right\Vert _{H^{-1}(0,1)}$$$$\leq C(T,\left\Vert (u_{0},u_{1})\right\Vert _{W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times
L^{2}(0,1)},\left\Vert (v_{0},v_{1})\right\Vert _{W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times
L^{2}(0,1)})$$$$\times \left( \left\Vert u_{0}-v_{0}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}(0,1)}+\left\Vert
u_{1}-v_{1}\right\Vert _{H^{-1}(0,1)}\right) \text{, \ \ }\forall t\in
\lbrack 0,T]\text{,} \tag{2.5}$$where $C:R^{+}\times R^{+}\times R^{+}\rightarrow R^{+}$ is a nondecreasing function with respect to each variable, $E(u(t))=\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert
u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}+\frac{1}{p}\left\Vert u_{x}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right)
}^{p}+\int\limits_{0}^{1}F(u(t,x))dx-\int\limits_{0}^{1}g(x)u(t,x)dx$ and $F(u)=\int\limits_{0}^{u}f(z)dz$.
By Theorem 2.1, it is immediately seen that the problem (2.1) generates a semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $, by the rule $S\left( t\right) \left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) =\left( u\left( t\right)
,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) $, where $u(t,x)$ is the weak solution of the problem (2.1).
Our main results are as follows.
Let the conditions (2.2) and (2.3) hold. Then, for every bounded subset $B$ of $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $ the semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$, generated by the problem (2.1), has a weak local attractor $\mathcal{A}_{B}$ in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times L^{2}(0,1)$. Moreover, the weak local attractor $\mathcal{A}_{B}$ attracts the image of $B$ in the strong topology of $H_{0}^{1}(0,1)\times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $.
If, in addition to the conditions (2.2) and (2.3), we assume that $p<4$, then the semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$ possesses a strong global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ in $W_{0}^{1,p}(0,1)\times
L^{2}(0,1) $ and $\mathcal{A=M}^{u}\left( \mathcal{N}\right) $. Moreover, the global attractor $\mathcal{A}$ is bounded in $W^{1,\infty }(0,1)\times $ $W^{1,\infty }(0,1)$. Here $\mathcal{M}^{u}\left( \mathcal{N}\right) $ is unstable manifold emanating from the set of stationary points $\mathcal{N}$ (for definition, see [@18 p. 359]).
We note that the existence of the strong global attractor in $W^{1,p}\times
L^{2}$, for $p\geq 4$ in one dimensional case and for $p>2$ in multidimensional case, is still an open question.
Weak local attractors
=====================
In this section, our aim is to prove the existence of the weak local attractors in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $ for the semigroup $\left\{ S\left( t\right) \right\} _{t\geq 0}$, generated by the problem (2.1). To this end, we need the following lemmas.
Let the conditions (2.2)-(2.3) hold and $B$ be a bounded subset of $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $. Then every sequence of the form $\left\{ S\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}\right\}
_{k=1}^{\infty }$, where $\left\{ \varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty
}\subset B$, $t_{k}\rightarrow \infty $, has a convergent subsequence in $H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $.
We first note, by (2.2)-(2.4), that $$\sup\limits_{t\geq 0}\sup\limits_{\varphi \in B}\left\Vert S\left( t\right)
\varphi \right\Vert _{W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left(
0,1\right) }<\infty . \tag{3.1}$$Let $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in B$ and $\left( u\left( t\right)
,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) =S\left( t\right) \left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) $. Denoting $v:=u_{t}$, by (2.1), we obtain$$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
v_{t}+Av=h, \\
v\left( 0\right) =u_{1},\end{array}\right. \tag{3.2}$$where $A:H^{2}(0,1)\cap H_{0}^{1}(0,1)\subset L^{2}\left( 0,1\right)
\rightarrow L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) ,$ $A=-\frac{\partial ^{2}}{\partial x^{2}}$ and $h=\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( \left\vert u_{x}\right\vert
^{p-2}u_{x}\right) -f\left( u\right) +g$. By the variation of parameters formula, from (3.2), we have $$v\left( t\right) =e^{-tA}u_{1}+\int\limits_{0}^{t}e^{-\left( t-\tau \right)
A}h\left( \tau \right) d\tau . \tag{3.3}$$By (3.1), it is easy to see that $$\left\Vert h\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{-1-\frac{p-2}{2p}}\left(
0,1\right) }\leq c_{1},\text{ \ \ }\forall t\geq 0.$$Hence, in (3.3), applying the following well known decay estimate, $$\left\Vert e^{-tA}\right\Vert _{\mathcal{L}\left( D(A^{s}),D(A^{\sigma
})\right) }$$$$\leq Me^{-\omega t}t^{-(\sigma -s)}\text{, }M\geq 1,\text{ }\omega >0\text{,
}t>0,\text{ }s\leq \sigma , \tag{3.4}$$which can be established for example by the method demonstrated in [@19 p. 116], and by using $D(A^{\tau })=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
H^{2\tau }(0,1),\text{ }\tau \in (-\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{4}] \\
H_{0}^{2\tau }(0,1),\text{ }\tau \in (\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4})\end{array}\right. $, we find$$\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1-\frac{p-2}{2p}-\delta }\left(
0,1\right) }\leq Mt^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\frac{p-2}{2p}-\delta \right)
}e^{-\omega t}\left\Vert u_{1}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }$$$$+M\int\limits_{0}^{t}e^{-\omega \left( t-\tau \right) }\left( t-\tau \right)
^{-1+\frac{\delta }{2}}\left\Vert h\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert _{H^{-1-\frac{p-2}{2p}}\left( 0,1\right) }d\tau$$$$\leq Mt^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\frac{p-2}{2p}-\delta \right) }e^{-\omega
t}\left\Vert u_{1}\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right)
}+c_{2}\int\limits_{0}^{t}e^{-\omega \left( t-\tau \right) }\left( t-\tau
\right) ^{-1+\frac{\delta }{2}}d\tau \leq \widehat{c}_{\delta },\text{ \ \ \
}\forall t\geq 1,$$where $\delta \in \left( 0,1-\frac{p-2}{2p}\right] $. Hence, we have$$\sup_{t\geq 1}\left\Vert u_{t}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1-\varepsilon
}\left( 0,1\right) }\leq \widetilde{c}_{\varepsilon }\text{, \ for }\varepsilon \in \left( \frac{p-2}{2p},1\right] . \tag{3.5}$$
On the other hand, by (2.2)-(2.4) and (3.1), for any $T_{0}\geq 1$, there exists a subsequence $\left\{ k_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ such that $t_{k_{m}}\geq T_{0}$ and$$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
S\left( t_{k_{m}}-T_{0}\right) \varphi _{k_{m}}\rightarrow \varphi _{0}\text{
weakly in }W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) \text{,} \\
u_{m}\rightarrow u\text{ weakly star in }L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty
;W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \right) \text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \\
u_{mt}\rightarrow u_{t}\text{ weakly star in }L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty
;L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) \right) \text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \\
u_{mt}\rightarrow u_{t}\text{ weakly in }L^{2}\left( 0,\infty
;H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) \right) \text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ } \\
u_{m}\left( t\right) \rightarrow u\left( t\right) \text{ weakly in }W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \text{, }\forall t\geq 0\text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ } \\
u_{mt}(t)\rightarrow u_{t}(t)\text{ weakly in }L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) \text{, }\forall t\geq 0\text{, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\end{array}\right. \tag{3.6}$$for some $\varphi _{0}\in W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}(0,1)$ and $u\in L^{\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \right)
\cap $ $W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,\infty ;L^{2}(0,1)\right) $, where $\left(
u_{m}(t),u_{mt}(t)\right) =S(t+t_{k_{m}}-T_{0})\varphi _{k_{m}}$. Now, replacing $u$ in the equation (2.1)$_{1}$ with $u_{m}$ and $u_{n}$, and then subtracting the obtained equations, we have the following equation: $$u_{mtt}(t,x)-u_{ntt}(t,x)-(u_{mtxx}(t,x)-u_{ntxx}(t,x))$$$$-\frac{\partial }{\partial x}(\left\vert u_{mx}(t,x)\right\vert
^{p-2}u_{mx}(t,x)-\left\vert u_{nx}(t,x)\right\vert ^{p-2}u_{nx}(t,x))$$$$+f\left( u_{m}(t,x)\right) -f\left( u_{n}(t,x)\right) =0. \tag{3.7}$$Testing the equation (3.7) with $2t\left( u_{m}-u_{n}\right) $ in $\left(
0,T\right) \times \left( 0,1\right) $ and considering the inequality$$\left( \left\vert x\right\vert ^{p-2}x-\left\vert y\right\vert
^{p-2}y\right) \left( x-y\right) \geq c\left\vert x-y\right\vert ^{p},
\tag{3.8}$$we find$$T\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( T\right) -u_{nx}\left( T\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}+c_{3}\int\limits_{0}^{T}t\left\Vert
u_{mx}\left( t\right) -u_{nx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left(
0,1\right) }^{p}dt$$$$\leq \left\Vert u_{m}\left( T\right) -u_{n}\left( T\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}+2\int\limits_{0}^{T}t\left\Vert u_{mt}\left(
t\right) -u_{nt}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}dt$$$$-2T\int\limits_{0}^{1}\left( u_{mt}\left( T,x\right) -u_{nt}\left(
T,x\right) \right) \left( u_{m}\left( T,x\right) -u_{n}\left( T,x\right)
\right) dx+\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right) -u_{nx}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}dt$$$$-2\int\limits_{0}^{T}\int\limits_{0}^{1}(f\left( u_{m}(t,x)\right) -f\left(
u_{n}(t,x)\right) )t\left( u_{m}\left( t,x\right) -u_{n}\left( t,x\right)
\right) dxdt. \tag{3.9}$$Now, considering the fourth term on the right side of (3.9), we get $$\int\limits_{0}^{T}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right) -u_{nx}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}dt\leq
c_{4}+\int\limits_{1}^{T}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right) -u_{nx}\left(
t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}dt$$$$\leq c_{4}+c_{3}\int\limits_{Q}t\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right)
-u_{nx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right)
}^{p}dt+\int\limits_{1}^{T}\left( \frac{1}{c_{3}t}\right) ^{\frac{2}{p-2}}dt$$$$\leq c_{4}+c_{3}\int\limits_{0}^{T}t\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right)
-u_{nx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right)
}^{p}dt+c_{5}\left( T^{\max \{0,\frac{p-4}{p-2}\}}+\ln (T)\right) ,\text{ \
\ }\forall T\geq 1, \tag{3.10}$$where $Q=\left\{ t\in \left( 0,T\right) :\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right)
-u_{nx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p-2}\geq
\frac{1}{c_{3}t}\right\} .$ By considering (3.10) in (3.9) and using (3.1), (3.5) and (3.6), we have $$\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\limsup\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty
}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( T\right) -u_{nx}\left( T\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}\leq \frac{c_{6}\left( T^{\max \{0,\frac{p-4}{p-2}\}}+\ln (T)\right) }{T},\text{ }\ \text{ }\forall T\geq 1.$$Choosing $T=T_{0}$ in the above inequality, we obtain$$\liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow \infty }\liminf\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty
}\left\Vert PS\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}-PS\left( t_{n}\right) \varphi
_{n}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) }\text{ }\leq \frac{c_{7}\left(
T_{0}^{\max \{0,\frac{p-4}{p-2}\}}+\ln (T_{0})\right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{T_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}},\text{ \ \ }\forall T_{0}\geq 1\text{, }$$and passing to limit as $T_{0}\rightarrow \infty $, we get$$\liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow \infty }\liminf\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty
}\left\Vert PS\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}-PS\left( t_{n}\right) \varphi
_{n}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) }=0\text{,}$$where $P:W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right)
\rightarrow W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) $ is the projector defined by $P\left( \varphi ,\psi \right) =\varphi $. Also, it can be immediately seen that for every subsequence $\left\{ k_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$, the following holds:$$\liminf\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\liminf\limits_{n\rightarrow \infty
}\left\Vert PS\left( t_{k_{m}}\right) \varphi _{k_{m}}-PS\left(
t_{k_{n}}\right) \varphi _{k_{n}}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right)
}=0. \tag{3.11}$$Now, we conclude that the sequence $\left\{ PS\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi
_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ has a convergent subsequence in $H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) $. If we assume the contrary, then, by the completeness of $H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) $, there exist $\varepsilon
_{0}>0$ and a subsequence $\left\{ k_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ such that$$\left\Vert PS\left( t_{k_{m}}\right) \varphi _{k_{m}}-PS\left(
t_{k_{n}}\right) \varphi _{k_{n}}\right\Vert _{H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right)
}\geq \varepsilon _{0},\text{ }m\neq n,$$which contradicts (3.11). Hence, together with (3.5), we complete the proof of the lemma.
Now, we define weak $\omega $-limit set of the trajectories emanating from a set $B\subset W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $ as follows:$$\omega _{w}\left( B\right) :=\bigcap\limits_{\tau \geq 0}\overline{\bigcup\limits_{t\geq \tau }S\left( t\right) B}^{w},$$where the bar over a set means weak closure in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right)
\times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $. It can be easily shown that $\varphi \in
\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ if and only if there exist sequences $\left\{
t_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$, $t_{k}\rightarrow \infty $ and $\left\{
\varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }\subset B$ such that $S\left(
t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}\rightarrow \varphi $ weakly in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left(
0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $. Moreover, we state the following invariance property of the set $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $:
For any bounded set $B\subset W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times
L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $, the set $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ is invariant.
Let $\psi \in \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ and $z=S\left( t\right) \psi $ for $t\geq 0$. Then, by the definition of $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $, there exist the sequences $\left\{ t_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$, $t_{k}\rightarrow \infty $ and $\left\{ \psi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty
}\subset B$ such that $S\left( t_{k}\right) \psi _{k}\rightarrow \psi $ weakly in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $. Also, by Lemma 3.1, there exists a subsequence $\left\{ k_{m}\right\}
_{m=1}^{\infty }$ such that $PS\left( t_{k_{m}}\right) \psi
_{k_{m}}\rightarrow P\psi $ strongly in $H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) $. Therefore, setting $\tau _{k_{m}}:=t+t_{k_{m}}$, by (2.5), we have $$S\left( \tau _{k_{m}}\right) \psi _{k_{m}}=S\left( t\right) S\left(
t_{k_{m}}\right) \psi _{k_{m}}\rightarrow S\left( t\right) \psi =z\text{ \
weakly in }W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) ,$$which yields that $z\in \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $. Hence, we have that $S\left( t\right) \omega _{w}\left( B\right) \subset \omega _{w}\left(
B\right) $.
On the other hand, if $\psi \in \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $, then there exist $\left\{ t_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$, $t_{k}\rightarrow \infty $ and $\left\{ \psi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }\subset B$ such that $S\left(
t_{k}\right) \psi _{k}\rightarrow \psi $ weakly in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left(
0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $. Now, define $\varphi
_{k}=S\left( t_{k}-t\right) \psi _{k}$, for $t_{k}\geq t\geq 0$. By (3.1), there exists a subsequence $\left\{ k_{m}\right\} _{m=1}^{\infty }$ such that $\varphi _{k_{m}}\rightarrow \varphi $ weakly in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left(
0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $ for some $\varphi \in
W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $, which gives that $\varphi \in \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $. Moreover, by Lemma 3.1, passing to a subsequence, we have $P\varphi _{k_{m_{n}}}\rightarrow P\varphi
$ strongly in $H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) .$ Since $$S\left( t_{k_{m_{n}}}\right) \psi _{k_{m_{n}}}=S\left( t\right) S\left(
t_{k_{m_{n}}}-t\right) \psi _{k_{m_{n}}}=S\left( t\right) \varphi
_{k_{m_{n}}},$$applying (2.5), we observe that $S\left( t_{k_{m_{n}}}\right) \psi
_{k_{m_{n}}}\rightarrow S\left( t\right) \varphi $ weakly in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) .$ Therefore, we conclude that $\psi =S\left( t\right) \varphi $, which gives that $\omega
_{w}\left( B\right) \subset $ $S\left( t\right) \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $.
Thus, Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 imply Theorem 2.2.
Regular strong global attractor
===============================
We begin with the following regularity result.
In addition to the conditions (2.2)-(2.3), assume that $p<4$ and $B$ is a bounded subset of $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left(
0,1\right) $. Then, the set $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ is bounded in $W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,1\right) \times W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,1\right) $.
Let $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) \in \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $. By the invariance of $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $, it follows that there exists an invariant trajectory (see [@20 p. 157]) $\left\{ \left( u\left(
t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) :t\in
\mathbb{R}
\right\} \subset \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ such that $$\left( u\left( 0\right) ,u_{t}\left( 0\right) \right) =\left(
u_{0},u_{1}\right) . \tag{4.1}$$Since $u$ is the solution of (2.1)$_{1}$, by (2.2)-(2.4), we have$$\left\Vert \left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) \right\Vert
_{W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right)
}+\int\limits_{s}^{t}\left\Vert u_{tx}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau \leq c_{1}\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq s,
\tag{4.2}$$where the constant $c_{1}$ depends on $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ and is independent of the trajectory $\left\{ \left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left(
t\right) \right) :t\in
\mathbb{R}
\right\} $.
Now, denoting $v\left( t\right) :=u_{t}\left( t\right) $ as in the proof of Lemma 3.1, by (2.1)$_{1}$, we have$$v_{t}+Av=h. \tag{4.3}$$Hence, similar to (3.5), we have$$\left\Vert v\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{1-\frac{p-2}{2p}-\delta }\left(
0,1\right) }\leq c_{2}\left( \left( t-s\right) ^{-\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\frac{p-2}{2p}-\delta \right) }+1\right) \text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq s,$$where $\delta \in \left( 0,1-\frac{p-2}{2p}\right] $. Passing to the limit as $s\rightarrow -\infty $ in the above inequality, we obtain$$\left\Vert u_{tx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
0,1\right) }\leq c_{3}\text{, \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
, \tag{4.4}$$where $\varepsilon \in \left( \frac{p-2}{2p},1\right] $ and the constant $c_{3}$, as the previous constants, is independent of the trajectory $\left\{
\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) :t\in
\mathbb{R}
\right\} $.
Similarly, denoting $\widehat{v}\left( t\right) :=v_{t}\left( t\right) $, from (4.3), we have$$\widehat{v}\left( t\right) =e^{-A\left( t-s\right) }\widehat{v}\left(
s\right) +\int\limits_{s}^{t}e^{-A\left( t-\tau \right) }h^{\prime }\left(
\tau \right) d\tau ,\text{ \ \ }\forall t\geq s. \tag{4.5}$$By (4.2), it is easy to verify that$$\left\Vert h^{\prime }\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{-1-\frac{p-2}{p}}\left( 0,1\right) }\leq c_{4}\left\Vert u_{tx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) },\text{ \ \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
. \tag{4.6}$$So, applying (3.4) to (4.5) and considering (4.2) and (4.6), we get$$\left\Vert \widehat{v}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{-\frac{p-2}{p}-\delta
}\left( 0,1\right) }\leq c_{5}\left( t-s\right) ^{-1+\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{p-2}{p}+\delta \right) }\left\Vert \widehat{v}\left( s\right) \right\Vert
_{D(A^{-1})}$$$$+c_{5}\int\limits_{s}^{t}e^{-\omega \left( t-\tau \right) }\left( t-\tau
\right) ^{-\frac{1-\delta }{2}}\left\Vert u_{tx}\left( \tau \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }d\tau$$$$\leq c_{5}\left( t-s\right) ^{-1+\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{p-2}{p}+\delta
\right) }\left\Vert u_{tt}\left( s\right) \right\Vert _{D(A^{-1})}$$$$+c_{5}\left( \int\limits_{s}^{t}\left\Vert u_{tx}\left( \tau \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau \right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(
\int\limits_{s}^{t}e^{-2\omega \left( t-\tau \right) }\left( t-\tau \right)
^{-\left( 1-\delta \right) }d\tau \right) ^{\frac{1}{2}}$$$$\leq c_{6}\left( \left( t-s\right) ^{-1+\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{p-2}{p}+\delta \right) }+1\right) ,\text{\ \ \ }\forall t\geq s,$$where $\delta \in (0,1]$ and the constant $c_{6}$, as the previous constants $c_{i}$ ($i=\overline{1,5}$), is independent of the trajectory $\left\{
\left( u\left( t\right) ,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) :t\in
\mathbb{R}
\right\} $. Passing to the limit as $s\rightarrow -\infty $ in the last inequality, we obtain$$\left\Vert u_{tt}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
0,1\right) }\leq c_{6},\text{ \ \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
, \tag{4.7}$$where $\varepsilon \in (\frac{p-2}{p},\frac{p-2}{p}+1]$.
Now, denoting $w\left( t,x\right) :=u_{x}\left( t-1,x\right) $, by (2.1)$_{1} $, we find$$\frac{\partial }{\partial x}\left( w_{t}\left( t,x\right) +\left\vert
w\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}w\left( t,x\right) \right) =\kappa
\left( t,x\right) , \tag{4.8}$$where $\kappa \left( t,x\right) :=u_{tt}\left( t-1,x\right) +f\left( u\left(
t-1,x\right) \right) -g\left( x\right) $. Choosing $\varepsilon \in \left(
\frac{p-2}{p},\frac{1}{2}\right) $, by (4.2), (4.4) and (4.7), we have$$\left( w_{t}+\left\vert w\right\vert ^{p-2}w\right) \in L^{\infty }\left(
\mathbb{R}
;H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) \right) \text{ and }\kappa \in L^{\infty
}\left(
\mathbb{R}
;H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) \right) .$$Hence, applying Lemma A.1, by (4.8), we obtain that $\left( w_{t}+\left\vert
w\right\vert ^{p-2}w\right) \in L^{\infty }\left(
\mathbb{R}
;C\left[ 0,1\right] \right) $ and$$\left\vert w_{t}\left( t,x\right) +\left\vert w\left( t,x\right) \right\vert
^{p-2}w\left( t,x\right) \right\vert \leq \widehat{\kappa }\left( t\right)
\text{, \ \ }\forall \left( t,x\right) \in
\mathbb{R}
\times \left[ 0,1\right] , \tag{4.9}$$where $\widehat{\kappa }\left( t\right) :=\left\Vert w_{t}\left( t\right)
+\left\vert w\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}w\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) }+\left\Vert \kappa \left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) }$. As mentioned above, by (4.2), (4.4) and (4.7), it follows that$$\widehat{\kappa }\left( t\right) \leq c_{7}\text{, \ }\forall t\in
\mathbb{R}
.$$Therefore, applying Lemma A.2 to (4.9), we get$$\left\vert w_{t}\left( t,\cdot \right) \right\vert +\left\vert w\left(
t,\cdot \right) \right\vert \leq c_{8}\text{,\ \ \ a.e. \ in \ }\left[ 0,1\right] ,$$for every $t\in \left[ s_{0},1\right] $, where $s_{0}\in (\frac{2}{p},1)$. Choosing $t=1$ in the last inequality, by (4.1) and the definition of $w\left( t,x\right) $, we obtain $$\left\Vert u_{0x}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) }+\left\Vert
u_{1x}\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) }\leq c_{8}.$$The last inequality completes the proof, because the constant $c_{8}$ is independent of $\left( u_{0},u_{1}\right) $.
Now, we are in a position to prove the following asymptotic compactness result.
Let the conditions of Lemma 4.1 hold. Then every sequence of the form $\left\{ S\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$, where $\left\{ \varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }\subset B$, $t_{k}\rightarrow
\infty $, has a convergent subsequence in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right)
\times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $.
Since Lemma 3.1 implies that $\left\{ S\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi
_{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ has a convergent subsequence in $H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $, it is sufficient to prove that $\left\{ PS\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi _{k}\right\}
_{k=1}^{\infty }$ admits a convergent subsequence in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left(
0,1\right) $. Let $u_{m}(t,x)$ and $u(t,x)$ are the same functions as in the proof of Lemma 3.1. Then, by Lemma 3.1, beside (3.6), we also have$$S\left( t_{k_{m}}-T_{0}\right) \varphi _{k_{m}}\rightarrow \varphi _{0}\in
\omega _{w}(B)\text{ \ strongly in }H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) \times
L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) \text{,}$$and consequently, by (2.5),$$(u(t),u_{t}(t))=S(t)\varphi _{0}\text{ and\ }u_{m}\left( t\right)
\rightarrow u\left( t\right) \text{ strongly in }H_{0}^{1}\left( 0,1\right) ,\text{\ \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{.} \tag{4.10}$$Now, putting $u_{m}$ instead of $u$ in (2.1), by (2.2)-(2.4), we have$$\left\Vert u_{m}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{W^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right)
}+\left\Vert u_{mt}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right)
}+\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mtx}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau \leq c_{1},\text{ \ }\forall t\geq 0.$$Also, putting $u_{m}$ instead of $u$ in (2.1) and testing the obtained equation by $u_{m}$ in $\left( 0,t\right) \times \left( 0,1\right) $, we find$$\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}d\tau
+\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}f\left( u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right)
\right) u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau$$$$-\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}g\left( x\right) u_{m}\left( \tau
,x\right) dxd\tau =\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mt}\left( \tau \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau$$$$-\int\limits_{0}^{1}u_{mt}\left( t,x\right) u_{m}\left( t,x\right)
dx+\int\limits_{0}^{1}u_{mt}\left( 0,x\right) u_{m}\left( 0,x\right) dx$$$$-\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
0,1\right) }^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( 0\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2},\text{ \ \ }\forall t\geq 0,$$which, together with the last inequality, yields$$\left\vert \frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mt}\left( \tau
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau +\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}d\tau \right.$$$$+\left. \frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}f\left( u_{m}\left(
\tau ,x\right) \right) u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau -\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}g\left( x\right) u_{m}\left( \tau
,x\right) dxd\tau \right\vert \leq c_{2}\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0.
\tag{4.11}$$Similarly, for $u\left( t,x\right) $, we have$$\left\vert \frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{t}\left( \tau \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau +\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{x}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}d\tau \right.$$$$\left. +\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}f\left( u\left(
\tau ,x\right) \right) u\left( \tau ,x\right) dxd\tau -\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}g\left( x\right) u\left( \tau
,x\right) dxd\tau \right\vert \leq c_{3}\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0.
\tag{4.12}$$By (4.11)-(4.12), we get$$\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mt}\left( \tau \right)
\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau +\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}d\tau$$$$\leq c_{2}+c_{3}+\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{t}\left( \tau
\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}d\tau +\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\Vert u_{x}\left( \tau \right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}d\tau$$$$+\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}\left[ f\left( u\left(
\tau ,x\right) \right) u\left( \tau ,x\right) -g\left( x\right) u\left( \tau
,x\right) \right.$$$$\left. -f\left( u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) u_{m}\left( \tau
,x\right) +g\left( x\right) u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right] dxd\tau ,$$and consequently$$\int\limits_{0}^{t}E\left( u_{m}\left( \tau \right) \right) d\tau \leq
c_{2}+c_{3}+\int\limits_{0}^{t}E\left( u\left( \tau \right) \right) d\tau
+\Lambda _{m}\left( t\right) \text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0, \tag{4.13}$$where $$\Lambda _{m}\left( t\right) :=\frac{1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}\left[ f\left( u\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) u\left( \tau
,x\right) -f\left( u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) u_{m}\left( \tau
,x\right) \right] dxd\tau$$$$+\frac{p-1}{p}\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}g\left( x\right) \left(
u\left( \tau ,x\right) -u_{m}\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) dxd\tau$$$$+\int\limits_{0}^{t}\int\limits_{0}^{1}\left[ F\left( u_{m}\left( \tau
,x\right) \right) -F\left( u\left( \tau ,x\right) \right) \right] dxd\tau .$$By (3.6), it is easy to see that$$\lim\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\Lambda _{m}\left( t\right) =0\text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0\text{.}$$Hence, passing to the limit in (4.13), we obtain$$\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\int\limits_{0}^{t}E\left( u_{m}\left(
\tau \right) \right) d\tau \leq c_{4}+\int\limits_{0}^{t}E\left( u\left(
\tau \right) \right) d\tau \text{, \ \ }\forall t\geq 0. \tag{4.14}$$Since $\varphi _{0}\in \omega _{w}\left( B\right) $, by the invariance of $\
\omega _{w}\left( B\right) $ and Lemma 4.1, we have $\left( u\left( t\right)
,u_{t}\left( t\right) \right) \in $ $\omega _{w}\left( B\right) \subset
W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,1\right) \times W^{1,\infty }\left( 0,1\right) $. Hence, testing (2.1) by $u_{t}$ in $\left( 0,t\right) \times \left(
0,1\right) $, we find the energy equality$$E\left( u\left( t\right) \right) +\int\limits_{\tau }^{t}\left\Vert
u_{xt}\left( s\right) \right\Vert _{L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) }^{2}ds=E\left(
u\left( \tau \right) \right) \text{, \ }0\leq \tau \leq t. \tag{4.15}$$Now, applying the energy inequality (2.4) to the left hand side of (4.14) and the energy equality (4.15) to the right hand side of (4.14), and taking into account (3.6) , we get$$\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }tE\left( u_{m}\left( t\right) \right)
\leq c_{4}+tE\left( u\left( t\right) \right) ,$$and consequently$$\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}\leq \frac{pc_{4}}{t}+\left\Vert
u_{x}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p},\text{ \ }\forall t>0. \tag{4.16}$$By using (3.6)$_{5}$ and (4.10), we also obtain$$\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\int\limits_{0}^{1}\left( \left\vert
u_{mx}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}u_{mx}\left( t,x\right)
-\left\vert u_{x}\left( t,x\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}u_{x}\left( t,x\right)
\right)$$$$\times \left( u_{mx}\left( t,x\right) -u_{x}\left( t,x\right) \right)
dx=\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}-\left\Vert u_{x}\left( t\right)
\right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }^{p}. \tag{4.17}$$Therefore, taking into account (3.8), by (4.16)-(4.17), we have$$\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty }\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right)
-u_{x}\left( t\right) \right\Vert _{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }\leq \frac{c_{5}}{t^{\frac{1}{p}}},\text{\ \ }\forall t>0,$$and consequently$$\limsup\limits_{k\rightarrow \infty }\limsup\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty
}\left\Vert u_{mx}\left( t\right) -u_{kx}\left( t\right) \right\Vert
_{L^{p}\left( 0,1\right) }\leq \frac{2c_{5}}{t^{\frac{1}{p}}},\text{ \ }\forall t>0.$$Taking $t=T_{0}$ in the last inequality, we get$^{{}}$$$\liminf\limits_{k\rightarrow \infty }\liminf\limits_{m\rightarrow \infty
}\left\Vert PS\left( t_{m}\right) \varphi _{m}-PS\left( t_{k}\right) \varphi
_{k}\right\Vert _{W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) }=0.$$Thus, repeating the arguments done at the end of the proof of Lemma 3.1, we obtain that the sequence $\left\{ P\left( S\left( t_{k}\right) \right)
\varphi _{k}\right\} _{k=1}^{\infty }$ has a convergent subsequence in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) $.
From (2.4), it follows that the problem (2.1) admits a strict Lyapunov function$$L\left( u,v\right) =\frac{1}{2}\left\Vert v\right\Vert _{L^{2}\left(
0,1\right) }^{2}+\frac{1}{p}\left\Vert u_{x}\right\Vert _{L^{p}\left(
0,1\right) }^{p}+\int\limits_{0}^{1}F(u(x))dx-\int\limits_{0}^{1}g\left(
x\right) u\left( x\right) dx$$in $W_{0}^{1,p}\left( 0,1\right) \times L^{2}\left( 0,1\right) $. Hence, by Lemma 4.1, Lemma 4.2 and \[18, Corollary 7.5.7\], we obtain Theorem 2.3.
If $f\in H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) $ and $f^{\prime }\in
H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) $, then $f\in C\left[ 0,1\right] $ and $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{C\left[ 0,1\right] }\leq c\left( \left\Vert
f\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) }+\left\Vert f^{\prime
}\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) }\right) , \tag{A.1}$$where $\varepsilon \in \lbrack 0,\frac{1}{2})$.
Firstly, let us prove density of $\mathcal{D}\left[ 0,1\right] $ in the linear normed space $X=\left\{ f:f\in H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right)
,\right. $$\left. f^{\prime }\in H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) \right\} $ endowed with the norm $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{X}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon
}\left( 0,1\right) }+\left\Vert f^{\prime }\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon
}\left( 0,1\right) }.$$Let us define a linear continuous functional $\phi $ on $X$ such that$$\phi \left( v\right) :=\left\langle u_{0},v\right\rangle +\left\langle
u_{1},v^{\prime }\right\rangle ,$$where $u_{0},u_{1}\in H^{\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) $. Assume that$$\phi \left( \varphi \right) =0, \tag{A.2}$$for every $\varphi \in $ $\mathcal{D}\left[ 0,1\right] $. To prove that $\overline{\mathcal{D}\left[ 0,1\right] }^{X}=X$, it is sufficient to show that$$\phi \left( v\right) =0,$$for every $v\in X.$ Let$$\widehat{u}_{i}\left( x\right) :=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
u_{i}\left( x\right) ,\text{ }x\in \left( 0,1\right) , \\
0,\text{ }\mathbb{R}
\backslash \left( 0,1\right)\end{array}\right. ,\text{ }i=0,1,$$and$$\widehat{\varphi }\left( x\right) :=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\varphi \left( x\right) ,\text{ }x\in \left[ 0,1\right] , \\
\varphi \left( 1\right) ,\text{ }x>1, \\
\varphi \left( 0\right) ,\text{ }x<0,\end{array}\right.$$where $\varphi \in $ $\mathcal{D}\left[ 0,1\right] $. In addition, let us denote $\widetilde{\varphi }\left( x\right) :=\rho \left( x\right) \widehat{\varphi }\left( x\right) $, where $\rho \in \mathcal{D}\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) $ and $\rho \left( x\right) =1$, for $x\in \left[ 0,1\right] $. Since $\widetilde{\varphi }\in H^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) $, by (A.2), it follows that$$\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}
}\widehat{u}_{0}\left( x\right) \widetilde{\varphi }\left( x\right)
dx+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}
}\widehat{u}_{1}\left( x\right) \frac{d}{dx}\widetilde{\varphi }\left(
x\right) dx=0,$$and consequently$$\frac{d}{dx}\widehat{u}_{1}\left( x\right) =\widehat{u}_{0}\left( x\right) .$$The last equality gives us that $\widehat{u}_{1}\in H^{1+\varepsilon }\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) $, and consequently $u_{1}\in H_{0}^{1+\varepsilon }\left(
0,1\right) $. Hence, by the definition of $\phi $, we get$$\phi \left( v\right) =\left\langle u_{0},v\right\rangle +\left\langle
u_{1},v^{\prime }\right\rangle$$$$=\left\langle u_{0},v\right\rangle -\left\langle u_{1}^{\prime
},v\right\rangle =\left\langle u_{0}-u_{1}^{\prime },v\right\rangle =0,$$for every $v\in X$.
Now, to complete the proof of the lemma, it is sufficient to prove (A.1) for $f\in \mathcal{D}\left[ 0,1\right] $. Let $f\in \mathcal{D}\left[ 0,1\right]
$, $\alpha \in \mathcal{D[}0,1)$ and $\alpha (x)=1$, for $x\in \mathcal{[}0,\frac{1}{2}]$. Define $\widetilde{f}\left( x\right) :=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha \left( x\right) f\left( x\right) ,\text{ }x\in \lbrack 0,1), \\
0,\text{ }x>1,\end{array}\right. $ and $\Phi \left( x\right) :=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\widetilde{f}\left( x\right) ,\text{ }x>0, \\
\widetilde{f}\left( -x\right) ,\text{ }x\leq 0.\end{array}\right. $ It is easy to verify that $\Phi \in H^{1}\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) $ and$$\left\Vert \Phi \right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) }+\left\Vert \Phi ^{\prime }\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) }\leq c_{1}\left( \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
0,1\right) }+\left\Vert f^{\prime }\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
0,1\right) }\right) . \tag{A.3}$$On the other hand, by using Fourier transformation, one can show that $$\left\Vert \Phi \right\Vert _{H^{1-\varepsilon }\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) }\leq c_{2}\left( \left\Vert \Phi \right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon
}\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) }+\left\Vert \Phi ^{\prime }\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) }\right) . \tag{A.4}$$Taking into account the continuous embedding $H^{1-\varepsilon }\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) \hookrightarrow C_{b}\left(
\mathbb{R}
\right) $, by (A.3) and (A.4), we obtain$$\left\Vert \alpha f\right\Vert _{C\left[ 0,1\right] }\leq c_{3}\left(
\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) }+\left\Vert
f^{\prime }\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right) }\right) .$$Similarly, one can prove$$\left\Vert \left( 1-\alpha \right) f\right\Vert _{C\left[ 0,1\right] }\leq
c_{4}\left( \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right)
}+\left\Vert f^{\prime }\right\Vert _{H^{-\varepsilon }\left( 0,1\right)
}\right) ,$$which, together with the previous inequality, yields (A.1).
Let $f\in L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) $ and $p>2$. Then, for every $u\in
W^{1,1}\left( 0,1\right) $ such that$$\left\vert u^{\prime }+\left\vert u\right\vert ^{p-2}u\right\vert \leq f\text{ \ \ a.e. in }\left( 0,1\right) , \tag{A.5}$$the following estimates hold:$$\left\Vert u\right\Vert _{C\left[ s_{0},1\right] }\leq \left( \frac{p}{p-2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) }\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-2}}, \tag{A.6}$$and$$\left\Vert u^{\prime }\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( s_{0},1\right) }\leq
\left( \frac{p}{p-2}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right)
}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p-2}}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left(
0,1\right) }, \tag{A.7}$$where $s_{0}=1-\frac{\left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-2}}-1}{\left(
\frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p-2}}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty
}\left( 0,1\right) }}$.
Since (A.7) immediately follows from (A.5) and (A.6), we will only prove (A.6). We consider the following cases:
*Case 1.* Assume that* *$\left\vert u\left( 1\right)
\right\vert \leq 1$. Then, by the continuity of $u$, the set $E:=\left\{
t\in \left[ 0,1\right) :\left\vert u\left( s\right) \right\vert <\right. $$\left. \left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-2}}\text{, for }s\in \left[
t,1\right] \right\} $ is nonempty. Let $\alpha =\inf E$. If $\alpha =0$, then from the definition of $E$, we get (A.6). If $\alpha \in \left(
0,1\right) $, then again by the definition of $E$ and the continuity of $u$, we have$$\left\vert u\left( \alpha \right) \right\vert =\left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-2}},$$$$\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert <\left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-2}},\text{ \ }\forall t\in \left( \alpha ,1\right] , \tag{A.8}$$and consequently, by (A.5),$$\left\vert u^{\prime }\right\vert <\left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p-2}}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) },\text{ \ a.e.
in }(\alpha ,1).$$Considering the last inequality, we find$$\left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{1}{p-2}}=\left\vert u\left( \alpha
\right) \right\vert \leq \left\vert u\left( 1\right) \right\vert
+\int\limits_{\alpha }^{1}\left\vert u^{\prime }\left( t\right) \right\vert
dt$$$$\leq 1+\left( \left( \frac{p}{p-2}\right) ^{\frac{p-1}{p-2}}+\left\Vert
f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) }\right) \left( 1-\alpha \right)
,$$which yields $\alpha \leq s_{0}$. Thus, from (A.8), we obtain (A.6).
*Case 2.* Assume that* *$\left\vert u\left( 1\right)
\right\vert >1$. Then the set $\widetilde{E}:=\left\{ t\in \left[ 0,1\right)
:\left\vert u\left( s\right) \right\vert >1,\text{ for }s\in \lbrack
t,1]\right\} $ is nonempty. Let $\beta =\inf \widetilde{E}$. Multiplying both sides of (A.5) by $\left( p-2\right) \left\vert u\left( t\right)
\right\vert ^{p-3}e^{(p-2)\int\limits_{0}^{t}\left\vert u\left( \tau \right)
\right\vert ^{p-2}d\tau }$ and integrating the obtained inequality over $\left( s,T\right) $, we get$$\left\vert u\left( T\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}\leq e^{-\left( p-2\right)
\int\limits_{s}^{T}\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert
^{p-2}dt}\left\vert u\left( s\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}$$$$+\left( p-2\right) \left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right)
}\int\limits_{s}^{T}e^{-\left( p-2\right) \int\limits_{t}^{T}\left\vert
u\left( \tau \right) \right\vert ^{p-2}d\tau }\left\vert u\left( t\right)
\right\vert ^{p-3}dt\text{, \ \ }\beta \leq s\leq T\leq 1.$$By the definition of $\beta $, we have$$\left( p-2\right) \int\limits_{s}^{T}e^{-\left( p-2\right)
\int\limits_{t}^{T}\left\vert u\left( \tau \right) \right\vert ^{p-2}d\tau
}\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{p-3}dt$$$$\leq \left( p-2\right) \int\limits_{s}^{T}e^{-\left( p-2\right)
\int\limits_{t}^{T}\left\vert u\left( \tau \right) \right\vert ^{p-2}d\tau
}\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}dt$$$$=\int\limits_{s}^{T}\frac{d}{dt}e^{-\left( p-2\right)
\int\limits_{t}^{T}\left\vert u\left( \tau \right) \right\vert ^{p-2}d\tau
}dt\leq 1,$$for every $s\in \lbrack \beta ,T]$. Hence, by the last two inequalities, we find$$\left\vert u\left( T\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}\leq e^{-\left( p-2\right)
\int\limits_{s}^{T}\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert
^{p-2}dt}\left\vert u\left( s\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}+\left\Vert
f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) },\text{ \ \ }\beta \leq s\leq
T\leq 1. \tag{A.9}$$Now, if $\beta \in \left( 0,s_{0}\right] $, then by the continuity of $u$, we have $u\left( \beta \right) =1$. So, choosing $s=\beta $ in (A.9), we obtain (A.6). If $\beta \in \left( s_{0},1\right) $, then again choosing $s=\beta $ in (A.9) and taking into account that $u\left( \beta \right) =1$, we get$$\left\vert u\left( T\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}\leq 1+\left\Vert f\right\Vert
_{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) },\ \ \ \forall T\in \left[ \beta ,1\right] .$$Since $u\left( \beta \right) =1$, taking $t=\beta $ instead of $t=1$ and applying the procedure of Case 1, one can show that$$\left\vert u\left( t\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}\leq \frac{p}{p-2},$$for every $t\in \left[ s_{0},\beta \right] .$ So, by the last two inequalities, we again obtain (A.6). If $\beta =0$, then integrating (A.9) over $\left[ 0,T\right] $ with respect to $s$, we get$$T\left\vert u\left( T\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}\leq \frac{1}{p-2}+T\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) },$$and consequently$$\left\vert u\left( T\right) \right\vert ^{p-2}\leq \frac{1}{s_{0}(p-2)}+\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) }<\left\Vert
f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) }$$$$+\frac{1}{\left( 1-\frac{p-2}{p}\right) (p-2)}<\frac{p}{p-2}+\left\Vert
f\right\Vert _{L^{\infty }\left( 0,1\right) },$$for every $T\in \lbrack s_{0},1]$. The last inequality gives us (A.6).
[99]{} V. Kalantarov, Attractors for some nonlinear problems of mathematical physics, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov, (LOMI), 152 (1986) 50–54.
J.M. Ghidaglia and A. Marzocchi, Longtime behaviour of strongly damped wave equations, global attractors and their dimension, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 22 (1991) 879–895.
S. Zhou, Global attractor for strongly damped nonlinear wave equations, Funct. Diff. Eqns., 6 (1999) 451–470.
A.N. Carvalho and J.W. Cholewa, Attractors for strongly damped wave equations with critical nonlinearities, Pacific J. Math., 207 (2002) 287–310.
V. Pata and M. Squassina, On the strongly damped wave equation, Commun. Math. Phys., 253 (2005) 511–533.
V. Pata and S. Zelik, Smooth attractors for strongly damped wave equations, Nonlinearity, 19 (2006) 1495–1506.
M. Yang and C. Sun, Attractors for strongly damped wave equations, Nonlinear Anal.: Real World Applications, 10 (2009) 1097-1100.
F. Dell’Oro and V. Pata, Long-term analysis of strongly damped nonlinear wave equations, Nonlinearity, 24 (2011) 3413–3435.
F. Dell’Oro and V. Pata, Strongly damped wave equations with critical nonlinearities, Nonlinear Anal., 75 (2012) 5723–5735.
A.Kh. Khanmamedov, Global attractors for strongly damped wave equations with displacement dependent damping and nonlinear source term of critical exponent, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A, 31 (2011) 119–138.
A.Kh. Khanmamedov, Strongly damped wave equation with exponential nonlinearities, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 419 (2014) 663–687.
A.Kh. Khanmamedov, On the existence of a global attractor for the wave equation with nonlinear strong damping perturbed by nonmonotone term, Nonlinear Anal., 69 (2008) 3372-3385.
I. Chueshov and I. Lasiecka, Long time behavior of second order evolution equations with nonlinear damping. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 195 (2008).
F. Chen, B. Guo and P. Wang, Long time behavior of strongly damped nonlinear wave equations, J. Diff. Equations, 147 (1998) 231-241.
V. Kalantarov and S. Zelik, Finite-dimensional attractors for the quasi-linear strongly-damped wave equation, J. Diff. Equations, 247 (2009) 1120-1155.
J.M. Ball, Global attractors for semilinear wave equations, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A, 10 (2004) 31–52.
A.Kh. Khanmamedov, Global attractors for von Karman equations with nonlinear interior dissipation, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 318 (2006) 92–101.
I. Chueshov and I. Lasiecka, Von Karman Evolution Equations:Well-posedness and long-time dynamics, Springer, New York, 2010.
S. Larsson and V. Thomee, Partial Differential Equations with Numerical Methods, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1$^{\text{st}}$ edition, 2003.
A.V. Babin and M.I. Vishik, Attractors for evolution equations, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Nonlinear effects responsible for elongation of the plasma wave period are numerically studied with the emphasis on two-dimensionality of the wave. The limitation on the wakefield amplitude imposed by detuning of the wave and the driver is found.'
author:
- 'K.V.Lotov'
title: 'Excitation of two-dimensional plasma wakefields by trains of equidistant particle bunches'
---
Plasma wakefield acceleration (PWFA) driven by charged particle beams is one of many advanced accelerating techniques aimed at future ultimate energy or compact particle accelerators. Originally, it was proposed to excite the plasma wave for PWFA by a train of equally spaced short electron bunches [@Chen]. Later, the focus has shifted to single electron bunches operating in the so-called blowout regime [@PRA44-6189; @PoP9-1845; @Nat.445-741].
Recently, the interest in multi-bunch wave excitation was regenerated in the context of the proton-driven PWFA. The existing proton beams have huge energy contents. It is attractive to use these beams as drivers for boosting electrons well beyond nowadays energy frontiers [@NatPhys9-363; @PoP18-103101]. However, for efficient excitation of the wakefield, the proton bunch must be reshaped to have a longitudinal structure of the plasma wavelength scale [@PRST-AB13-041301]. Reshaping by conventional methods is too expensive and inefficient, so it was proposed to use the plasma for chopping the initially long proton bunch into a train of short micro-bunches [@PPCF53-014003]. The mechanism of chopping is the self-modulation instability that produces the micro-bunches spaced one plasma period apart [@PRL104-255003]. The question thus arises of how strong wakefield can be achieved with trains of equidistant particle bunches. In the paper we address this question for beam parameters of interest for the proton-driven PWFA.
A similar question arose in the context of plasma beatwave acceleration (PBWA) [@Taj]. In PBWA, the plasma wave is produced by the beating of two laser beams whose frequencies differ by approximately the plasma frequency $\omega_p = \sqrt{4 \pi n_0 e^2/m}$, where $n_0$ is the plasma density, $e$ is the elementary charge, and $m$ is the electron mass. The wave growth saturates because of a nonlinear shift in the plasma wave frequency [@PRL29-701; @PF30-904; @RMP81-1229]. We show that the limitation observed in PWFA is qualitatively the same, but quantitatively is different for several reasons.
This study was motivated by the observation that the wakefield growth in simulations of self-modulating proton beams saturates at about 40% of the wavebreaking field $E_0 = m c \omega_p/e$, where $c$ is the speed of light. Substantial variations of beam parameters do not result in corresponding increase of the peak field. To illustrate this statement, we show in Fig.\[f1-growth\] the wakefield excited by various self-modulating beams in the plasma. As a measure of the wakefield amplitude, we take the maximum value $\Phi_\text{max} (z)$ of the wakefield potential $\Phi (z,t)$ on the beam axis: $$\label{e1}
\Phi (z,t) = \omega_p \int_{-\infty}^t E_z(z, t') \, d t',$$ where $E_z$ is the on-axis electric field. It is more convenient to characterize the wakefield by the potential rather then by the electric field itself since the latter has a singular character for strongly nonlinear waves, and the observed envelope of $E_z$ is noisy \[Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](a)\] and depends on the resolution of simulation codes and on the plasma temperature [@PRST-AB6-061301]. Simulations are made with the axisymmetric kinetic version of the quasi-static code LCODE [@PRST-AB6-061301; @IPAC13-1238]
The curve ‘1’ in Fig.\[f1-growth\] corresponds to the baseline variant of AWAKE experiment at CERN [@CDR; @IPAC13-1179]. The main parameters of the proton beam are: energy 400GeV, radius $\sigma_z = 0.2$mm, length $\sigma_z = 12$cm, peak density $n_{bm} = 4\times 10^{12}\,\text{cm}^{-3} = 0.0057\,n_0$, normalized emittance 3.6mmmrad. The plasma density is $n_0=7 \times 10^{14}\,\text{cm}^{-3}$, so that $c/\omega_p=\sigma_r$. The beam is half-cut at the midplane for seeding the instability.
![(Color online) Dimensionless wakefield amplitude versus the dimensionless propagation distance for various self-modulating proton beams.[]{data-label="f1-growth"}](f1-growth.eps){width="186bp"}
The curve ‘2’ is plotted for the opposite charge beam (antiprotons) with the same parameters. Usually, negatively charged drivers excite the wave more efficiently [@AIP396-75; @PRE64-045501]. This asymmetry, indeed, shows up at the stage of field decay, but not at the field maximum. The case ‘3’ differs from the baseline case ‘1’ by 10 times smaller beam emittance. A low emittance has a favorable effect on the wakefield in general, but not at the field maximum. Curve ‘4’ corresponds to the longitudinally compressed beam with 4 times higher peak density. However, the maximum field is almost the same. To make curve ‘5’, we compressed the baseline beam 4 times longitudinally and 4 times radially (by keeping the same emittance and population) and increased the plasma density 16 times (to keep $\sigma_r = c/\omega_p$). The resulting dimensionless wakefield is just 25% higher.
![(Color online) Temporal growth of the wakefield (envelopes $\Phi_m$ and $E_m$ of the wakefield potential $\Phi$ and electric field $E_z$) for the self-modulated AWAKE beam at $z=4\,$m (a) and for the test train of rigid bunches of the same peak density (b-d); zoomed fragments (c) and (d) also show the beam density $n_b$ in arbitrary units. []{data-label="f2-envelopes"}](f2-envelopes.eps){width="225bp"}
The temporal growth of the wakefield for the baseline variant at the cross-section of the strongest modulation (at $z=2 \times 10^4 c/\omega_p = 4$m) is shown in Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](a). There is almost linear growth of the wakefield followed by fast drop. However, the reason for this field behavior is obscured by a complicated beam shape at the stage of developed self-modulation. To see the effect clearer, we simulate the field excitation by the train of rigid equidistant short bunched of the same radius and peak density: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber n_b (r, z, t) &= 0.5\, n_{bm}\, e^{-r^2/2 \sigma_r^2} \left[ 1 - \cos \bigl( 2 \omega_p (t-z/c) \bigr) \right], \\
\nonumber &\quad i \tau_0 < t-z/c < (i+1/2) \tau_0, \quad i=0, 1, \ldots ; \\
\nonumber n_b (r, z, t) &= 0, \qquad \text{otherwise},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_0 = 2 \pi \omega_p^{-1}$. The electric field and the field envelope for this test case are shown in Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](b). The behavior is qualitatively the same, but now the cause for the saturation is clearly seen in Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](c,d). The field stops growing when the wave shifts forward in time with respect to the drive bunches, so that the bunches mostly fall into the decelerating field. The key effect responsible for the field saturation is thus elongation of the wakefield period.
No. Driver
----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Single bunch, $p^+$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=15\, c/\omega_p$
2 Single bunch, $p^+$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=3\, c/\omega_p$
3 Single bunch, $p^+$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=c/\omega_p$
4 Train of 5 bunches, $p^+$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=c/\omega_p$
5 Train of 5 bunches, $p^-$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=c/\omega_p$
6 Train of 5 bunches, $p^+$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=0.3\, c/\omega_p$
7 Train of 5 bunches, $p^-$, variable charge, $\sigma_r=0.3\, c/\omega_p$
8 Infinite train, $p^+$, variable location, $\sigma_r=c/\omega_p$
9 Infinite train, $p^-$, variable location, $\sigma_r=c/\omega_p$
A Theory of one-dimensional wave
B Empirical approximation for the free wave
C Empirical approximation for the driven wave
: Simulated modes of wakefield excitation.[]{data-label="t1"}
![(Color online) Location of the measured wave periods for the single bunch of variable charge (a), the train of 5 bunches (b), and the infinite bunch train (c). []{data-label="f3-details"}](f3-details.eps){width="207bp"}
For the two-dimensional (axisymmetric) plasma wave excited by charged particle bunches, the wakefield period depends not only on the wave amplitude, but also on the spacial structure of the wave which, in turn, depends on the driver shape. Moreover, the wave is not strictly periodical, and the wavelength changes as the distance from the driver increases. Unlike the one-dimensional plasma wave, there is no universal relationship between the maximum electric field and the wave period. To view the phenomenon broadly, we have simulated waves excited by various drivers (Table \[t1\]). We have measured either the period of a selected wave oscillation for drivers of certain shape and variable charge \[Fig.\[f3-details\](a,b)\], or periods of successive oscillations continuously driven by an infinite bunch train \[Fig.\[f3-details\](c)\].
![(Color online) Dependence of the wakefield period on the wave amplitude for various drivers.[]{data-label="f4-period"}](f4-period.eps){width="194bp"}
The results are shown in Fig.\[f4-period\]. For all cases the wave period increases with the wakefield amplitude. The reason for that is the wave nonlinearity that mainly comes from relativistic corrections to the law of electron motion. The wider the driver, the stronger the wavelength dependence on the wakefield amplitude. In the limit of very wide beams (curve ‘1’), the result of one-dimensional analytical theory [@Akhiezer] is reproduced (line ‘A’): $$\label{e2}
\tau \approx \tau_0 \left(1+\frac{3}{16}(E_m/E_0)^2\right).$$ For narrow beams (cases ‘6’ and ‘7’) , the fields in the shown range are produced by very dense bunches and correspond to strongly nonlinear waves; the dependence $\tau (E_m)$ for these beams is not smooth and therefore is shown by dots in Fig.\[f4-period\](b). Curves ‘3’, ‘4’, and ‘5’ in Fig.\[f4-period\](a) are for drivers of the same radius and show that the wave period does depend on the wave excitation method.
There are two other factors apart from the wave nonlinearity that have the effect on the wave period: the current compensation and the wave drive. The particle beam generates the plasma current opposite to the average current of the beam. The motion of plasma electrons associated with this current produces the Doppler shift of the plasma frequency which is independent on the wave amplitude. This effect is seen as shifted periods for the cases ‘8’ and ‘9’ at small wave amplitudes \[Fig.\[f4-period\](c)\]. For positively charged drivers, plasma electrons move forward, and the period is shorter; for negatively charged driver, the period is longer. If the beam is not too narrow ($\sigma_r \gtrsim c/\omega_p$), then the shift of the period is roughly the ratio of the length-average beam density to the plasma density; otherwise the beam density must be also averaged transversely over the area of the radius $c/\omega_p$. We emphasize that that effect of the plasma current is small only for the chosen small density of the drive beam and can dominate for denser bunches [@AIP396-75].
The wave drive can change the distance between the field zeros, if the contributions of further bunches are phase shifted with respect to the already existing wave. As we see from Fig.\[f3-details\](c) or from the elementary theory of harmonic oscillators, this is not the case until the phase shift appears due to other effects. Consequently, the wave drive can only modify the law of variation of the wave period, but cannot produce the period change by itself. Difference of curves ‘8’ and ‘9’ from ‘4’ and ‘5’ in Fig.\[f4-period\](b) shows the quantitative effect of the wave drive.
As we see from the simulations, the dependence of the wakefield period on the amplitude of the two-dimensional plasma wave can be approximated by a parabola with the coefficient $\alpha$ depending on driver width and shape: $$\label{e3}
\tau \approx \tau_0 \left(1+\alpha (E_m/E_0)^2\right).$$ For waves of the width $c/\omega_p$, we have $\alpha \approx 0.1$ (line ‘B’).
We can estimate the maximum amplitude of the wave on the basis of the empirical formula (\[e3\]). Denote $\Delta E$ the field increment due to one bunch. Then $N$ coherent bunches produce the field $E_z=N \Delta E$. The wave nonlinearity results in elongation of the wave period by $$\label{e4}
\Delta \tau = \tau_0 \alpha N^2 (\Delta E/E_0)^2.$$ The wave drive also makes a contribution to the wave period, which depends on the accumulated delay $T$ of the wave. A small increment $\Delta E e^{i\omega_p t}$ to the complex field $E_z e^{i\omega_p (t-T)}$ results in the small increment of the wave phase $$\label{e5}
\delta \varphi \approx \frac{\Delta E \sin (\omega_p T)}{E_z + \Delta E \cos (\omega_p T)} \approx \frac{\omega_p T}{N},$$ which means shortening of the wave period by $\omega_p^{-1} \delta \varphi$. The law of delay accumulation is thus $$\label{e6}
T_N = \sum_{i=1}^N (\Delta \tau_i - T_i/i),$$ or, in the limit of large $N$, $$\label{e7}
\frac{dT}{dN} = \tau_0 \alpha (\Delta E/E_0)^2 N^2 - T/N.$$ The solution to this equation is $$\label{e8}
T = \tau_0 \alpha \left( \frac{\Delta E}{E_0}\right)^2 \frac{N^3}{4}.$$ With no account of the wave drive, there would be the factor ‘3’ in the denominator of (\[e8\]) instead of ‘4’. In other words, the wavelength elongation for the driven wave is 25% shorter that that for the free wave. Simulations confirm this observation as long as the wave is weakly nonlinear: lines ‘8’ and ‘9’ in Fig.\[f4-period\](b) follows the parabola ‘C’ with $\alpha \approx 0.075$.
The wakefield stops growing if $$\label{e9}
T = \beta \tau_0,$$ where the factor $\beta$ depends on the wave shape. For the one-dimensional wave with no transverse structure, zero average deceleration of the bunches corresponds to $\beta \approx 1/4$. For essentially two-dimensional waves, $\beta \sim 1/2$ \[Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](d)\], since the bunches also interact with off-axis regions where the period mismatch is smaller.
The cubic dependence $T(N)$ is a fast growing function in a sense the transition between the cases $T \ll \tau_0$ and $T \sim \tau_0$ occurs quickly. Consequently, the field growth is linear \[Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](b)\] and formulae (\[e3\])–(\[e8\]) are valid up to the very instant of field saturation.
Equating expressions (\[e8\]) and (\[e9\]) yields the maximum number of coherent bunches $$\label{e10}
N = \left(\frac{4\beta E_0^2}{\alpha \Delta E^2}\right)^{1/3}$$ and the maximum field $$\label{e11}
E_\text{max} = \left(\frac{4\beta E_0^2 \Delta E}{\alpha}\right)^{1/3}.$$ Note the weak dependence (power 1/3) of these expressions on empirical parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ and on the contribution of a single bunch $\Delta E$.
For parameters of the test case ($\alpha=0.1$, $\beta=0.5$, $\Delta E = 0.003\,E_0$) the estimated maximum field $E_\text{max} \approx 0.4 \, E_0$ is quite close to simulations \[Fig.\[f2-envelopes\](b)\]. For the longitudinally compressed AWAKE-like beams (lines ‘4’ and ‘5’ in Fig.\[f1-growth\]), no field increase $4^{1/3}$ times is observed since the number of bunches is less than required by (\[e10\]).
This work is supported by The Ministry of education and science of Russia (projects 14.B37.21.0784, 14.B37.21.0750, and 8387) and by RFBR grants 11-01-00249 and 11-02-00563.
[8]{} P.Chen, J.M.Dawson, R.W.Huff, and T.Katsouleas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 693 (1985); ibid. [**55**]{}, 1537 (1985). J.B.Rosenzweig, B.Breizman, T.Katsouleas, and J.J.Su Phys. Rev. A [**44**]{}, 6189 (1991). C.Joshi, B.Blue, C.E.Clayton, E.Dodd, C.Huang, K.A.Marsh, W.B.Mori, S.Wang, M.J.Hogan, C.O’Connel, R.H.Siemann, D.Watz, P.Muggli, T.Katsouleas, and S.Lee, Phys. Plasmas [**9**]{}, 1845 (2002). I. Blumenfeld, C.E. Clayton, F.-J. Decker, M.J. Hogan, C. Huang, R. Ischebeck, R. Iverson, C. Joshi, T. Katsouleas, N. Kirby, W. Lu, K.A. Marsh, W.B. Mori, P. Muggli, E. Oz, R.H. Siemann, D. Walz, and M. Zhou, Nature [**445**]{}, 741 (2007). A.Caldwell, K.Lotov, A.Pukhov, and F.Simon, Nature Phys. [**5**]{}, 363 (2009). A. Caldwell and K. V. Lotov, Phys. Plasmas [**18**]{}, 103101 (2011). K.V.Lotov, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams [**13**]{}, 041301 (2010). A. Caldwell, K. Lotov, A. Pukhov and G. Xia, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion [**53**]{}, 014003 (2011). N.Kumar, A.Pukhov, and K.Lotov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 255003 (2010). T.Tajima and J.M.Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**43**]{}, 267 (1979). M.N.Rosenbluth and C.S.Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**29**]{}, 701 (1972). C.J.McKinstrie, D.W.Forslund, Phys. Fluids [**30**]{}, 904 (1987). E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 1229 (2009). K.V.Lotov, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams [**6**]{}, 061301 (2003). K.V. Lotov, A. Sosedkin, E.Mesyats, [*Simulation of Self-modulating Particle Beams in Plasma Wakefield Accelerators.*]{} Proceedings of IPAC2013 (Shanghai, China), p.1238-1240. AWAKE Collaboration, [*AWAKE Design Report: A Proton-Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Experiment at CERN.*]{} CERN-SPSC-2013-013; SPSC-TDR-003 (unpublished). P. Muggli, A. Caldwell, O. Reimann, E. Oz, R. Tarkeshian, C. Bracco, E. Gschwendtner, A. Pardons, K. Lotov, A. Pukhov, M. Wing, S. Mandry, J. Vieira, [*Physics of the AWAKE Project.*]{} Proc. IPAC2013 (Shanghai, China), p.1179-1181. B.N.Breizman, P.Z.Chebotaev, A.M.Kudryavtsev, K.V.Lotov, and A.N.Skrinsky, [*Self-Focused Particle Beam Drivers for Plasma Wakefield Accelerators.*]{} In: New modes of particle acceleration – techniques and sources, AIP Conference Proceedings, edited by Z.Parsa, v.396, p.75-88 (AIP Press, New York, 1997). S. Lee, T. Katsouleas, R. G. Hemkel, E. S. Dodd, and W. B. Mori, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 045501 (2001). A.I.Akhiezer and R.V.Polovin Sov. Phys. JETP [**3**]{}, 696 (1956).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Simulations of monodisperse and polydisperse ($\mu_2(A)=0.13\pm0.002$) 2D foam samples undergoing simple shear are performed using the 2D Viscous Froth (VF) Model. These simulations clearly demonstrate shear localisation. The dependence of localisation length on the product $\lambda V$ (shearing velocity $V$ times external wall friction coefficient $\lambda$) is examined and is shown to agree qualitatively with other published experimental data. A wide range of localisation lengths is found at low $\lambda V$, an effect which is attributed to the existence of distinct yield and limit stresses. The general Continuum Model is extended to incorporate such an effect and its parameters are subsequently related to those of the VF Model. A Herschel-Bulkley exponent of $a=0.3$ is shown to accurately describe the observed behaviour. The localisation length is found to be independent of $\lambda V$ for monodisperse foam samples.
Paper presented at 5th Annual European Rheology Conference (AERC), April 15-17, 2009, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
author:
- 'Joseph D. Barry'
- Denis Weaire
- Stefan Hutzler
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: Shear localisation with 2D Viscous Froth and its relation to the Continuum Model
---
[example.eps]{} gsave newpath 20 20 moveto 20 220 lineto 220 220 lineto 220 20 lineto closepath 2 setlinewidth gsave .4 setgray fill grestore stroke grestore
Introduction {#intro}
============
Foam is defined as a two-phase system in which a dispersed phase of gas is enclosed by a continuous phase of liquid [@foamsbook]. In aqueous foams, the dispersed phase is typically air, and the liquid phase water with an added surfactant. To simplify the task of understanding the rheology of these systems, it has become popular to concentrate on two-dimensional (2D) foams, which consist of a single planar layer of bubbles. It is the rheology of these systems which is under scrutiny in this paper, using the 2D VF Model.
We endeavour to understand the mechanisms which cause *localisation of shear* at a moving boundary, as reported in a number of recent experiments (see below). This behaviour is observed in the VF simulations that we will discuss. In the literature, the extent of this shear localisation effect is measured by a localisation length. In this paper, two different definitions of localisation length will be employed.
Simulation results for polydisperse froths subjected to simple shear will be presented, where the localisation length is found to vary with $\lambda V$ (viscous drag times driving velocity; why this is the important parameter to consider is explained in Sec. \[sec:details\]). For low $\lambda V$, a wide range of localisation lengths is found; see Sec. \[sec:details\]. This effect is attributed to the existence of distinct yield and limit stresses. We give qualitative evidence of this in Sec. \[sec:Continuum\], where we extend the general Continuum Model to incorporate such an effect. In Sec. \[sec:multiscale\] we proceed to relate parameters of the VF Model to the Continuum Model which is shown to accurately predict the observed behaviour for a Herschel-Bulkley exponent of $a=0.3$. The localisation length is found to be independent of $\lambda V$ in the monodisperse case.
In experiments with 2D foams, often a single layer of bubbles is confined between two narrowly spaced glass plates (a Hele-Shaw cell). There are also other types of quasi-2D systems, such as the Bragg raft [@Bragg:47], where a single layer of bubbles floats on a liquid pool, and the confined bubble raft, where a Bragg raft is trapped underneath a glass plate. The most important distinction between these experimental realisations is concerned with the presence of viscous drag. When a foam is in contact with one or two confining plates, there is a drag force associated with any movement of the foam relative to the plate(s). As we shall see, the drag force in the VF Model (see eq. \[eq:viscous\_froth\_original\]) plays a role in the localisation of flow in our foam samples.
![A T1 neighbour-swapping event triggered by applying shear. a) Initial configuration, b) A and B lose their common edge, creating an unstable four-fold vertex point, c) a new edge is created between C and D and d) final configuration. Data taken from a VF simulation.[]{data-label="f:T1"}](T1_sequence.pdf){width="9cm"}
When a 2D foam is subjected to an applied shear stress, after an initial transient, it yields and begins to flow. The foam yields locally when the *yield stress* is reached. A more detailed description of the stress-strain relation will be required when interpreting the simulation results presented in this paper; see Sec. \[sec:Continuum\]. At the local level, yielding is due to plastic events, i.e. T1 topological changes of the foam structure (see Fig. \[f:T1\]). Two neighbouring bubbles (A and B) lose a common edge which is subsequently gained by two proximate bubbles (C and D), which become neighbours. We describe the incorporation of these topological changes into the VF Model in Sec. \[sec:vf\].
When flow is concentrated in one region and not in another, the flow is said to have localised. Debregéas *et al.* [@Debregeas:01] were the first to report definitive evidence of shear localisation in 2D aqueous foams. Their experiments exhibit shear localisation next to a moving boundary in a Couette geometry, with an exponential decay in the measured foam velocity profiles. Similar results have been reported by Wang *et al.* [@Wang:06] and Krishan and Dennin [@Krishan:08] for straight and circular geometries, respectively. These results have been interpreted within the framework of the Continuum Model [@Janiaud:06b; @Janiaud:07; @Clancy:06] where shear localisation is attributed to the presence of a drag force. This notion is further supported by the work of [@Green:09] which studies the effects of drag forces at high shear rates using the VF Model. However there are also quasi-static simulations showing localisation (discussed below) in which there is no such wall drag. This suggests that there is more than one mechanism that may lead to shear localisation. We will return to this point in Sec. \[sec:Continuum\].
Experimental work by Katgert *et al.* [@Katgert:08; @Katgert:09] on the shearing of bidisperse foams in a Hele-Shaw cell (straight geometry, that is, simple shear) shows Herschel-Bulkley behaviour (discussed below) and supplies further evidence of shear localisation in 2D foams. In this case, however, the velocity profiles are not exponential. Such non-exponential velocity profiles, together with their velocity dependence can be obtained from an extension or generalisation of the original Continuum Model [@Weaire:08a; @Weaire:09]. Furthermore, these experiments show that the localisation length decreases as the velocity of the moving boundary increases. In this paper, we show velocity profiles from our VF simulations which exhibit qualitatively similar behaviour.
Of particular current interest in these types of experiments is the dependence of (local) shear stress on shear rate. This effect is captured by the Herschel-Bulkley constitutive relation, $$\label{eq:hb-relation}
\sigma=\sigma_{y}+c_{v}\dot{\epsilon}^a$$ where $\sigma$ is stress, $\sigma_{y}$ is the yield stress, the coefficient $c_{v}$ is the so-called consistency, $\dot{\epsilon}$ is strain rate and $a$ is the HB exponent. Katgert and co-workers report $a=0.36$. They also note that in the monodisperse case (i.e. bubbles of equal size), the localisation length is found to be independent of shear rate. We too find this to be the case in our simulations; see Sec. \[sec:details\].
Shear localisation has been studied computationally using other microscopic (bubble scale) models. Quasi-static models, as explored by [@Weaire:83; @Weaire:84; @Bolton:90; @Hutzler:95] might shed light on behaviour at very low strain rates. Results reported by Kabla [@Kabla:07a; @Kabla:07b] show localisation next to the boundaries in quasi-static shearing simulations ($\mu_2(A)\approx0.06$ using the definition eq. \[eq:disorder\]), consistent with experimental observation. In these simulations of simple shear, where there is no wall drag, either wall may be regarded as the one that moves. Recent results by Wyn [@Wyn:08] suggest that as the second moment of the bubble area distribution $\mu_{2}(A)$ is increased in such simulations to values approaching 0.2 or higher, shear-banding can occur in regions away from the moving boundary. The width of these shear bands has a square-root dependence on $\mu_{2}(A)$. This type of behaviour has yet to be observed in experiments. In this paper, we only examine the rheology of foam samples of disorder $\mu_2(A)=0.13$ but will probe higher values of disorder in future work in order to search for similar effects.
With the aid of the Surface Evolver software [@Brakke:96], quasi-static simulations are increasingly easy to implement and, with modern computing, are certainly fast. But are they suitable for rheology? In quasi-statics, the foam is relaxed to equilibrium at each step. There is therefore no relevant time scale present and so no concept of shear-rate. It makes no sense to consider Herschel-Bulkley type relations or to discuss the dependence of localisation on boundary velocity.
What then, are the alternatives to quasi-static simulations? Bubble models [@Durian:95], where a foam is modeled as a collection of interacting disks appear to represent at some level the dynamics of 2D foams. Langlois *et al.* [@Langlois:08] report a Herschel-Bulkley exponent of $a=0.54$ ($\mu_2(A)\approx0.03$). In addition, shear localisation is observed when wall drag is present. For dry foams though, where low liquid fraction causes bubbles to become more polygonal in shape, this approach is no longer accurate [@Green:09].
In this paper, we adopt the 2D Viscous Froth (VF) Model [@Kern:04; @Green:06] as a more realistic model for dry 2D foam dynamics. We have performed an extensive study of shear localisation with the VF Model in a straight geometry which shows realistic dynamics and a rich variety of behaviour, particularly at low $\lambda V$.
For a summary of the experimental and theoretical work presented in this section, see [@WeaireBarryHutzler:09].
The 2D Viscous Froth Model and its implementation {#sec:vf}
=================================================
![A diagram illustrating the various forces involved in film motion with the two-dimensional VF Model. $B$ and $B^\prime$ indicate the two bubbles the central soap film is separating. Note that this film is in contact with a surface (in the plane of the page) which results in a drag force when the film is moving.[]{data-label="f:VF_forces"}](VF_forces.pdf){width="5cm"}
The model describes the motion of a soap film in the 2D systems described above, with wall drag [@Kern:04]. In the present case, bubble areas are kept constant. The foam is considered to be sufficiently dry (liquid fraction less than 0.01) so that a soap film may be accurately described by a curved line and the junctions are represented by points. In the present simulations, a soap film is approximated as a system of connected straight line segments. The motion of a point $s$ joining these segments is given via the equation
$$\lambda v^{\perp}(s)=\Delta P- \gamma K(s)
\label{eq:viscous_froth_original}$$
where $\lambda$ is the wall drag coefficient, $v^{\perp}(s)$ is the velocity of a point $s$ in the direction of the normal vector $\vec{N}(s)$ to the soap film, $\Delta P$ represents relative pressure differences between neighbouring cells, $\gamma$ is a constant surface tension force (in 2D), and $K(s)$ is local film curvature calculated from the relative positions of adjacent (discrete) film segment points. See Fig. \[f:VF\_forces\] for an illustration of the forces involved. Setting $\lambda=0$ in eq. \[eq:viscous\_froth\_original\] recovers the Young-Laplace law, corresponding to soap films that are arcs of circles.
Throughout the implementation of the model, film segments adjacent to the three-fold vertex points are held an angle of $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ radians relative to each other, in accordance with Plateau’s rules for a soap froth. Details on the numerics of this calculation are best found in [@Green:06]. It should be noted that for high rates of strain, one would expect surface tensions in the soap films to vary to the point that this equilibrium condition would no longer apply (for example, because of the Marangoni effect). At least for lower rates of strain, the $\frac{2\pi}{3}$ rule is reasonable. The VF model may be conveniently incorporated into a Surface Evolver [@Brakke:96] script (as pioneered by Cox [@Cox:05]), thus allowing for the use of various SE features. The procedure for performing (T1) topological changes in the Surface Evolver is as follows, and is illustrated in Fig. \[f:T1\]. The distance along the film between neighbouring three-fold vertex points is calculated at each timestep. When this film length becomes smaller than a predefined critical cut-off length, $l_{c}$ then it is deleted using the Evolver’s ‘edgeweed’ command. A four-fold vertex is temporarily formed to maintain the topology of neighbouring cells (see Fig. \[f:T1\](b)). The Evolver’s ‘pop’ command is then employed, which scans the foam for vertices which do not have a legal topology and replaces the four-fold vertex with a proper local topology. This results in a new film of effectively negligible length oriented in the perpendicular direction to the old film (see Fig. \[f:T1\](c)).
Further details on the implementation of the VF Model can be found in the papers by Kern *et al.* [@Kern:04] and Green *et al.* [@Green:06].
Sample Creation {#sec:creation}
===============
A semi-periodic monodisperse sample is created using the standard method outlined in the Surface Evolver documentation (which is supplied with the software package). Disordered semi-periodic samples are created by the following process (illustrated in Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\]).
{width="14cm"}
Points are placed at random in the unit cell using a uniform distribution to determine the x and y positions; see Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\](a). New points are added to the box if they are more than a predefined minimum distance $r_{min}$ from any other point. The process is continued until the desired number of points have been successfully placed. A lower value of $r_{min}$ results in more polydisperse samples. These points are translated to boxes to the left and right, and reflected (see Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\](a)) through the lines $y=0$ and $y=1$ to boxes above and below, based on the method of De Fabritiis and Coveney [@Fabritiis:03] (as indicated by the background triangles in Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\](a)). With the software package Qhull [@qhull:96], the Voronoi Diagram (a particular way of tessellating the plane into regions of convex polygons) of these points is calculated; see Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\](b). This is then passed into the Surface Evolver. The box in the centre is isolated (see Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\](c)) and keeping the areas of each of the cells fixed, the Surface Evolver performs line minimization on the structure. The resulting structure is our final two-dimensional half-periodic (i.e. periodic in the x-direction only) foam data file; see Fig. \[f:sample\_creation\](d). Of interest here (as a result of the reflection) is that the straight line boundaries at $y=0$ and $y=1$ naturally occur as a result of this process.
Simulation Details and Results {#sec:details}
==============================
Using the above methods for foam sample creation, we create one monodisperse foam sample and five foam samples of polydispersity $\mu_{2}(A)=0.13\pm0.002$, where the measure of polydispersity is defined as the second moment of the area distribution,
$$\label{eq:disorder}
\mu_2(A)=\overline{\left(1-\frac{A}{\bar{A}}\right)^2}\ .$$
Here $A$ denotes the area of a bubble, and $\bar{A}$ the mean bubble area.
The foam samples consist of $N_{b}=100$ bubbles in a square unit cell of area 1; it is too computationally expensive to run larger samples in a VF simulation. In our dimensionless simulation units, our system size $L=1$ and mean bubble area $\bar{A}=0.01$. We define a new length scale ${\bar{A}}^{1/2}$, the square root of the mean bubble area. In these new units, $L=10\ {\bar{A}}^{1/2}$. The width $W_{l}$ of one layer of bubbles in our square sample is given by $$\label{eq:layer-width}
W_{l}=L / \sqrt{N_{b}}={\bar{A}}^{1/2}$$
We proceed to move the top boundary in the positive x-direction with velocity $V$ by incrementally moving vertices at $y=1$ a distance $Vdt$ per timestep $dt$. The VF algorithm, as outlined in Sec. \[sec:vf\] is used to determine the dynamics of the foam during each timestep. Typical values for the displacement of the shearing boundary per timestep are in the range $10^{-6}{\bar{A}}^{1/2} \le Vdt \le 10^{-3}{\bar{A}}^{1/2}$ (depending on what values of $V$ and $\lambda$ are used). No-slip boundary conditions are maintained by fixing vertices lying on the boundaries while the VF algorithm is being implemented. Our boundary conditions are thus
$$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
v(L)=V \\
v(0)=0
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:bc}$$
Multiple simulations are run for different values of $\lambda V$ (wall drag coefficient times boundary velocity) with a fixed value of surface tension $\gamma$. To see why this is the appropriate parameter to look at, consider again the equation of motion for the VF Model, as given by eq. \[eq:viscous\_froth\_original\]. By setting $v^\perp=V\hat{v}^\perp$, where $V$ is the boundary velocity and $\hat{v}^\perp$ is our rescaled dimensionless velocity, we can rewrite our equation of motion as
$$\label{eq:scaling}
(\lambda V)\hat{v}^\perp(s)=\Delta P- \gamma K(s)$$
It is clear that, given any initial state configuration, its development in time is determined by $\lambda V$. Furthermore, we see evidence of this $\lambda V$ dependence if we rewrite the Herschel-Bulkley relation (see eq. \[eq:hb-relation\]) in terms of our VF parameters. As stress in 2D has dimensions of force per length, on dimensional grounds, we see that
$$\sigma=\sigma_y+\hat{c_v}\gamma^{1-a}{\bar{A}}^{a-1/2}L^{-a}(\lambda V)^a
\label{eq:viscous-stress}$$
where the 2D surface tension $\gamma$ has dimensions of force, $\lambda V$ has dimensions of force per length and $\hat{c_v}$ is a dimensionless parameter of order unity which may be related to $\mu_2(A)$. In this derivation, we define the strain rate term of eq. \[eq:hb-relation\] as the nominal shear rate of the system, $\dot{\epsilon}=V/L$.
To calculate flow profiles, bubble centre positions are determined. We subsequently divide our foam into bins of width $W_{l}$ and calculate the average velocity of bubbles centres in each bin over time. A sketch of our simulation setup is illustrated in Fig. \[f:poly-setup\] (polydisperse sample).
![(a) A polydisperse foam consisting of 100 bubbles (Sample 5) in equilibrium. $L$ denotes our system size. (b) The same foam being sheared at a velocity $V$.[]{data-label="f:poly-setup"}](Poly_Setup.pdf){width="9cm"}
Fig. \[f:poly-profile-drag\] shows examples of averaged steady state velocity profiles. We say that a simulation has reached a steady state once there is no longer any appreciable change in our velocity profile in time. Typically, we average our steady state velocity profiles over the range $1\le \epsilon \le10$, where the imposed strain $\epsilon$ is defined as $\epsilon=\Delta x / L$ and $\Delta x$ is equal to the total displacement of the moving boundary. Note that there is a clear change in the flow profiles as we vary $\lambda V$. We find that localisation occurs close to the moving boundary in all but two of our simulations. (In one of these cases, for $\lambda V=0.01\ \gamma\bar{A}^{1/2}$, localisation switches to the stationary boundary, while in the second case, for $\lambda V=0.005\ \gamma\bar{A}^{1/2}$, a shear band occurs in the centre of the sample away from either boundary (data not shown).) Localisation of flow can also be made visible by plotting the positions at which T1 topological changes occur in our samples, as done by [@Wyn:08]. An example is shown in Fig. \[f:poly-t1\].
![Examples of velocity profiles for different values of $\lambda V$. Profiles shown are for Sample 1. The corresponding localisation lengths for these profiles are denoted by filled circles in Fig. \[f:poly-localisation-velocity\].[]{data-label="f:poly-profile-drag"}](Profiles_with_fits_Drag2.pdf){width="9cm"}
{width="9cm"}
. \[f:poly-t1\]
At this stage, it is unclear what the form of the velocity profiles is. We have attempted to use exponential fits and fits from the general Continuum Model [@Weaire:09] in the data fitting process but this approach does not yield consistently good fits to our velocity profiles which are clearly quite noisy, presumably due to the small system size. To obtain a measure of the width of the flowing region from these noisy profiles, we use the following definition of localisation length, denoted by $l_{int}$ [@WeaireBarryHutzler:09]
$$l_{int} = \frac{1}{V}\int_0^L v(y) dy\ .
\label{eq:cont-localisation}$$
![Localisation lengths for a range of $\lambda V$. Each symbol represents one simulation run. For low $\lambda V$, there is a wide range of lengths, while for high $\lambda V$, only the first layer of bubbles flows. Filled symbols indicate simulations where $V$ is fixed and $\lambda$ is varied. Open symbols indicate simulations where $\lambda$ is fixed and $V$ is varied.[]{data-label="f:poly-localisation-velocity"}](Integration_Comparison_Between_Samples.pdf){width="9cm"}
This integral, which has the required dimensions of length, is calculated numerically for each of our velocity profiles using the Trapezoidal Rule. Fig. \[f:poly-localisation-velocity\] shows a variation of localisation length with $\lambda V$. Note that for low $\lambda V$ we find large scatter in the localisation lengths, however, this scatter decreases as $\lambda V$ is increased. For high $\lambda V$, the length converges towards the minimum localisation length, $l_{min}={\bar{A}}^{1/2}$, the width of one bubble layer (see eq. \[eq:layer-width\]). This is because the first layer of bubbles always flows.
The ratio of the intrinsic timescale of the VF Model to the external timescale (as imposed by the nominal shear rate $\dot{\epsilon}=V/L$), otherwise known as the Deborah number $D_e$, is given by
$$D_e=\frac{(\lambda V)\bar{A}}{\gamma L}\ ,
\label{eq:deborah}$$
as defined in [@Kern:04]. A small Deborah number ($D_e\ll1$) indicates that the foam has enough time available to re-equilibrate, even as the applied shear attempts to bring the foam out of equilibrium (and vice versa for large $D_e$). In our simulations, $0.001\le D_e \le 0.03$. We therefore conclude that we are close to the quasi-static regime in all of the discussed simulations. While not shown here, similar simulation runs have been performed for a monodisperse foam ($\mu_{2}(A)=0$). The localisation length is found to be independent of $\lambda V$ and is determined to be $l={\bar{A}}^{1/2}$ (the same as $l_{min}$ in our polydisperse simulations).
Our simulation results are broadly consistent with the findings of Katgert *et al.* [@Katgert:08; @Katgert:09], where the localisation length is found to decrease with increasing $V$, and rate independence of localisation length is found in the monodisperse case.
We wish to gain an understanding of these VF simulation results by attempting to capture the observed behaviour by a continuum model. Such a model must include a constitutive relation which relates the local (wall) drag force of the VF model to an averaged drag force in the continuum description. However, this would not be enough to explain the observed simulation results, as (according to the general Continuum Model [@Weaire:09]) it would result in a zero localisation length in all cases. Therefore, results suggest that internal dissipation (represented by the shear rate term in the HB relation; see eq. \[eq:hb-relation\]) should also be included, although it is not clear how this dissipation arises in the VF simulations. We will also appeal to the idea of the existence of a stress overshoot in order to explain the variation of localisation length at low $\lambda V$.
The Continuum Model {#sec:Continuum}
===================
Up until now, we have discussed microscopic (bubble scale) models of 2D foam rheology. An alternative way of describing a foam is to treat it as a continuum. The generalised Continuum Model [@Weaire:08a; @Weaire:09] (for steady shear) combines the Herschel-Bulkley constitutive relation (see eq. \[eq:hb-relation\]) with the following expression for the variation of (wall) drag force $F_d$ per unit area as a function of local velocity $v$
$$F_d=-c_{d}v^b\ ,
\label{eq:drag-force}$$
where $c_{d}$ is the drag coefficient and $b$ is the drag exponent (the Bretherton law gives $b=\frac{2}{3}$ [@Bretherton:61]). These two expressions can be related by a force balance, which leads to the following differential equation [@Janiaud:06b; @Weaire:08a]
$$\frac{d}{dy}\left| \frac{dv(y)}{dy} \right|^a = -\frac{c_d}{c_v}v(y)^b\ ,
\label{eq:diff-equation}$$
which can be solved using the boundary conditions $v(0)=V$ and $v(L)=0$. These are equivalent to the boundary conditions imposed in our VF simulations; see eq. \[eq:bc\] (albeit that here the distance $y$ is measured *downward* from the shearing boundary).
Upon inspection, it is clear that that a velocity profile of the following form satisfies eq. \[eq:diff-equation\], and exhibits flow localisation:
$$v(y)=V (1-y/y_0)^n
\label{eq:solution}$$
where $y_0$ and $n$ may be obtained by inserting eq. \[eq:solution\] into eq. \[eq:diff-equation\] and equating prefactors and exponents [@WeaireBarryHutzler:09]. This gives
$$y_0 = \frac{1+a}{a-b}\left(\frac{a(1+b)c_vV^{a-b}}{(1+a)c_d}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+a}}
\label{e:value_for_y_0}$$
and $$n= \frac{1+a}{a-b}\ .
\label{e:value_for_n}$$
Eq. \[eq:solution\] clearly satisfies the first boundary condition, $v(0)=V$ of eq. \[eq:diff-equation\]. The second boundary condition is satisfied if we take our sample size $L\to\infty$ [@WeaireBarryHutzler:09]. This approach is valid so long as the size of the sample is much greater than the localisation length ($L\gg l$) which may be defined as
$$l=\left| \frac{V}{\frac{dv(0)}{dy}} \right| \ ,
\label{eq:loc-length}$$
an alternative definition to that of the previous section; see eq. \[eq:cont-localisation\]. Inserting eq. \[eq:solution\] into eq. \[eq:loc-length\] leads to the following expression for localisation length as a function of the shearing velocity $V$, $$l=\left(\frac{a(1+b)c_{v}}{(1+a)c_{d}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+a}}V^\frac{a-b}{1+a}\ .
\label{eq:continuum-localisation}$$ Its relation to the definition of localisation length $l_{int}$ (see eq. \[eq:cont-localisation\]) is $$l_{int}/l=(1+a)/(1+2a-b)\ ,$$ as given by [@WeaireBarryHutzler:09]. For $a<b$ (as is the case for our VF simulations; see Sec. \[sec:multiscale\]), localisation length therefore *decreases* as the shearing velocity $V$ is *increased*.
The possibility of having a range of localisation lengths at low $V$ (as in Fig. \[f:poly-localisation-velocity\]) can be accounted for by extending the Continuum Model to incorporate what we will refer to as a stress overshoot. This we will now proceed to do. In a recent paper [@Weaire:09], Weaire *et al.* introduced the idea of distinct yield $\sigma_{y}$ and limit $\sigma_{l}$ stresses as a possible mechanism for localisation in the absence of viscous drag. An illustration of the typical stress vs strain picture is shown in Fig. \[f:continuum-hump\]. The constitutive stress relation thus becomes
$$\sigma=\sigma_{l}+c_{v}\dot{\epsilon}^a
\label{eq:hb-new}$$
where $\sigma_l$ denotes the limit stress. When the magnitude of the stress overshoot, $\Delta=\sigma_y-\sigma_l$ is set to zero we recover the original Herschel-Bulkley relation (see eq. \[eq:hb-relation\]).
![An illustration of a stress vs strain relation incorporating the idea of distinct yield and limit stresses, denoted by $\sigma_{y}$ and $\sigma_{l}$ respectively. The filled circles indicate that the foam can co-exist at the same stress at the boundary between flowing and non-flowing regions.[]{data-label="f:continuum-hump"}](hump.pdf){height="5cm" width="9cm"}
If shear localisation is present in a foam, there exists at least one point $y_B$ which lies on the boundary between flowing and stationary regions. In our VF simulations, this corresponds to the point at which the velocity profile intercepts the $v=0$ axis (see, for example Fig. \[f:poly-profile-drag\]). At this point, the system can co-exist at the same value of stress in both static and flowing regions, as indicated by the filled dots in Fig. \[f:continuum-hump\]. The stress at $y_B$ can take on any value between $\sigma_{l}$ and $\sigma_{y}$ as the foam is sheared. From eq. \[eq:hb-new\] we see that this leads to the inequality
$$0\le c_{v}\dot{\epsilon}(y_B)^{a}\le\Delta \ .
\label{eq:continuum-inequality}$$
As $V$ is increased, *on average* we expect the viscous stress $c_v\dot{\epsilon}(y)^a$ between $0$ and $y_B$ to cause the stress in the flowing region to lie closer to $\sigma_{y}$ so that the stress overshoot is less evident. However, at low $V$, the effect is obvious (see Fig. \[f:qs-stress\]) and may have important effects.
The differential equation given by eq. \[eq:diff-equation\] may be solved numerically, yielding velocity profile solutions of the kind we envisage, which are valid if they satisfy the inequality given by eq. \[eq:continuum-inequality\]. As the local strain rate is defined as $$\dot{\epsilon}(y)=\left|\frac{dv(y)}{dy}\right|\ ,
\label{eq:local-strainrate}$$ in this case [@WeaireBarryHutzler:09], the quantity $\dot{\epsilon}(y_B)$ can be directly measured from the calculated velocity profiles, provided they intersect the $v=0$ axis at some finite value.
The results of these calculations can be seen in Fig. \[f:continuum-scatter\], where we have solved the model numerically for the values $a=0.5$, $b=c_{d}=c_{v}=\Delta=1$. The upper bound ${l^{+}}(V)$ corresponds to where the shear stress $\sigma(y_B)=\sigma_l$, where the viscous stress $c_{v}\dot{\epsilon}(y_B)^{a}=0$ and the analytic solution for localisation length given by eq. \[eq:continuum-localisation\]. The lower bound ${l^{-}}(V)$ corresponds to where the shear stress $\sigma(y_B)=\sigma_y$ and where the viscous stress $c_{v}\dot{\epsilon}(y_B)^{a}=\Delta$. Thus, for a given $V$, $l^{-}(V)\le l(V) \le l^{+}(V)$ gives the range of allowed solutions, indicated by the shaded region in Fig. \[f:continuum-scatter\].
![Results from a numerical solution of the Continuum Model incorporating the inequality given by eq. \[eq:continuum-inequality\]. For low $V$, there is a large range of possibilities for localisation length, while for high $V$, the range of allowed lengths converges to a narrow band. $V_c$ is our critical velocity below which a large range of localisation lengths is possible; see eq. \[eq:critical-velocity\]. $l^{+}(V)$ and $l^{-}(V)$ denote the upper and lower bounds to the range of allowable solutions, respectively.[]{data-label="f:continuum-scatter"}](L_vs_V_varying_a_2.pdf){width="9cm"}
We note that Fig. \[f:continuum-scatter\] is qualitatively similar to Fig. \[f:poly-localisation-velocity\], with a large range of possible localisation lengths at low $V$ and convergent behaviour at high $V$. Remarkably, the model predicts that for low $V$, the localisation length can take any value $0<l<\infty$. This prediction, of course, holds only in the presence of viscous drag.
An important question to be answered is how does one define the critical velocity $V_{c}$ below which the foam can take on a wide range of localisation lengths? If one assumes that as $V\to0$, the velocity profile becomes approximately linear, then $\dot{\epsilon}=\frac{V}{l}$, where $l$ is the localisation length. If we are on the lower bound, from eq. \[eq:continuum-inequality\] we see that $\Delta=c_{v}\left(\frac{V}{l}\right)^{a}$, or expressing it in a more convenient form,
$$l=\left(\frac{c_{v}}{\Delta}\right)^{\frac{1}{a}}V\ .
\label{eq:l-lower}$$
We are interested in the point where this line intersects the upper bound $l^{+}(V)$, which is given by eq. \[eq:continuum-localisation\]. We solve this pair of simultaneous equations (eq. \[eq:continuum-localisation\], \[eq:l-lower\]) in terms of $V$ and choose to define the point of intersection as our critical velocity $V_{c}$ (see Fig. \[f:continuum-scatter\]). This yields
$$V_{c}=\Delta^\frac{a+1}{a(1+b)}\left(\frac{a(1+b)}{1+a}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+b}}\left(\frac{1}{c_{d}(c_{v})^{\frac{1}{a}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+b}}\ .
\label{eq:critical-velocity}$$
To make a more quantitative comparison between continuum theory and the VF results presented in Sec. \[sec:details\], a more detailed study of the relationship between the parameters of both models is required. We present such a study in the next section.
In one of the earliest publications on this subject, Kabla & Debregeas [@Kabla:03] attribute shear localisation in quasi-statics to what they call ‘self amplification’. This idea is qualitatively the same as the ideas presented in this section. This approach may have the capacity to explain other results in the literature, particularly [@Wang:07] where shearing experiments are performed for an ordinary Bragg raft (where there are no confining plates) in a straight geometry. In these experiments (as in our VF simulations) variations in the averaged velocity profiles are observed between experiments but averages over several experiments converge much better.
Relating the Continuum Model to the Viscous Froth Model {#sec:multiscale}
=======================================================
We now proceed to relate the parameters of the (microscopic) VF Model and the (macroscopic) Continuum Model. This is done using a combination of numerical and analytic approximations.
To demonstrate preliminary evidence of existence of the stress overshoot in simulation, we have performed quasi-static calculations using the Surface Evolver (of the type mentioned in in Sec. \[intro\]) for 29 foam samples of disorder $\mu_{2}(A)=0.13\pm0.03$ with $N_b=100$ bubbles. This effectively sets the viscous stress $c_v\dot{\epsilon}(y)^a$ to zero, thereby allowing us to obtain an accurate estimate of the magnitude of the stress overshoot, $\Delta$. The foam samples are created using the process outlined in Sec. \[sec:creation\]. The shear stress $\sigma_{xy}$ (defined in [@Kraynik:03]) is recorded for each simulation and subsequently averaged; see Fig. \[f:qs-stress\].
As there is localisation in these simulations (at either the moving or stationary boundary) which affects our stress measurements, the limit stress $\sigma_{l}$ reported here must be treated as an approximate measurement. The value of the yield stress $\sigma_{y}$, however, is exact, as up to a strain of unity, the foam is in the elastic regime and the bubble motion has not yet localised. We measure the magnitude of the stress overshoot to be $\Delta=0.1\ \gamma / \bar{A}^{1/2}$, which corresponds to a $17\%$ overshoot. In the calculation shown in Fig. \[f:prediction\], a $20\%$ overshoot is used.
![Averaged shear stress data for 29 foam samples of disorder $\mu_{2}(A)=0.13\pm0.03$. The stress overshoot is clearly evident. The yield stress $\sigma_{y}$ is taken to be the maximum stress value, which occurs at a strain of unity. The limit stress $\sigma_{l}$ is the stress average from a strain of 2 to 10. Calculation performed using *quasi-static* simulations.[]{data-label="f:qs-stress"}](shear_stress2.pdf){width="9cm"}
The drag force per unit area for the Continuum Model is given by eq. \[eq:drag-force\] and acts in the direction of shear. We wish to relate this to the the drag force of the VF Model, $\lambda v^\perp$, which is a force per length and acts in the normal direction to a soap film (see Fig. \[f:VF\_forces\]). Trivially, the drag exponent, $b=1$. The numerical prefactor $c_d$ may be calculated analytically for a 2D hexagonal honeycomb structure, which serves as a reasonable approximation. We also take into account the direction in which the drag force is defined and the orientation of soap films in the foam.
The drag force per unit area must be proportional to the total length of the soap films in that area. For the honeycomb, this yields
$$c_d\propto\sqrt{\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{\bar{A}}}\ .$$
In the VF simulations, it is observed that bubbles move on average only in the direction of shear. The magnitude of this ‘apparent’ velocity is denoted by $v_{app}$ in Fig. \[f:projection\]. However, the drag force for the VF model *by definition* points in the direction of the normal to a soap film, and so we project $\vec{v_{app}}$ in this direction (see Fig. \[f:projection\](i)). This results in $|\vec{v^\perp}|=|\vec{v_{app}}| \cos\ \theta$, where $\theta$ is the relative angle between the normal vector to the soap film and the shear direction. To relate the normal drag force to the actual drag force of the Continuum Model, we need to project $\vec{v^\perp}$ in the shear direction (see Fig. \[f:projection\](ii)), resulting in $|\vec{v}|=|\vec{v^\perp}| \cos \theta=|\vec{v_{app}}|(\cos\ \theta)^2$.
![ Two projections are necessary to relate the velocity $\vec{v_{app}}$ of a soap film segment in the VF model to the local velocity of the Continuum Model: (i) projection of the average velocity of a soap film segment $\vec{v_{app}}$ in the direction of the normal to that segment, and (ii) projection of the normal velocity of the soap film segment $\vec{v^\perp}$ back in the direction of shear. $\theta$ is the angle between the normal vector to the soap film segment and the shear direction. It is the magnitude of the vectors that is displayed in the figure.[]{data-label="f:projection"}](Projection.pdf){width="9cm"}
Finally, we consider how the orientation of the soap films in our foam might affect the drag force. We assume that the foam is isotropic and proceed to average over all possible values of $\theta$. As $<(\cos\ \theta)^2>=1/2$, our final expression for the continuum drag force coefficient $c_d$ is
$$c_d = \hat{c_d} \lambda = \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{2\sqrt{3}}{\bar{A}}}\lambda \ ,
\label{eq:cd}$$
giving the (continuum) drag force the required dimensions of force per area. In Sec. \[sec:details\], we showed how the viscous stress has a $\lambda V$ dependence using dimensional arguments (see eq. \[eq:viscous-stress\]). Using these arguments, but rather defining the strain rate as a locally changing quantity (see eq. \[eq:local-strainrate\]), we see that
$$c_v=\hat{c_v}\gamma^{1-a}{\bar{A}}^{a-1/2}\lambda^a
\label{eq:cv}$$
where the Herschel-Bulkley exponent $a$ and the dimensionless quantity $\hat{c_v}$ are free parameters.
Using all of the approximations calculated in this section, we proceed to solve eq. \[eq:diff-equation\] numerically, accepting solutions only if they obey the inequality given by eq. \[eq:continuum-inequality\], as done in Sec. \[sec:Continuum\]. The key difference here is that localisation length is a function of the product $\lambda V$.
The upper bound for the Continuum Model prediction is formulated in terms of $\lambda V$ by inserting eq. \[eq:cd\] and eq. \[eq:cv\] into eq. \[eq:continuum-localisation\], resulting in
$$l^+(\lambda V) = \left( \frac{2 a \hat{c_v} \sigma^{1-a} {\bar{A}}^{a-1/2} }{(1+a) \hat{c_d}} \right)^\frac{1}{1+a} (\lambda V)^\frac{a-1}{1+a}\ .
\label{eq:lv-upper}$$
The corresponding lower bound must be found numerically. To simplify this calculation, we fix $\lambda$ and allow $V$ to vary.
A comparison of the VF and Continuum Model results can be seen in Fig. \[f:prediction\], where values of $a=0.3$ and $\hat{c_v}=0.26$ are chosen as they give a reasonable prediction for both upper and lower bounds (although $0.2<a<0.4$ gives a reasonable fit to the upper bound). The shaded region between these bounds indicates the range of all allowable localisation lengths, as predicted by the Continuum Model. Filled and open symbols represent the VF simulation results, which are the same as in Fig. \[f:poly-localisation-velocity\], only with the minimum localisation length of $l_{min}={\bar{A}}^{1/2}$ subtracted to coincide with the Continuum Model predictions which give $l=0$ for $V\to\infty$.
![A comparison of the VF simulation results (open and filled symbols) and the prediction for the range of allowed localisation lengths as given by the Continuum Model (shaded region). A Herschel-Bulkley exponent of $a=0.3$ and a stress overshoot of $20\ \%$ is found to give a good fit to the data. The critical cross-over point, $(\lambda V)_c$, as given by eq. \[eq:lv-crit\] indicates the point below which the system yields a wide range of localisation lengths. []{data-label="f:prediction"}](Integration_Comparison_Between_Samples2.pdf){width="9cm"}
The definition for the critical cross-over point, as given by eq. \[eq:critical-velocity\] may also be formulated in terms of $\lambda V$. This is achieved by inserting eq. \[eq:cv\] into eq. \[eq:l-lower\] and finding the point at which this line intersects eq. \[eq:lv-upper\]. Alternatively, one may insert eq. \[eq:cd\] and eq. \[eq:cv\] into eq. \[eq:critical-velocity\]. This gives $$(\lambda V)_c = \sqrt{ \frac{2a\Delta^{\frac{1+a}{a}} ( \hat{c_v} \sigma^{1-a} {\bar{A}}^{a-1/2} )^{-{1}/{a}} }{(1+a) \hat{c_d}} }\ ,
\label{eq:lv-crit}$$ which is illustrated by the dotted lines in Fig. \[f:prediction\]. The calculated critical cross-over point $(\lambda V)_c=0.056\ \gamma/ \bar{A}^{1/2}$ fulfills its promise of offering a reasonable estimate of the point below which the system yields a wide range of localisation lengths.
While the comparison between the VF Model and the Continuum Model presented in this section gives a fascinating theoretical explanation for the simulation results discussed, its details are far from precise. The location of the upper bound in Fig. \[f:prediction\] is simply an estimate, and further simulations may be needed to determine its exact location. In addition, many approximations were taken in relating the parameters of the two models. However, it is remarkable that *despite* these approximations, a robust prediction can still me made.
Outlook
=======
The apparent agreement of the simulation results in this paper with published experimental work suggests that the 2D VF Model may have further potential for describing realistic foam dynamics. For more detailed studies to be conducted, however, the VF algorithm will need to be improved to decrease the required computation time for these types of simulations. Issues that we will address include the effect of $\mu_2(A)$ on localisation with the 2D VF Model and on the value of the HB exponent. In addition, the dependence of the magnitude of the stress overshoot $\Delta$ on $\mu_{2}(A)$ will be investigated as it is critical to our understanding of its role as a mechanism for shear localisation. It will be of interest to observe what happens to the location of the shear-band for samples with higher $\mu_2(A)$, in light of the results published in [@Wyn:08]. We also intend to compare our VF simulations with simulations using the Soft Disk Model [@Langlois:08].
Acknowledgements
================
The author would like to acknowledge IRCSET Embark for funding this project. IITAC, the HEA, the National Development Plan and the Trinity Centre for High Performance Computing are acknowledged for the use of the computing facilities at TCD. S.J. Cox, Aberystwyth is thanked for his useful input and correspondence in relation to this work. This publication has emerged from research conducted with the financial support of the European Space Agency (MAP AO-99-108:C14914/02/NL/SH and AO-99-075:C14308/00/NL/SH). This material is based upon works supported by the Science Foundation Ireland under Grant No. (08/RFP/MTR1083 and STTF 08). We would also like to thank the anonymous referees whose input helped greatly in improving the quality of this manuscript.
[33]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
Barber C, Dobkin D, Huhdanpaa H (1996) The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 22(4):469–483
Bolton F, Weaire D (1990) Rigidity loss translation in a disordered 2d-froth. Physical Review Letters 65(27):3449–3451
Bragg L, Nye J (1947) A dynamical model of a crystal structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A 190(1023):474–481
Brakke KA (1996) The surface evolver and the stability of liquid surfaces. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A 354:2143–2157
Bretherton F (1961) The motion of long bubbles in tubes. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 10:16
Clancy R, Janiaud E, Weaire D, Hutzler S (2006) The response of 2d foams to continuous applied shear in a couette rheometer. The European Physical Journal E: Soft Matter and Biological Physics 21(2):123–132
Cox S (2005) A viscous froth model for dry foams in the surface evolver. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 263(1-3):81 – 89
Debregéas G, Tabuteau H, di Meglio J (2001) Deformation and flow of a two-dimensional foam under continuous shear. Physical Review Letters 87(17):178305
Durian D (1995) Foam mechanics at the bubble scale. Physical Review Letters 75:4780–4783
Fabritiis GD, Coveney P (2003) Dynamical geometry for multiscale dissipative particle dynamics. Computer Physics Communications 153:209–226
Green T, Bramley A, Lue L, Grassia P (2006) Viscous froth lens. Physical Review E 74:051403
Green T, Grassia P, Lue L, Embley B (2009) Viscous froth model for a bubble staircase structure under rapid applied shear: An analysis of fast flowing foam. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochemical and Engineering Aspects 348:49–58
Hutzler S, Weaire D, Bolton F (1995) The effects of plateau borders in the two-dimensional soap froth. iii: Further results. Philosophical Magazine B 71(3):277–289
Janiaud E, Weaire D, Hutzler S (2006) Two-dimensional foam rheology with viscous drag. Physical Review Letters 97(3):038202
Janiaud E, Weaire D, Hutzler S (2007) A simple continuum model for the dynamics of a quasi-two dimensional foam. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 309(1-3):125–131
Kabla A, Debregéas G (2007) Quasi-static rheology of foams. part 1. oscillating strain. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 587:23–44
Kabla A, Debrgéas G (2003) Local stress relaxation and shear banding in a dry foam under shear. Physical Review Letters 90(25):258303
Kabla A, Scheibert J, Debregéas G (2007) Quasi-static rheology of foams. part 2. continuous shear flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 587:45–72
Katgert G, Latka A, Möbius ME, van Hecke M (2009) Flow in linearly sheared two-dimensional foams: From bubble to bulk scale. Physical Review E 79(066318)
Katgert G, Möbius ME, van Hecke M (2008) Rate dependence and role of disorder in linearly sheared two-dimensional foams. Physical Review Letters 101(058301)
Kern N, Weaire D, Martin A, Hutzler S, et al. (2004) Two-dimensional viscous froth model for foam dynamics. Physical Review E 70:041411
Kraynik A, Reinelt D, van Swol F (2003) Structure of random monodisperse foam. Physical Review E 67:031403
Krishan K, Dennin M (2008) Viscous shear banding in foam. Physical Review E 78(5):051504
Langlois V, Hutzler S, Weaire D (2008) Rheological properties of the soft-disk model of two-dimensional foams. Physical Review E 78:021401
Wang Y, Krishan K, Dennin M (2006) Impact of boundaries on velocity profiles in bubble rafts. Physical Review E 73(031401)
Wang Y, Krishan K, Dennin M (2007) Limits of the equivalence of time and ensemble averages in shear flows. Physical Review Letters 98:220602
Weaire D, Barry J, Hutzler S (2009) The continuum theory of shear localization in two-dimensional foam. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter (manuscript submitted)
Weaire D, Clancy RJ, Hutzler S (2009) A simple analytical theory of localisation in 2d foam rheology. Philosophical Magazine Letters 89:294–299
Weaire D, Hutzler S (2001) The Physics of Foams. [Oxford University Press]{}
Weaire D, Hutzler S, Langlois VJ, Clancy RJ (2008) Velocity dependence of shear localisaion in a 2d foam. Philosophical Magazine Letters 88:387–396
Weaire D, Kermode JP (1983) Computer simulation of a two-dimensional soap froth i. Philosophical Magazine Part B 48(3):245–259
Weaire D, Kermode JP (1984) Computer simulation of a two-dimensional soap froth ii. Philosophical Magazine Part B 50(3):379–395
Wyn A, Davies I, Cox S (2008) Simulations of two-dimensional foam rheology: Localization in linear couette flow and the interaction of settling discs. The European Physical Journal E - Soft Matter 26(1-2):81–89
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Washington\
Box 354350 Seattle, WA 98195-4350
author:
- 'C. Robin Graham'
title: |
Volume and Area Renormalizations for\
Conformally Compact Einstein Metrics
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
It has long been known that there are very close connections between the geometry of hyperbolic space ${\mathbb H}^{n+1}$ of $n+1$ dimensions and the conformal geometry of the $n$-sphere ${\mathbb S}^n$, viewed as the sphere at infinity of ${\mathbb H}^{n+1}$. In recent years it has been realized that it is fruitful to consider generalizations of some of these connections when ${\mathbb H}^{n+1}$ is replaced by a “conformally compact” Einstein manifold $X$ of negative scalar curvature, and ${\mathbb S}^n$ is replaced by a compact conformal manifold $M$, the “conformal infinity” of $X$. Quite recently there has been a great deal of interest in the physics community in a correspondence (the so-called Anti-de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory (AdS/CFT) correspondence) proposed by Maldacena [@mal] between string theory and supergravity on such $X$ and supersymmetric conformal field theories on $M$. In this article we describe some new purely geometric invariants of conformally compact Einstein manifolds and of their minimal submanifolds which have been discovered via this correspondence.
The relevant notion of conformal infinity is that introduced by Penrose. A Riemannian metric $g_+$ on the interior $X^{n+1}$ of a compact manifold with boundary ${\overline X}$ is said to be conformally compact if ${\overline g}\equiv r^2g_+$ extends continuously (or with some degree of smoothness) as a metric to ${\overline X}$, where $r$ is a defining function for $M={\partial}X$, i.e. $r>0$ on $X$ and $r=0$, $dr \neq 0$ on $M$. The restriction of ${\overline g}$ to $TM$ rescales upon changing $r$, so defines invariantly a conformal class of metrics on $M$, the conformal infinity of $g_+$. We are concerned with conformally compact metrics $g_+$ which satisfy the Einstein condition ${\mbox{Ric}}(g_+) = -ng_+$. At least near the hyperbolic metric, these can be parametrized by their conformal infinities: in [@gl] it is shown that each conformal structure on ${\mathbb S}^n$ sufficiently near the standard one is the conformal infinity of a unique (up to diffeomorphism) conformally compact Einstein metric on the ball near the hyperbolic metric.
The volume ${\mbox{Vol}}(X)$ of any conformally compact manifold $X$ is infinite. An appropriate renormalization of ${\mbox{Vol}}(X)$ for $X$ Einstein gives rise to the new volume invariants. In the physics setting, ${\mbox{Vol}}(X)$ arises from a concrete procedure outlined by Witten [@wit] and independently by Gubser, Klebanov, and Polyakov [@gkp], following the suggestion of Maldacena, for calculating observables in a conformal field theory on $M$ via supergravity and string theory on $X$. Under various limits and approximations, the partition function of a conformal field theory on $M$ is given in terms of the gravitational action on $X$, which for an Einstein metric $g_+$ is proportional to the volume ${\mbox{Vol}}(X)$.
The volume renormalization was carried out by Henningson and Skenderis in [@hs1]. As shown in [@fg] and [@gl], each representative metric on $M$ for the conformal infinity determines a special defining function $r$ in a neighborhood of $M$. As ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0$, the function ${\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})$ has an asymptotic expansion in negative powers of $\epsilon$, and a $\log{\epsilon}$ term if $n$ is even. The coefficients of the negative powers of ${\epsilon}$ depend on the representative conformal metric used to determine $r$. However, it turns out that if $n$ is odd, then the constant term in the expansion is independent of this choice, so is a global invariant of the metric $g_+$. If $n$ is even, the constant term is not invariant, giving rise to a so-called conformal anomaly. However, in this case the coefficient of the $\log{\epsilon}$ term is invariant, and in fact is given by the integral of a local curvature expression over $M$. The $\log{\epsilon}$ coefficient is therefore actually a conformal invariant of $M$, independent of which $(X,g_+)$ might have been chosen with conformal infinity $M$.
Various of the conformal field theories to which the AdS/CFT correspondence applies contain observables associated to submanifolds $N$ of $M$. According to the correspondence, in a suitable approximation the expectation value of such an observable can be calculated in terms of the area $A(Y)$ in the $g_+$ metric of minimal submanifolds $Y$ of $X$ with ${\partial}Y =N$. Existence theory for such minimal submanifolds is discussed for hyperbolic $X$ in [@a1], [@a2]. As in the volume case, necessarily $A(Y) = \infty$, so one is led to consideration of renormalizing the area of a minimal submanifold. This renormalization was discussed in hyperbolic space for $\dim N = 1,2$ in [@bcfm] and in general in [@gw]. If $r$ is the special defining function associated to a conformal representative on $M$ as above, then ${\mbox{Area}}(Y\cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})$ has an expansion in negative powers of ${\epsilon}$, and again a $\log {\epsilon}$ term if $k=\dim(N)$ is even. The invariance properties of the coefficients are similar to those above. If $k$ is odd, then the constant term in the expansion is independent of the choice of conformal representative on $M$, so is a global invariant of the minimal submanifold $Y$. If $k$ is even, there is a conformal anomaly for the constant term, but the $\log{\epsilon}$ coefficient is a conformal invariant of the submanifold $N$ of $M$. One can calculate explicitly the $\log{\epsilon}$ coefficient for $k=2$; it turns out to be a version on a general conformal manifold of the Willmore functional of a surface in conformally flat space. Even in the conformally flat case, this relationship between the Willmore functional of a surface and the renormalization of the area of a minimal extension seems to be of some interest. The Willmore functional is called the “rigid string action” in the physics literature ([@bcfm], [@p]).
In §2. we review some of the basic properties of conformally compact Einstein metrics. In §3. we discuss the results of [@hs1]: the derivation of the volume renormalization and resulting invariants and anomalies and the explicit identification of the $\log{\epsilon}$ coefficient and anomaly for $n=4,6$. We also calculate the renormalized volume for ${\mathbb H}^{n+1}$ when $n$ is odd; it turns out that its sign depends on the parity of $(n+1)/2$. In §4. we review the area renormalization for minimal submanifolds, following [@gw].
We remark that in order to justify the derivation of the asymptotic expansions in ${\epsilon}$ of the volume and area, we have to assume that the Einstein metric $g_+$ and the minimal submanifold $Y$ are sufficiently regular at infinity. Here sufficiently regular means that they have asymptotic expansions to high enough order, in general involving log terms, which formally solve the Einstein or minimal area equations. One expects that if the conformal structure on $M$ and the submanifold $N$ are smooth, then any conformally compact Einstein metric $g_+$ and minimal submanifold $Y$ will have such regularity, assuming they take on the boundary data in a suitable sense. Some regularity results for minimal submanifolds of hyperbolic space are given in [@hl], [@l1], [@l2], [@t]. (An error in [@l1] is corrected in [@t].) A regularity theorem for Einstein metrics has been obtained by Skinner [@s].
Conformally Compact Einstein Metrics
====================================
Let $X$ be the interior of a compact manifold with boundary ${\overline X}$ of dimension $n+1$ as in the introduction and let $g_+$ be a conformally compact metric on $X$. Let $r$ be a sufficiently smooth defining function for $M={\partial}X$ defined near $M$ and set ${\overline g}= r^2 g_+$. As discussed in the introduction, the conformal class $[{\overline g}|_{TM}]$ is an invariant of $g_+$, independent of any choices. The function $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}} = {\overline g}^{ij}r_ir_j$ extends to ${\overline X}$ and its restriction to $M$ is independent of the choice of $r$, so defines a second invariant of $g_+$. The metric $g_+$ on $X$ is complete and its sectional curvature is asymptotically constant at each boundary point–conformally transforming the curvature tensor shows that $$\label{curvten}
R_{ijkl} = -(|dr|^2_{{\overline g}})(g_{ik}g_{jl}-g_{il}g_{jk}) +O(r^{-3}),$$ where here the curvature tensor $R$ and metric $g$ both refer to $g_+$, and our conventions are such that the above formula without the error term defines a curvature tensor of constant curvature $-(|dr|^2_{{\overline g}})$. It follows that the value of the invariant $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}}$ at a boundary point is the negative of the asymptotic sectional curvature of $g_+$ there.
We will assume that $g_+$ satisfies the normalized Einstein condition ${\mbox{Ric}}(g_+)=-ng_+$. Contracting in (\[curvten\]) shows that in this case we have $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}} = 1$ on $M$.
In general, a choice of defining function $r$ determines a representative metric ${\overline g}|_{TM} = (r^2 g_+)|_{TM}$ for the conformal structure on $M$. However, in the other direction, the conformal representative and this relation only determine $r \mod O(r^2)$. In the case when $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}} = 1$ on $M$, in particular when $g_+$ is Einstein, one can impose a second condition to determine $r$ uniquely in a neighborhood of $M$.
\[deffn\] A metric on $M$ in the conformal infinity of $g_+$ determines a unique defining function $r$ in a neighborhood of $M$ such that ${\overline g}|_{TM}$ is the prescribed boundary metric and such that $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}}=1$.
Given any choice of defining function $r_0$, let ${\overline g}_0=r^2_0 g_+$ and set $r=r_0 e^{{\omega}}$, so ${\overline g}=e^{2{\omega}}{\overline g}_0$ and $dr=e^{\omega}(dr_0+r_0d{\omega})$. Thus $$|dr|^2_{{\overline g}}=|dr_0 + r_0d{\omega}|^2_{{\overline g}_0}=
|dr_0|^2_{{\overline g}_0}+2r_0(\nabla_{{\overline g}_0}r_0)({\omega})
+r_0^2|d{\omega}|^2_{{\overline g}_0},$$ so the condition $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}}=1$ is equivalent to $$\label{pde}
2(\nabla_{{\overline g}_0}r_0)({\omega})+r_0|d{\omega}|^2_{{\overline g}_0}=
\frac{1-|dr_0|^2_{{\overline g}_0}}{r_0}.$$ This is a non-characteristic first order PDE for ${\omega}$, so there is a solution near $M$ with ${\omega}|_{M}$ arbitrarily prescribed.
A defining function determines for some $\epsilon>0$ an identification of $M \times [0,\epsilon)$ with a neighborhood of $M$ in ${\overline X}$: $(p,\lambda)\in M\times[0,\epsilon)$ corresponds to the point obtained by following the integral curve of $\nabla_{{\overline g}}r$ emanating from $p$ for $\lambda$ units of time. For a defining function of the type given in the lemma, with $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}}=1$, the $\lambda$-coordinate is just $r$, and $\nabla_{{\overline g}}r$ is orthogonal to the slices $M\times\{\lambda\}$. Hence, identifying $\lambda$ with $r$, on $M\times[0,\epsilon)$ the metric ${\overline g}$ takes the form ${\overline g}=g_{r}+dr^2$ for a 1-parameter family $g_{r}$ of metrics on $M$, and $$\label{form}
g_+=r^{-2}(g_{r}+dr^2).$$
We explicitly identify a special defining function $r$ and normal form (\[form\]) for the hyperbolic metric $g_+ = 4(1-|x|^2)^{-2}\Sigma (dx^i)^2$ on the unit ball in ${\mathbb R}^{n+1}$. Notice that in general the condition $|dr|^2_{{\overline g}}=1$ can be rewritten as $|d(\log \frac1r)|^2_{g_+}=1$, which is the eikonal equation for $\log \frac1r$ in the metric $g_+$. The distance function $d(x) =$ (hyperbolic distance from $x$ to $0$) satisfies the eikonal equation and also $d(x) \rightarrow \infty$ as $|x| \rightarrow 1$, so we take $\log \frac1r = d(x)$, i.e. $r=e^{-d(x)}$. Now it is a basic fact of hyperbolic geometry that $d(x) = \log \frac{1+|x|}{1-|x|}$, so $r=\frac{1-|x|}{1+|x|}$ is a special defining function for ${\mathbb H}^{n+1}$ as in Lemma \[deffn\]. Then ${\overline g}= r^2g_+=4(1+|x|)^{-4}\Sigma (dx^i)^2$, so the associated representative for the conformal structure is $g_0 = \frac14(\mbox{usual metric on }{\mathbb S}^n$). Writing $\Sigma (dx^i)^2$ in polar coordinates and expressing everything in terms of $r$ gives $g_+ = r^{-2}\left((1-r^2)^2g_0+ (dr)^2 \right)$, and therefore $$\label{hyp}
g_r = (1-r^2)^2g_0.$$
We now impose the Einstein condition on a metric of the form (\[form\]). One can decompose the tensor ${\mbox{Ric}}(g_+) + ng_+$ into components with respect to the product structure $M\times (0,\epsilon)$. A straightforward calculation shows that the vanishing of the component with both indices in $M$ is given by $$\label{ric}
rg_{ij}'' + (1-n)g_{ij}' - g^{kl}g_{kl}'g_{ij} - rg^{kl}g_{ik}'g_{jl}'
+\frac r2g^{kl}g_{kl}'g_{ij}' - 2r{\mbox{Ric}}_{ij}(g_r)=0,$$ where $g_{ij}$ denotes the tensor $g_r$ on $M$, $'$ denotes ${\partial}_r$, and ${\mbox{Ric}}_{ij}(g_r)$ denotes the Ricci tensor of $g_r$ with $r$ fixed. As indicated in the introduction, we assume that $g_r$ is sufficiently regular that its asymptotics may be calculated from (\[ric\]) (and the equations for the other components of ${\mbox{Ric}}(g_+) + ng_+$). Differentiating (\[ric\]) $\nu - 1$ times with respect to $r$ and setting $r=0$ gives $$\label{deriv}
(\nu-n){\partial}_r^{\nu}g_{ij} - g^{kl}({\partial}_r^{\nu}g_{kl})g_{ij} =
(\mbox{terms involving }{\partial}_r^{\mu}g_{ij}\mbox{ with } \mu<\nu).$$ Beginning with the initial condition that $g_r$ is a given representative metric at $r=0$, we may use (\[deriv\]) inductively to solve for the expansion of $g_r$. So long as $\nu<n$, ${\partial}_r^{\nu}g|_{r=0}$ is uniquely determined at each step, and since the left-hand side of (\[ric\]) respects parity in $r$, we have ${\partial}_r^{\nu}g|_{r=0}=0$ for $\nu$ odd. However this breaks down for $\nu = n$. In that case, if $n$ is odd, it follows from parity considerations that the right-hand side of (\[deriv\]) vanishes at $r=0$, so $g^{kl}{\partial}_r^ng_{kl}=0$ but the trace-free part of ${\partial}_r^ng_{kl}$ may be chosen arbitrarily. If $n$ is even, then the right-hand side of (\[deriv\]) might have non-vanishing trace-free part, forcing the inclusion of a $r^n \log r$ term in the expansion for $g_r$ with a trace-free coefficient. The trace of the $r^n$ coefficient is determined but not its trace-free part. It can be shown that the remaining components of ${\mbox{Ric}}(g_+)+ng_+$ give no further information to this order.
Summarizing, we see that for $n$ odd, the expansion of $g_r$ is of the form $$\label{oddasym}
g_r= g^{(0)} + g^{(2)} r^2 + (\mbox{even powers}) + g^{(n-1)} r^{n-1} +
g^{(n)} r^n + \ldots,$$ where the $g^{(j)}$ are tensors on $M$, and $g^{(n)}$ is trace-free with respect to a metric in the conformal class on $M$. For $j$ even and $0\leq j \leq n-1$, the tensor $g^{(j)}$ is locally formally determined by the conformal representative, but $g^{(n)}$ is formally undetermined, subject to the trace-free condition. For $n$ even the analogous expansion is $$\label{evenasym}
g_r= g^{(0)} + g^{(2)} r^2 + (\mbox{even powers}) + hr^n \log r +
g^{(n)} r^n + \ldots,$$ where now the $g^{(j)}$ are locally determined for $j$ even and $0\leq j
\leq n-2$, $h$ is locally determined and trace-free, the trace of $g^{(n)}$ is locally determined, but the trace-free part of $g^{(n)}$ is formally undetermined.
Of course, the determined coefficients in these expansions may be calculated by carrying out the indicated differentiations above and keeping track of the lower order terms at each stage. For example, for $n=2$ one finds that $h=0$ and $$\label{n=2}
g^{ij}g^{(2)}_{ij} = -\frac 12 R,$$ while for $n\geq 3$ one has $g^{(2)}_{ij}=-P_{ij}$, where $$\label{P}
(n-2)P_{ij} = R_{ij} - \frac{R}{2(n-1)}g_{ij},$$ and $R_{ij}$ and $R$ denote the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature of the chosen representative $g_{ij}$ of the conformal infinity.
In order to establish conformal invariance of the renormalized volume invariants, we will later need to use the following Lemma.
\[rel\] Let $r$ and ${\hat r}$ be special defining functions as in Lemma \[deffn\] associated to two different conformal representatives. Then $$\label{relation}
{\hat r}= r e^{{\omega}}$$ for a function ${\omega}$ on $M\times[0,{\epsilon})$ whose expansion at $r=0$ consists only of even powers of $r$ up through and including the $r^{n+1}$ term.
We have ${\hat r}=e^{{\omega}}r$ where ${\omega}$ is determined by (\[pde\]), which in this case becomes $$\label{newpde}
2{\omega}_r +r({\omega}_r^2+|d_M{\omega}|_{g_r}^2)=0.$$ The Taylor expansion of ${\omega}$ is determined inductively by differentiating this equation at $r=0$. Clearly ${\omega}_{r} = 0$ at $r=0$. Consider the determination of $\partial_r^{k+1}{\omega}$ resulting from differentiating (\[newpde\]) an even number $k$ times and setting $r=0$. The term ${\omega}_r^2$ gets differentiated $k-1$ times, so one of the two factors ends up differentiated an odd number of times, so by induction vanishes at $r=0$. Now $|d_M{\omega}|_{g_r}^2=g_{r}^{ij}{\omega}_i{\omega}_j$, so the $k-1$ differentiations must be split between the three factors, so one of the factors must receive an odd number of differentiations. When an odd number of derivatives hits a ${\omega}_i$, the result again vanishes by induction. But by (\[oddasym\]) and (\[evenasym\]), so long as $k-1<n$, the odd derivatives of $g_r$ vanish at $r=0$.
Volume Renormalization
======================
Let $g_+$ be a conformally compact Einstein metric on $X$. As discussed above, a representative metric $g$ on $M$ for the conformal infinity of $g_+$ determines a special defining function $r$ for $M$ and an identification of a neighborhood of $M$ in ${\overline X}$ with $M \times [0,{\epsilon})$. In this identification, $g_+$ takes the form (\[form\]), where $g_0 = g$ is the chosen representative metric. Therefore the volume element $dv_{g_+}$ is given by $$\label{volform}
dv_{g_+} = r^{-n-1}\left(\frac {\det g_r}{\det g}\right)^{1/2} dv_gdr.$$ [From]{} (\[oddasym\]) and (\[evenasym\]) and the properties stated there for the coefficients in those expansions, it follows that $$\label{det}
\left(\frac {\det g_r}{\det g}\right)^{1/2}=
1+v^{(2)}r^2+(\mbox{even powers})+v^{(n)}r^{n}+ \ldots,$$ where the $\ldots$ indicates terms vanishing to higher order. All indicated $v^{(j)}$ are locally determined functions on $M$ and $v^{(n)}=0$ if $n$ is odd.
Consider now the asymptotics of ${\mbox{Vol}}_{g_+}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})$ as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow
0$. Pick a small number $r_0$ and express ${\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})= C + \int_{\{{\epsilon}<r<r_0\}}dv_{g_+}$. Integrating (\[volform\]) using (\[det\]) we obtain for $n$ odd $$\label{vodd}
\begin{array}l
{\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})= c_0 {\epsilon}^{-n} + c_2{\epsilon}^{-n+2} +
(\mbox{odd powers}) + c_{n-1} {\epsilon}^{-1} \\[3pt]
\phantom{{\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})=} + V + o(1)
\end{array}$$ and for $n$ even $$\label{veven}
\begin{array}l
{\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})=c_0 {\epsilon}^{-n} + c_2{\epsilon}^{-n+2} +
(\mbox{even powers})+ c_{n-2} {\epsilon}^{-2} \\[3pt]
\phantom{{\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})=} + L\log {\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}} +V + o(1).
\end{array}$$ The coefficients $c_i$ and $L$ are integrals over $M$ of local curvature expressions of the metric $g$. For example, $c_0 = \frac 1n {\mbox{Vol}}_g(M)$. Also, $$\label{Lform}
L = \int_M v^{(n)}\, dv_g.$$
The renormalized volume is the constant term $V$ in the expansion for ${\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})$, which a-priori depends on the choice $g$ of representative conformal metric on $M$.
\[invariance\] If $n$ is odd, then $V$ is independent of the choice of $g$.\
If $n$ is even, then $L$ is independent of the choice of $g$.
The special defining functions $r$ and ${\hat r}$ associated to representative metrics $g$ and ${\hat g}$ are related as in Lemma \[rel\]. We can solve (\[relation\]) for $r$ to give $r={\hat r}b (x,{\hat r})$, where the expansion of $b$ also has only even powers of ${\hat r}$ up through the ${\hat r}^{n+1}$ term. It is important to note that in this relation, the $x$ still refers to the identification associated with $r$.
Set ${\hat{\epsilon}}(x,{\epsilon}) = {\epsilon}b(x,{\epsilon})$. Then ${\hat r}>{\epsilon}$ is equivalent to $r>{\hat{\epsilon}}(x,{\epsilon})$, so $${\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\})-{\mbox{Vol}}(\{{\hat r}>{\epsilon}\})=
\int_{M}\int_{{\epsilon}}^{{\hat{\epsilon}}}dv_{g_+}$$ $$\label{diff}
=\int_M\int_{{\epsilon}}^{{\hat{\epsilon}}}
\sum_{\stackrel{0\leq j\leq n}{j\, {\rm even}
}} v^{(j)}(x) r^{-n-1+j}dr dv_g + o(1),$$ where we have used (\[volform\]), (\[det\]). For $n$ odd this is $$\sum_{\stackrel{0\leq j\leq n-1}{j\, {\rm even}}}{\epsilon}^{-n+j}
\int_M\frac{v^{(j)}(x)}{-n+j}\left ( b(x,{\epsilon})^{-n+j}-1 \right )dv_g +
o(1).$$ Since $b(x,\epsilon)$ is even through terms of order $n+1$ in ${\epsilon}$, it follows that this expression has no constant term as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. Similarly, when $n$ is even, the $r^{-1}$ term in (\[diff\]) contributes $\log b(x,{\epsilon})$, so there is no $\log {\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}}$ term as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.
According to Theorem \[invariance\], for $n$ odd the renormalized volume $V$ is an absolute invariant of the conformally compact Einstein metric $g_+$. But this is not so if $n$ is even. Suppose $g$ and ${\hat g}=
e^{2{\Upsilon}}g$ are two metrics in the conformal infinity of $g_+$, where ${\Upsilon}\in C^{\infty}(M)$. The difference $V_g - V_{{\hat g}}$ is the constant term in the expansion of (\[diff\]). By the local determination of the $v^{(j)}$ and of the expansion of $b(x,{\epsilon})$, we see that this anomaly takes the form $$V_{{\hat g}}-V_g=\int_M \mathcal P_g({\Upsilon})dv_g,$$ where $\mathcal P_g$ is a polynomial nonlinear differential operator whose coefficients are polynomial expressions in $g$, its inverse, and its derivatives. Moreover, it is easy to see that the linear part in ${\Upsilon}$ of $\mathcal P_g({\Upsilon})$ is just $v^{(n)}{\Upsilon}$. Since this linear part measures the infinitesimal change under conformal rescalings, $V_{{\hat g}}-V_g$ is determined by knowledge of $v^{(n)}$ for general $g$. In summary, for $n$ even, the fundamental object is the function $v^{(n)}$—its integral over $M$ is by (\[Lform\]) the conformal invariant $L$, and multiplication by it gives the infinitesimal anomaly, which determines the full anomaly.
It is straightforward to carry out the calculations indicated above to identify $v^{(n)}$ and $\mathcal P_g$ in low dimensions. For $n=2$ one obtains $$v^{(2)} = -\frac 14 R, \qquad \mathcal P_g({\Upsilon})=-\frac14 (R{\Upsilon}+
{\Upsilon}_i{\Upsilon}^i),$$ so $L=-\pi \chi(M)$, where $\chi(M)$ denotes the Euler characteristic of $M$.
For $n=4$ one obtains $$v^{(4)}= \frac18 [(P_i{}^i)^2 - P_{ij}P^{ij}],$$ $$\mathcal P_g({\Upsilon}) = v^{(4)}{\Upsilon}+ {\Upsilon}_{ij}{\Upsilon}^i{\Upsilon}^j - P_{ij}{\Upsilon}^i{\Upsilon}^j -
\frac14({\Upsilon}_i{\Upsilon}^i)^2 +P_j{}^j{\Upsilon}_i{\Upsilon}^i.$$ The Gauss-Bonnet Theorem for $n=4$ reads $$32\pi^2 \chi(M) = \int_M [|W|^2 -8P_{ij}P^{ij} + 8(P_i{}^i)^2]
dv_g,$$ where $$W_{ijkl}=R_{ijkl} - (P_{ik}g_{jl}
+P_{jl}g_{ik}-P_{il}g_{jk}-P_{jk}g_{il})$$ is the Weyl conformal curvature tensor. Therefore $$L= \frac {\pi^2}{2} \chi(M) - \frac {1}{64}
\int_M |W|^2 dv_g.$$
For $n=6$ one obtains $$v^{(6)}= \frac {1}{48}[-P^{ij}B_{ij}
+3P_i{}^iP_{kl}P^{kl}-2P_{ij}P_k{}^iP^{jk} -(P_i{}^i)^3],$$ where $$B_{ij}=P_{ij,k}{}^k -P_{ik,j}{}^k - P^{kl}W_{kijl}.$$ Again there is an explicit realization of $L=\int_M v^{(6)}dv_g$ as a linear combination of the Euler characteristic and the integral of a local conformal invariant. Define $$C_{ijk}= P_{ij,k}-P_{ik,j}$$ and set $$V_{ijklm}=W_{ijkl,m}+g_{im}C_{jkl}-g_{jm}C_{ikl}+g_{km}C_{lij}
-g_{lm}C_{kij}$$ and $$U_{ijkl}=C_{jkl,i}-P_i{}^mW_{mjkl}.$$ Then $$I=|V|^2 - 16 W_{ijkl}U^{ijkl} +16 |C|^2$$ is a conformal invariant in general dimension $n\geq3$; it is the norm-squared of the first covariant derivative of the curvature tensor of the ambient metric of [@fg]. One can calculate that for $n=6$, $$L=-\frac{\pi^3}{6} \chi(M) + \frac {1}{2304}\int_M J dv_g,$$ where $$J = -3I
+7W_{ijkl}W^{ij}{}_{pq}W^{klpq} +4 W_{ijkl}W^{ipkq}W^j{}_p{}^l{}_q.$$
For ${\mathbb H}^{n+1}$, using (\[hyp\]) it is possible to calculate the invariants $V$ for $n$ odd and $L$ for $n$ even. [From]{} (\[hyp\]) one obtains $$\left(\frac {\det g_r}{\det g_0}\right)^{1/2} = (1-r^2)^n,$$ so recalling that $4g_0$ is the usual metric on ${\mathbb S}^n$, it follows from (\[volform\]) that $$\label{hypvol}
{\mbox{Vol}}(\{r>{\epsilon}\}) = 2^{-n}\mbox{Area}({\mathbb S}^n)\int_{{\epsilon}}^1 r^{-n-1}
(1-r^2)^n dr.$$
For $n$ odd, write $$\int_{\epsilon}^1 r^{-n-1}(1-r^2)^ndr = -\frac{1}{n}
\int_{\epsilon}^1(1-r^2)^nd(r^{-n})$$ $$=
\frac{1}{n}\epsilon^{-n}(1-\epsilon^2)^n-
2\int_{\epsilon}^1r^{-n+1}(1-r^2)^{n-1}dr.$$ The boundary term has no constant term in $\epsilon$, so upon applying the same procedure inductively it follows that $\int_{\epsilon}^1r^{-n-1}(1-r^2)^ndr$ has constant term $$\frac{(-2)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}n(n-1)\ldots \left(\frac{n+1}{2}\right)}
{n(n-2)\ldots 1}\int_0^1(1-r^2)^{\frac{n-1}{2}}dr.$$ Collecting the constants, one finds $$V=(-1)^{\frac{n+1}{2}}
\frac{\pi^{\frac{n+2}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n+2}{2})}.$$
For $n=2m$ even, expand $(1-r^2)^n$ using the binomial theorem; it follows that the $\log \frac {1}{{\epsilon}}$ coefficient in the expansion of $\int_{{\epsilon}}^1 r^{-n-1}(1-r^2)^n dr$ is $(-1)^{m}
\left(\begin{array}{c} n \\ m \end{array} \right)$. Substituting into (\[hypvol\]) and simplifying gives $$L=(-1)^{m}\frac {2\pi^{m}}{m!}.$$
A more familiar setting for conformal anomalies is in the study of functional determinants of conformally invariant differential operators. The invariance properties of $V$ are reminiscent of those for the functional determinant of the conformal Laplacian, which is conformally invariant in odd dimensions but which has an anomaly in even dimensions ([@pr]). We remark that the AdS/CFT correspondence predicts that the volume anomaly for $n=4$ is a particular linear combination of functional determinant anomalies on scalars, spinors, and 1-forms; this prediction was confirmed in [@hs1]. The properties of the invariant $L$ are, on the other hand, similar to those for the constant term in the expansion of the integrated heat kernel for the conformal Laplacian, which vanishes in odd dimensions but in even dimensions is a conformal invariant obtained by integrating a local expression in curvature ([@bo], [@pr]).
Area Renormalization
====================
Let $(X^{n+1},g_+)$ be a conformally compact Einstein manifold with conformal infinity $(M,[g])$ as above. In this section we describe the renormalization of the area of minimal submanifolds $Y \subset X$ of dimension $k+1$, $0 \leq k \leq n-1$, which extend regularly to ${\overline X}$. Set $N={\overline Y}\cap M$. We assume that $N$ is a smooth submanifold of $M$. We will outline the arguments and refer to [@gw] for details.
First one must study the asymptotics of $Y$ near $M$. Locally near a point of $N$, coordinates $(x^{{\alpha}},u^{{\alpha}'})$ for $M$ may be chosen, where $1\leq {\alpha}\leq k$ and $1\leq {\alpha}' \leq n-k$, so that $N=\{u=0\}$ and so that $\partial_{x^{{\alpha}}}
\perp \partial_{u^{{\alpha}'}}$ on $N$ with respect to a metric in the conformal infinity of $g_+$. Choose a representative metric $g$ for the conformal infinity and recall that this choice determines by Lemma \[deffn\] a defining function $r$ for $M$ and an identification of a neighborhood of $M$ in ${\overline X}$ with $M\times [0,{\epsilon})$. This identification determines an extension of the $x^{{\alpha}}$ and $u^{{\alpha}'}$ into $X$, and together with $r$ these form a local coordinate system on ${\overline X}$. We consider submanifolds $Y$ which in such coordinates may be written as a graph $\{u=u(x,r)\}$. One can calculate the minimal surface equation for $Y$ explicitly as a system of differential equations for the unknowns $u^{{\alpha}'}(x,r)$. These equations together with the boundary condition $u(x,0)=0$ are used to study the asymptotics of $u(x,r)$ at $r=0$. One finds (see [@gw]) that for $k$ odd $$\label{uodd}
u= u^{(2)} r^2 + (\mbox{even powers}) + u^{(k+1)} r^{k+1} +
u^{(k+2)} r^{k+2} + \ldots,$$ and for $k$ even $$\label{ueven}
u= u^{(2)} r^2 + (\mbox{even powers}) + u^{(k)} r^{k} +
wr^{k+2} \log r + u^{(k+2)} r^{k+2} + \ldots,$$ where the $u^{(j)}$ and $w$ are functions of $x$, all of which are locally determined except for $u^{(k+2)},$ and the $\ldots$ indicates terms vanishing to higher order. Observe in particular that the minimal submanifold $Y$ is determined to order $k+2$ by $N = \partial Y$, that the expansion of $u$ is even in $r$ to order $k+2$, and that the irregularity in the expansion occurs at order $k+2$. The consequence ${\partial}_r u=0$ at $r=0$ has the geometric interpretation that $Y$ intersects $M$ orthogonally, a fact very familiar from the geometry of geodesics in hyperbolic space. For the case $k=0$ of geodesics it turns out that necessarily $w=0$, and the local indeterminancy in this case of $u^{(2)}$ is a reflection of the familiar fact that at the boundary a geodesic may have any asymptotic curvature measured with respect to the smooth metric ${\overline g}$.
Next one calculates the metric induced on $Y$ by the conformally compact Einstein metric $g_+$. The area form $da_Y$ of $Y$ takes the form $$\label{areaform}
da_Y=r^{-k-1}\left [ 1 + a^{(2)} r^2 + (\mbox{even powers}) + a^{(k)}
r^{k} +\ldots \right ] da_Ndr,$$ where the $\ldots$ indicates terms vanishing to higher order and $da_N$ denotes the area form on $N$ with respect to the chosen conformal representative $g$ on the boundary. All indicated $a^{(j)}$ are locally determined functions on $N$ and $a^{(k)} =0$ if $k$ is odd. A key observation in establishing (\[areaform\]) is that since the induced metric depends only on $u$ and its first coordinate derivatives, the local indeterminacy and irregularities at order $k+2$ in $u$ and those at order $n$ in the metric $g_r$ given by (\[oddasym\]), (\[evenasym\]) do not enter into the asymptotics of the area form to the indicated order. The evenness of $r^{k+1}da_Y$ then follows from that of $g_r$ and of $u$.
Now we can consider the asymptotics of Area$_{g_+}(Y \cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})$ as ${\epsilon}\rightarrow 0.$ Pick a small number $r_0$ and express $\mbox{Area}(Y \cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})= C + \int_{Y \cap \{{\epsilon}<r<r_0\}}da_Y$. By (\[areaform\]) we obtain for $k$ odd $$\begin{array}l
\mbox{Area}(Y \cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})= b_0 {\epsilon}^{-k} + b_2{\epsilon}^{-k+2} +
(\mbox{even powers}) + b_{k-1} {\epsilon}^{-1} \\[3pt]
\phantom{\mbox{Area}(Y \cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})=} + A + o(1)
\end{array}$$ and for $k$ even $$\label{aeven}
\begin{array}l
\mbox{Area}(Y \cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})= b_0 {\epsilon}^{-k} + b_2{\epsilon}^{-k+2} +
(\mbox{even powers}) + b_{k-2} {\epsilon}^{-2} \\[3pt]
\phantom{\mbox{Area}(Y \cap \{r>{\epsilon}\})=} + K\log {\frac{1}{{\epsilon}}} +A + o(1).
\end{array}$$ Observe that $$\label{Kform}
K = \int_N a^{(k)}\, da_N.$$ The analogue of Theorem \[invariance\] is the following, which is proved by a similar argument.
\[ainvariance\] If $k$ is odd, then $A$ is independent of the choice of $g$.\
If $k$ is even, then $K$ is independent of the choice of $g$.
Therefore, for $k$ odd, a minimal submanifold of $X$ has a well-defined invariant renormalized area $A$. For $k$ even, the $\log
\frac {1}{{\epsilon}}$ coefficient $K$ is a conformal invariant of the submanifold $N$ of $M$ given according to (\[Kform\]) by the integral of an expression determined locally by the geometry of $N\subset M$ with respect to the metric $g$.
Analogously to the volume case, there is a conformal anomaly for $A$ when $k$ is even. If ${\hat g}=e^{2{\Upsilon}}g$ is a conformally related metric, then the local determination of the coefficients $a^{(j)}$ in (\[areaform\]) and of the defining function ${\hat r}$ as in Lemma \[deffn\] implies that $$A_{{\hat g}}-A_g=\int_N \mathcal Q_N({\Upsilon})da_N$$ for a differential expression $\mathcal Q_N$ determined locally by the geometry of $N\subset M$. One interesting difference from the volume anomaly is that the linearization of $\mathcal Q_N({\Upsilon})$ need not be just $a^{(k)}{\Upsilon}$–it can in general involve derivatives of ${\Upsilon}$ as well. However it is clear from rescaling in (\[aeven\]) that $\mathcal Q_N({\Upsilon}) = a^{(k)}{\Upsilon}$ for ${\Upsilon}$ constant.
The invariant $K$ and the anomaly for the lowest dimensional cases $k=0,2$ are calculated in [@gw]. For $k=0$, $Y$ is a union of geodesics in $X$ and $N$ consists of finitely many points. Of course a point has no geometry and the conclusions are rather trivial; one finds that $K$ is the number of boundary points, $\mathcal Q$ evaluates ${\Upsilon}$ at a boundary point, and the anomaly is given by $A_{{\hat g}}-A_g = \sum_{p\in N} {\Upsilon}(p)$. To describe the $k=2$ results recall that the second fundamental form of $N\subset M$ with respect to the metric $g$ is the symmetric form $B^{{\gamma}'}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ on $TN$ with values in $TN^{\perp}$ defined by $B(X,Y) = (\nabla_X Y)^{\perp}$ for vectors $X,Y \in TN$; here $\nabla$ denotes the Levi-Civita covariant derivative of $g_{ij}$ and $\perp$ the component in $TN^{\perp}$. On $N$, the metric $g_{ij}$ decomposes into two pieces $g_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ and $g_{{\alpha}'{\beta}'}$. The mean curvature vector of $N$ is $H^{{\gamma}'} =
g^{{\alpha}{\beta}} B^{{\gamma}'}_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$. The tensor $P$ given by (\[P\]) also decomposes into pieces with respect to the decomposition $TM = TN \oplus (TN)^{\perp}$; we denote by $P_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$ its component with both indices in $TN$ ([*not*]{} the corresponding tensor for the induced metric $g_{{\alpha}{\beta}}$). Then for $k=2$ one finds $$\label{K}
K=-\frac 18 \int_N(|H|^2 + 4g^{{\alpha}{\beta}}P_{{\alpha}{\beta}})da_N$$ and $$\mathcal Q_N({\Upsilon})= -\frac 18 (|H|^2 + 4g^{{\alpha}{\beta}}P_{{\alpha}{\beta}}){\Upsilon}+\frac 14(H^{{\gamma}'}{\Upsilon}_{{\gamma}'} -{\Upsilon}_i{\Upsilon}^i) .$$
The quantity defined by $(\ref{K})$ is therefore a conformal invariant of a surface $N$ in a conformal manifold $M$. For conformally flat space this reduces to a multiple of the Willmore functional (for which, see, e.g., [@b]). Other generalizations of the Willmore functional to curved conformal spaces are given in [@c] and [@w].
A different conformal anomaly associated to a surface in a conformal 6-manifold is discussed in [@hs2].
X
M. Anderson, [*Complete minimal varieties in hyperbolic space*]{}, Invent. Math. [**69**]{} (1982), 477-494.
M. Anderson, [*Complete minimal hypersurfaces in hyperbolic $n$-manifolds*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. [**58**]{} (1983), 264-290.
D. Berenstein, R. Corrado, W. Fischler and J. Maldacena, [*Operator product expansion for Wilson loops and surfaces in the large N limit*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{} (1999), 105023, [hep-th/9809188]{}.
T. Branson and B. Ørsted, [*Conformal indices of Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Comp. Math. [**60**]{} (1986), 261-293.
R. Bryant, [*Surfaces in conformal geometry*]{}, in [*The Mathematical Heritage of Hermann Weyl*]{}, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. [**48**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. (1988), 227-240.
B.-Y. Chen, [*Some conformal invariants of submanifolds and their applications*]{}, Bol. U.M.I. [**10**]{} (1974), 380-385.
C. Fefferman and C.R. Graham, [*Conformal invariants*]{}, in [*Elie Cartan et les Mathematiques d’Aujourd’hui*]{}, Asterisque (1985), 95-116.
C.R. Graham and J. Lee, [*Einstein metrics with prescribed conformal infinity on the ball*]{}, Adv. Math. [**87**]{} (1991), 186-225.
C.R. Graham and E. Witten, [*Conformal anomaly of submanifold observables in AdS/CFT correspondence*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**546**]{} (1999), 52-64, [hep-th/9901021]{}.
S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov and A.M. Polyakov, [*Gauge theory correlators from non-critical string theory*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**428**]{} (1998), 105-114, [hep-th/9802109]{}.
R. Hardt and F.-H. Lin, [*Regularity at infinity for area-minimizing hypersurfaces in hyperbolic space*]{}, Invent. Math. [**88**]{} (1987), 217-224.
M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, [*The holographic Weyl anomaly*]{}, J. High Ener. Phys. [**07**]{} (1998), 023, [hep-th/9806087]{}; [*Holography and the Weyl anomaly*]{}, [hep-th/9812032]{}.
M. Henningson and K. Skenderis, [*Weyl anomaly for Wilson surfaces*]{}, [hep-th/]{} [9905163]{}.
F.-H. Lin, [*On the Dirichlet problem for minimal graphs in hyperbolic space*]{}, Invent. Math. [**96**]{} (1989), 593-612.
F.-H. Lin, [*Asymptotic behavior of area-minimizing currents in hyperbolic space*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**42**]{} (1989), 229-242.
J. Maldacena, [*The large $N$ limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998), 231-252, [hep-th/9711200]{}.
T. Parker and S. Rosenberg, [*Invariants of conformal Laplacians*]{}, J. Diff. Geom. [**25**]{} (1987), 199-222.
A.M. Polyakov, [*Fine structure of strings*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**268**]{} (1986), 406-412.
D. Skinner, PhD. thesis, in preparation.
Y. Tonegawa, [*Existence and regularity of constant mean curvature hypersurfaces in hyperbolic space*]{}, Math. Z. [**221**]{} (1996), 591-615.
J. Weiner, [*On a problem of Chen, Willmore, et.al.*]{}, Ind. Univ. Math. J. [**27**]{} (1978), 19-35.
E. Witten, [*Anti-de Sitter space and holography*]{}, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{} (1998), 253-290, [hep-th/9802150]{}.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Penetration of two coupled particles through a repulsive barrier is considered. A simple mechanism of the appearance of barrier resonances is demonstrated that makes the barrier anomalously transparent as compared to the probability of penetration of structureless objects. It is indicated that the probabilities of tunnelling of two interacting particles from a false vacuum can be considerably larger than it was assumed earlier.'
address: |
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research,\
141980, Dubna, Russia\
[email protected]
author:
- 'F.M.Pen’kov'
title: Quantum Transparency of Barriers for Structure Particles
---
[2]{}
Introduction
============
Quantum tunnelling through a barrier is one of the most common problems in many trends of physics. Physical processes of tunnelling are usually considered as a penetration of a structureless particle through the barrier; whereas in realistic physics, we are, as a rule, dealing with the problem of penetration of structure particles through the barrier. It is clear that when the spatial size of a barrier is much larger than the typical dimension of an incident complex, we could expect insignificant distinctions of the penetration probability of the complex from that of structureless particles. The situation drastically changes when the size of the complex is larger than the spatial width of the barrier. In this case, there arise mechanisms that increase the barrier transparency (see, for instance, ref. [@Zakh] and references therein). The simplest of them arises when only part of the complex interacts with the barrier, i.e. the penetration probability depends on the mass smaller than the complex mass.
In this paper, we consider the mechanism of drastic transparency of a barrier that implies possible formation of a barrier resonance. To this end, it is necessary that at least two particles interact with the barrier. It is easy to imagine the mechanism of formation of such a resonance state. Let through the barrier, only one of particles pass, and forces coupling the pair be sufficient to keep the particles on different sides of the barrier. Then, such a resonance state will live unless one of the particles penetrates through the barrier. The barrier width will determine the lifetime of a resonance of that sort. As will be shown below, the probability of tunnelling through the barrier can reach unity. Physically, this effect is explained by the interference suppression of a reflected wave, since the presence of a barrier resonance is simply described by the effective interaction in the variable of motion of the centre of inertia of the pair, whose spatial form has a local minimum in the barrier centre. Therefore, the suppression of a reflected wave can be explained by the interference phenomenon well known in optics and used in coating lenses – the difference in path between the wave reflected from the first peak and the one reflected from the other peak should equal one-half the wave length.
In this paper, the above effect of transparency is demonstrated analytically and numerically for a pair of identical particles coupled by an oscillator interaction (in what follows, an oscillator) that penetrates through a one-dimensional repulsive barrier of the Gaussian type. This choice of interactions is, on the one hand, due to the system being extremely simple and allowing the reduction of three-dimensional scattering of a three-dimensional pair of particles on a one-dimensional barrier to the scattering of a one-dimensional oscillator on a one-dimensional barrier. On the other hand, just this type of interaction is taken in the literature [@Rub1] devoted to the decay probability of false vacuum in the high energy particle collisions (see, for instance [@Rub2; @Tyn1]). It was pointed out that the processes of transition from the false vacuum could be described on the basis of quantum-mechanical tunnelling of a pair of particles through a barrier, but a system was investigated, in which only one particle of the oscillator interacted with the barrier. In this note it is shown that when two particles interact with the barrier, the penetration probability can be essentially higher that in the systems considered earlier.
Equations
=========
Consider the penetration of a pair of identical particles with masses $m_1=m_2=m$ and coordinates $ {\bf r}_1$ and $ {\bf r_2}$ coupled by an oscillator through the potential barrier $ V_0(x_1)+V_0(x_2)$. The Hamiltonian of this system ($\hbar $ = 1) $$-\frac{1}{4m}\triangle_R -\frac{1}{m}\triangle_r + \frac{m\omega^2}{4} r^2 +
V_0({\bf R-r/2}) + V_0({\bf R+r/2}),$$ written in terms of coordinates of the centre of inertia of the pair ${\bf R} = ({\bf r}_1 + {\bf r}_2)/2 $ and internal variable of the relative motion $ {\bf r}= {\bf r}_1 -{\bf r}_2 $ describes the three-dimensional motion of a three-dimensional oscillator. Since the potential barrier depends only on one variable, and the oscillator interaction is additive in projections of ${\bf r}$, the wave function is factorized, and its nontrivial part describing scattering depends only on two variables. It is convenient to represent these variables in the form $$x= \sqrt{ \frac{m \omega}{2}}(x_1-x_2),\ \ \ \
y=\sqrt{ \frac{m \omega}{2}}(x_1+x_2).$$ The Schroedinger equation in these variables is of the form $$\left( -\partial_{x}^{2} - \partial_{y}^{2} + x^2 +
V(x-y)+V(x+y) -E \right)\Psi =0,
\label{EqS}$$ where the energy $E$ is written in units $\omega/2$, and the potential barrier $ V(x \pm y) = \frac{2}{\omega}V_0(( x \pm y)/\sqrt{2m\omega} )$ is below written in the convenient form $
V(X) = \frac{A}{\sqrt{2 \sigma \pi}} \exp(X^2/(2 \sigma)).
$ Here, the amplitude $A$ is a parameter describing the energy height of the barrier, and $\sigma$ determines its spatial width. Let the process of scattering go from left to right, and the oscillator initial state correspond to state $n$. Then the boundary conditions are written in the form $$\begin{array}{lr}
\lim\limits_{y \to -\infty} \Psi \to &
\exp(i k_n y)\varphi_n(x) -
\sum \limits_{j \leq N} S_{nj} \exp(-i k_j y) \varphi_j(x),
% \ \ y \to -\infty;
\\
\lim\limits_{y \to +\infty} \Psi \to &
\sum \limits_{j \leq N} R_{nj} \exp(i k_j y) \varphi_j(x),
% \ \ y \to +\infty;
\\
\lim\limits_{x \to \pm \infty}\Psi \to & 0.
% \ \ x \to \pm \infty .
\end{array}
\label{BC}$$ The oscillator wave functions $ \varphi_j(x)$ obey the Schroedinger equation $$\left( -\partial_{x}^2 + x^2 - \varepsilon_i \right)\varphi_i =0,$$ with energy $ \varepsilon_j = 2 j + 1 $ ($j=0,1,2,...$), momenta $ k_j=\sqrt{E-\varepsilon_j}$, and with $N$ being the number of the last open channel ($ E-\varepsilon_{N+1} < 0 $). Below, we consider an oscillator composed of bosons, whose spectrum is conveniently numbered from 1. Thus, in what follows, $ \varepsilon_j = 4 j -3 $ ($j=1,2,...$).
We define the probabilities of penetration $W_{ij}$ and reflection $D_{ik}$ as the ratio of the density of a transmitted or reflected flux to that of incident particles, i.e. $$W_{ij}= |R_{ij}|^2 \frac{k_j}{k_i}, \ \ D_{ij}= |S_{ij}|^2 \frac{k_j}{k_i}.$$ It is clear that $ \sum \limits_{j \leq N} W_{ij}+D_{ij} =1.$
This problem of determination of penetration (reflection) probabilities requires solution of a two-dimensional differential equation. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the quantum transparency of a barrier. Therefore, we take advantage of the well-known adiabatic approximation successfully applied in various three-body problems (see, for instance, review [@AD]). To this end, we introduce basis functions $\Phi_i$ obeying the equation $$\left( -\partial_{x}^2 + x^2 + V(x-y)+V(x+y) -\epsilon_i(y) \right)
\Phi_i(x;y) =0,
\label{Term}$$ and use them for the expansion $ \Psi(x,y)= \sum \limits_i f_i(y)\Phi_i(x;y)$. Inserting this expansion into Eq.(\[EqS\]) and projecting onto the basis, we arrive at the system of equations $$\left( \left( -\partial_{y}^2 +\epsilon_i -E\right)\delta_{ij}
-Q_{ij}\partial_y - \partial_y Q_{ij} + P_{ij}\right)f_j =0,
\label{Escat}$$ where the effective interaction in channel $i$: $E_i = \epsilon_i+ P_{ii}$ corresponds to the diagonal part of the interaction, and functions derived in projecting $ Q_{ij} = \langle \Phi_i, \partial_y \Phi_j \rangle $ and $ P_{ij}= \langle \partial_y \Phi_i, \partial_y \Phi_j \rangle $ correspond to the coupling of channels. Brackets mean integration over the whole region of $x$. By definition, the functions $Q_{ij}$ is antisymmetric, and $ P_{ii}$ is positive. As a rule, the coupling of channels is small, and the processes of scattering can be described by a limited number of equations. As in our case the spectrum of Eq.(\[Term\]) is discrete, a good description of the scattering processes is achieved with the use of all the channels open in energy [@AD]. At large $|y|$, the effective energy $E_i \to \varepsilon_i $, and $\Phi_i(x;y) \to \varphi_i(x) $, which allows us to easily rewrite the boundary conditions (\[BC\]) in the channel form.
Considering the boson case, we show for one channel that the effective interaction $E_i$ ($i=1,2$) possesses a clear minimum, resulting in the resonance mechanism of transparency, and that the inclusion of the second channel does not change this picture.
One-channel approximation
=========================
Within the chosen approach, the effect of quantum transparency is observed even in the one-channel approximation, i.e. in the Born-Oppenheimer approximation. In Fig.\[Fig1\], the dependencies $E_1(y)$ are drawn, determined by numerical solution of Eq.(\[Term\]) at $\sigma=0.01$ and three values of the amplitude $A$ denoted by letters A, B, and C, respectively. These values of parameters were taken to demonstrate the formation of a potential well that provides the resonance peculiarities of scattering. For comparison, shown in Fig.\[Fig1\] are the initial potentials of barriers at $x=0$, i.e. $ 2 V(y)$, that describe the scattering of structureless (or extremely bound) particles. For convenience, they are shifted by the binding energy of a pair.
In Fig.\[Fig2\] , we present the probabilities of penetration of a pair through barriers determined by numerical solution of Eq.(\[Escat\]) and corresponding to the potentials drawn in Fig.\[Fig1\]. It is clearly seen that for $A = 1$, the scattering of an oscillator and a structureless particle with a doubled mass are slightly different. At $A = 5$, the resonance component of scattering appears, and at $A = 10$, a clear resonance with $W_{11}=1$ at the peak is observed for energy $E_r \approx 8.12 $. It is just this behaviour that is defined by the term “quantum transparency of barriers”. Note for comparison that the probability of penetration through a barrier $2 V(y)$ is as few as $\approx 0.012 $.
Complete transparency of a barrier may happen to be somewhat surprising. Simple analogies with optical phenomena were presented in the Introduction. Below, we write simple expressions valid in the case of rectangular barriers and in the quasi-classical approximation which testify to the possibility for a barrier being completely transparent. To this end, we take the potential of form $C$ given in Fig.\[Fig1\] with two clear peaks. Since the one-dimensional problem of penetration through a barrier can be found in many textbooks (see, e.g., [@Land]), here we present only the scheme of solution of the problem of penetration through a two-peak barrier. Denoting 3 regions of classically allowed motion from left to right by numbers 1,2,3 and introducing upper indices for the amplitudes and probabilities of penetration from the region marked by the left index to the region marked by the right index, we easily obtain $$R^{(13)} = \frac{R^{(12)}R^{(23)}}{1-S^{(21)}S^{(23)}}.$$ For simplicity, the lower index of channel 1 is omitted. Then the probability of penetration through a two-peak channel is expressed through the probabilities of penetration through each peak as follows: $$W^{(13)}=\frac{W^{(12)} W^{(23)}}{1+|S^{(21)}|^2 |S^{(23)}|^2
- 2|S^{(21)}||S^{(23)}| \cos(\theta) },$$ where $\theta $ is a doubled difference of phases (or action in quasi-classics) of motion between the left and right peaks. Time-reversal invariance leads to the principle of detailed balance (see, e.g. [@Land]) that in our case results in the equality $|S^{(21)}| = |S^{(12)}|$.
For a symmetric potential ($ W^{(12)} = W^{(23)}$), the penetration probability $ W^{(13)}$ reaches a maximum at $\theta = 2 \pi$n (n=1,2,...). Note that it is just the condition that in a quasi-classical approach determines the spectrum of bound states for infinitely broad peaks. Provided that $ |S^{(ij)}|^2=1-W^{(ij)} $, it is not difficult to verifies that at these energies, $ W^{(13)}=1$. i.e. a complete transparency occurs.
Parameters of the barrier potential $V$ were chosen so that the resonance energy $E_r$ would be higher than the energy of the second channel $\varepsilon_2 = 5 $. This is necessary for proving that the inclusion of inelastic processes does not change the resonance picture of transparency.
It is necessary to note, that the parameters of a potential V differ from parameters of a potential of Ref.[@Rub1], where power height of a barrier is comparable to energy of elementary excitation ($ V (0) = 1, \ \ \omega = 1/2 $). The parameters of potentials will become close if magnitude $ \omega $ from Ref.[@Rub1] will be in 50 times less.
Two-channel approximation
=========================
In Fig.\[Fig3\], we show the results of numerical solution of Eq.(\[Term\]) for the second channel. It is seen that the coupling functions of channels $Q_{12}$ and $P_{12}$ are about 2 ordered as small as diagonal values $E_2$. The effective energy $E_2$ is more complicated in form than $E_1$ and can also generate extra resonances, whose correct consideration requires inclusion of the third channel (energies above 9). This goes beyond the scope of our problem of demonstrating the transparency of a barrier, and here we only mention the presence of peaks of $E_1$ in $E_2$.
In Fig. \[Fig4\], we plot the probabilities of penetration through a barrier of an oscillator in the ground state. The elastic peak $ W_{11}$ is conserved though has a shift ($E_r \approx 5.58$) and a considerable smaller width, about 3 times. Its maximal value $ \approx 0.94 $ does not reach 1 owing to the opened second channel. The quantities $W_{12}$ and $ D_{12}$ shown in the region of resonance energies at the top of the Figure (insertion) amount to $ \approx 0.03$ and the total probability of penetration through a barrier reaches $\approx 0.97$, which allows us to speak about a considerable, though not 100%, transparency. Note that the probability of penetration of the barrier $ 2 V(y)$ in this region is only $ \approx 0.0075$. The quantity $D_{11}$ is very closed to zero ($\approx 0.0007$), thus demonstrating the above optical effect of suppression of a reflected wave even in the two channel case.
The second peak at energy $E_r \approx 9.6$ shown in Fig.\[Fig4\] cannot be considered reliable since at these energies, account is to be made of the third channel. This peak demonstrates as interesting peculiarity – all the probabilities of both channel 1 and channel 2 amount to 1/4. Moreover, the behaviour of probabilities of transition from state 2 ( $W_{22}, W_{21}, D_{21}$) in the energy region of the second peak (not shown in Fig.\[Fig4\]) is visually nondistinguishable from the behaviour of inelastic components from state 1. Owing to the principle of detailed balance [@Land], the equalities $ W_{21} = W_{12} $ and $ D_{21} = D_{12}$ demonstrate only the accuracy of calculation. Of surprise is the behaviour of the probability $ W_{22}$ whose energy dependence with 5% accuracy reproduces the behaviour of inelastic components around this peak.
Conclusion
==========
The considered mechanism of transparency of barriers for a coupled pair of particles is clearly observed for narrow and high barriers, as compared to characteristic sizes and energy of an oscillator. These conditions do not eliminate spatially asymmetric barrier potentials since the symmetry of effective interaction $E_i(y)$ is determined only by particles being identical. Therefore, the effects of quantum transparency can occur in various fields of physics. Here note is to be made that when it is allowable to describe the processes of the false vacuum disintegration in high energy collisions by means of quantum tunnelling of a pair of particles coupled by an oscillator interaction, there arise mechanisms of the resonance transparency of a barrier, much increasing the decay probabilities of the false vacuum.
The author is indebted to V.A.Rubakov, which has marked not full adequacy of the considered quantum mechanical system to a problem of induced disintegration of false vacuum for a very useful discussions.
[99]{} B.N. Zakhariev and A.A.Suzko [*Direct and Inverse Problems, Potentials in quantum Scattering*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1990). G.F. Bonini, A.G. Cohen, C. Rebbi, V.A. Rubakov, Phys.Rev. [**D60**]{}, 076004 (1999), (e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9901226). V.A. Rubakov, M.E. Shaposhnikov, Usp.Fiz.Nauk [ **166**]{}, 493 (1996) (in Russian), (e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9603208) A.N. Kuznetsov, P.G. Tinyakov, Phys.Rev. [ **D56**]{}, 1156 (1997), (e-Print Archive: hep-ph/9703256). S.I.Vinitsky and L.I.Ponomarev, Sov.J.Part.Nucl. [**13**]{}, 557 (1982). L.D.Landau and E.M.Lifshitz, [*Quantum Mechanics: Non-relativistic Theory*]{} ( 3rd ed., Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a simple yet effective padding scheme that can be used as a drop-in module for existing convolutional neural networks. We call it **partial convolution based padding**, with the intuition that the padded region can be treated as holes and the original input as non-holes. Specifically, during the convolution operation, the convolution results are re-weighted near image borders based on the ratios between the padded area and the convolution sliding window area. Extensive experiments with various deep network models on ImageNet classification and semantic segmentation demonstrate that the proposed padding scheme consistently outperforms standard zero padding with better accuracy. The code is available at <https://github.com/NVIDIA/partialconv>'
author:
- |
Guilin Liu Kevin J. Shih Ting-Chun Wang Fitsum A. Reda\
Karan Sapra Zhiding Yu Andrew Tao Bryan Catanzaro\
NVIDIA\
[{guilinl, kshih, tingchunw, freda, ksapra, zhidingy, atao, bcatanzaro}@nvidia.com]{}
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: Partial Convolution based Padding
---
**Acknowledgement** We would like to thank Jinwei Gu, Matthieu Le, Andrzej Sulecki, Marek Kolodziej and Hongfu Liu for helpful discussions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Assuming a schematic form of the nucleon effective mass as a function of nuclear excitation energy and mass, we provide a simple explanation for understanding the experimentally observed mass dependence of the nuclear caloric curve. It is observed that the excitation energy at which the caloric curve enters into a plateau region, could be sensitive to the nuclear mass evolution of the effective nucleon mass.'
author:
- 'D.V. Shetty'
- 'G.A. Souliotis, S. Galanopoulos, S.J. Yennello'
title: Effective nucleon mass and the nuclear caloric curve
---
The experimentally observed “plateau" in the nuclear “caloric curve" (temperature versus excitation energy) has long been seen as a signature of liquid-gas phase transition, similar to that in real fluids. Recently, Sobotka [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@SOB04; @SOB06], have shown that the plateau in the nuclear caloric curve is a consequence of a combined effect of decreasing density due to thermal expansion, and the evolution of in-medium nucleon effective mass, rather than an indication of liquid-gas phase coexistence. This model for describing the caloric curve is based on the relaxation of density profile of the mononucleus that results in maximum entropy under a local density approximation for the level density parameter. A parametric form of the base density was assumed and the entropy was calculated in the Fermi-gas model. The evolution of effective mass with density and excitation was included in a schematic fashion as it is currently unknown.
The plateau in the caloric curve from this model is established at a rather modest excitation energy (about 2 MeV/nucleon), well below the excitation energy where the experimentally observed caloric curve enters into a plateau region. Also, the value of the plateau temperature remains the same for a mass, $A$ = 90 system as it does for a mass, $A$ = 197 system. However, experimentally determined caloric curve [@NAT02] shows plateau temperature that decreases with increasing mass, $A$.
In this work, we investigate how the mass dependence of the caloric curve, can be understood using the above concept of effective nucleon mass and thermal expansion in a simple phenomenological approach. In particular, we present a schematic expression to understand the experimentally observed plateau in the caloric curve, and show that the observed mass dependence of the caloric curve can be reproduced using effective nucleon mass as a function of excitation energy, that is mass dependent.
We begin with the assumption that the relation between the temperature, $T$, and the experimentally measured total excitation energy, $E^{*}$, for an expanding nucleus of mass $A$, can be expressed by a form analogous to that for the Fermi gas,
$$E^* = \frac{T^2}{K_{eff}(\rho,A)}$$
where $K_{eff}$ is the inverse nuclear level density parameter of the hot and dilute nucleus at density $\rho$, and written as,
$$K_{eff}(\rho, A) = \frac{4\epsilon_{F}(\rho,A)}{\pi^{2}}$$
where, $\epsilon_{F}(\rho,A)$, is the Fermi energy of the finite and expanding nucleus and given as,
$$\epsilon_{F}(\rho,A) = \epsilon_{F}^o \biggl[\frac{m^{*}(\rho_o, A)}{m^{*}(\rho, A)}\biggr] \biggl( \frac{\rho} {\rho_{o}} \biggr)^{2/3}$$
The quantity $m^{*}(\rho_o,A)$, is the ratio of the effective mass of the nucleon to the mass of the free nucleon, assuming the nucleus to be a Fermi gas and at ground state ($T$ = 0). The quantity $m^{*}(\rho,A)$ is the ratio of the effective mass of the nucleon to the mass of the free nucleon, in hot ($T$ $>$ 0) and expanding finite nucleus density $\rho$.
From the above equations, one can write the inverse nuclear level density parameter of the hot and dilute nucleus as [@NOR02],
$$K_{eff}(\rho, A) = K_{o} \biggl(\frac{\rho}{\rho_o} \biggr)^{2/3} \biggl[\frac{m^{*}(\rho_o, A)}{m^{*}(\rho, A)}\biggr]$$
where, $K_{o} = 4\epsilon_{F}^o/\pi^{2}$ $\approx$ 15, is the inverse level density parameter of uniform, non$-$dissipative Fermi gas. $\epsilon_{F}^o$, and $\rho_o$ are the Fermi energy and the nuclear saturation density at $T$ = 0 MeV.
From the above two expressions, Eqs. 1 and 4, one can write the temperature versus the excitation energy for a nucleus expanding to an equilibrium density $\rho$,
$$T^2 = K_{o} \biggl[ \frac{m^{*}(\rho_o, A)}{m^{*}(\rho, A)} \biggr] \biggl( \frac{\rho} {\rho_{o}} \biggr)^{2/3} E^{*}$$
Alternatively, one can also start with the assumption that the total excitation energy $E^*$, of an expanding nucleus can be written as,
$$E^{*} = E^{*}_{ther} + E_{exp}$$
where, $E^{*}_{ther} = T^{2}/K_{o}[m^{*}(\rho_{o}, A)/m^{*}(\rho, A)]$ is the thermal part of the excitation energy, and $E_{exp} = \epsilon _{b}(1 - \rho /
\rho_{o})^2$ is the expansion energy of the finite nucleus. The expansion energy assumed in the above expression is a simple upside down bell shaped, suggested by Friedman [@FRI88], with the ground state binding energy, $\epsilon _{b}$ = 8 MeV. The temperature versus the total excitation energy relation for a nucleus expanding to an equilibrium density, $\rho$, can then be written as,
$$T^{2} = K_{o}\frac{m^{*}(\rho_{o}, A)}{m^{*}(\rho, A)}[E^* - \epsilon_{b}(1 - \rho / \rho_{o})^2]$$
Using equations, 5 and 7, we can now study the experimental caloric curve and its mass dependence.
Fig. 1 shows the experimentally measured caloric curve for the mass range of $A$ = 100 - 140, from various measurements compiled by Natowitz [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@NAT02]. The data from all different measurements are shown collectively in the figure by inverted triangle symbols and no distinction is made between them. The dotted (black) curve in the figure is the simple Fermi gas relation, $E_{ther}^* = T^{2}/K_{o}$, with the inverse level density parameter, $K_{o}$ = 15. The results of the equations 5 and 7 are shown by the solid (blue) and dashed (red) curves, respectively. In both equations, the density $\rho / \rho_{o}$, for a given excitation energy $E^{*}$, was taken to be that adopted by Bondorf [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@BON85; @BON98] (shown by the solid black curve in Fig. 2(b)).
![(Color online) Temperature as a function of excitation energy for mass $A$ = 100 - 140. The data points (inverted triangles) are from Ref. [@NAT02]. The dotted curve is the Fermi gas relation. The dot-dot-dashed curve is from Ref. [@DE06]. The dot-dashed curve is from Ref. [@SOB06]. The solid and the dashed curve are from Eq. 5 and 7, respectively. ](Fig_1_revised.eps){width="48.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"}
{width="45.00000%" height="0.5\textheight"}
The effective mass $m^{*}(\rho, A)$, as a function of excitation energy was assumed to have an empirical dependence of the form shown by the dashed (blue) curve in Fig. 2(a). From Fig. 1, one observes that Eq. 5 (solid, blue curve) and Eq. 7 (dashed, red curve) with the same effective mass and density dependence of the excitation energy gives similar results up to excitation energy of 6 MeV/nucleon, with a small difference at higher excitation energies. The difference at higher energies is due to the different form of the expansion energy assumed in the two expressions. Both calculations, show a plateau at excitation energy above 3 MeV/nucleon, in good agreement with the experimental data.
![(Color online) Temperature as a function of excitation energy for various mass ranges. The data points (inverted triangles) are from Ref. [@NAT02]. The solid curves are obtained from Eq. 5. The dashed curve is the Fermi gas relation.](Fig_3_revised.eps){width="45.00000%" height="0.67\textheight"}
![(Color online) Temperature as a function of excitation energy for various mass ranges. The data points (inverted triangles) are from Ref. [@NAT02]. The solid curves are obtained from Eq. 7. The dashed curve is the Fermi gas relation.](Fig_4_revised.eps){width="45.00000%" height="0.67\textheight"}
Mass ($A$) $m^{*}(\rho_o, A)$
-- ------------ -------------------- -- --
30 - 60 0.87
60 - 100 0.73
100 - 140 0.67
180 - 240 0.53
: \[tab:table1\] The ground state effective mass, $m^{*}(\rho_o, A)$, used in Eq. 3 and 5, for various nuclear mass range.
{width="47.00000%" height="0.3\textheight"}
The caloric curve obtained from Eq. 5 and 7 is in much better agreement with the data compared to those obtained by Sobotka [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@SOB06]. The result of Sobotka [*[et al.,]{}*]{} is shown by the dot-dashed (orange) curve. Also shown in the figure is the result of De [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@DE06], for $A$ = 150 (dot-dot-dashed, black curve). The calculation of De [*[et al.]{}*]{} uses a realistic effective Hamiltonian to calculate the base density profile in a Thomas-Fermi framework with the entropy calculated microscopically. The above comparison shows that the phenomenological expressions 5 and 7 can be used to understand the characteristic features of the caloric curve.
In the following we use Eq. 5 and 7, to study the mass dependence of the caloric curve. Fig. 3 and 4 shows the experimental caloric curve data (inverted triangles) for the different mass ranges obtained from the work of Natowitz [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@NAT02]. The results of Eq. 5 and 7 are shown by the solid curves in Fig. 3 and 4, respectively. The empirical form of the effective nucleon mass and the density as a function of excitation energy used in Eq. 5 and 7 for different mass regions are as shown in Fig. 2(a) and 2(b). These were obtained by tuning the data with a fixed $K_{o}$ parameter. The effective mass for the ground state nucleus $m^*(\rho_o, A)$, is as shown in Table I. The choice of the $m^{*}(\rho_o, A)$ value was dictated by its sensitivity to the temperature at which the caloric curve reaches the plateau region. This is discussed in the following paragraph. The Fermi gas caloric curve is shown by the dotted curves in Fig. 3 and 4.
An important point to note in Fig. 3 and 4 is the evolution of the excitation energy of the entry point into the caloric curve plateau with nuclear mass. To illustrate this point more clearly, we show in Fig. 5, a comparison between the caloric curves for $A$ = 30 - 60, $A$ = 60 - 100, and $A$ = 180 - 240 mass regions, obtained using Eq. 5. The arrows in the figure correspond to the approximate values of the excitation energy at which the caloric curve for each of the three masses enter into a plateau region. The figure shows that the temperature at which the plateau is reached is sensitive to the value of the $m^*(\rho_o, A)$. A higher $m^*(\rho_o, A)$ results in higher plateau temperature for lighter mass. The excitation energy at which the plateau is reached is, on the other hand, sensitive to the mass dependence of the effective nucleon mass, $m^*(\rho, A)$. This excitation energy corresponds to the energy at which the 1/$m^{*}(\rho, A)$, shown in Fig. 2(a), peaks. The shift in the peak to higher excitation energy for decreasing mass of the system results in a plateau being reached at higher excitation energy for lighter mass. To explain the experimentally observed caloric curve, effective nucleon mass ratio that is dependent on the excitation energy$/$density and the nuclear mass therefore seems imperative. The effective nucleon mass as a function of excitation energy for different masses, shown in Fig. 2(a), and used in the above analysis, is an empirical deduction. At present, we do not know of any formal approach to deduce such a dependence. Qualitatively such a dependence is expected in the interior of the nucleus, where the effective mass is reduced in the bulk, peaks at the surface and reduces to one with decreasing density and increasing excitation energy [@HAS86]. In such a prescription, the effective nucelon mass is often given by phenomenological expressions that includes a momentum dependent and a frequency dependent term. The detailed density and excitation energy dependence of these terms are unknown. Theoretical investigation in this direction would therefore be interesting. While a formal understanding of the effective nucleon mass as a function of excitation energy and density over a range of nuclear mass would be very fruitful, the emperical approach utilizing the caloric curve in this work can aid in studying the isospin ($N/Z$) dependence of the effective mass in asymmetric nuclei.
In the following we show that the mass dependence of the inverse level density parameter $K_{eff}$, obtained using the above empiricaly deduced effective nucleon mass, $m^*(\rho, A)$, is consistent with the experimentally and theoretically deduced inverse level density parameter at low exciation energy. In the past, temperature dependence of the nuclear level density parameter has been investigated extensively by studying the spectra of light particles emitted in hot nuclei populated at $E^{*}$ $>$ 1 MeV/nucleon ($T$ $>$ 2 MeV). It has been shown from these studies [@NEB86; @HAG88] that the inverse level density parameter $K$, increases from 8 to 13 for temperature increasing from $T$ = 2 MeV to $T$ = 5.5 MeV in nuclei of mass $A$ $\sim$ 160. However, similar studies [@CHB91; @FOR91; @YOS92] carried out for light nuclei, such as $A$ $\sim$ 40, failed to show an increase. The $K$ remaining nearly constant at 9 - 10 in the excitation energy range of 2.5 to 5.0 MeV/nucleon. In Fig. 2(c), we show the effective inverse level density parameter, $K_{eff}$, of the hot and dilute nucleus for various mass regions obtained from the present analysis. For $T$ = 0 MeV, one observes that the inverse level density parameter, $K_{eff}$ $\sim$ 8, in agreement with the low excitation energy studies. For light nuclei, $A$ = 30 - 60, the $K_{eff}$ remains essentially constant up to excitation energy of 5 MeV/nucleon. While for heavier nuclei it varies between 8 and 16 for excitation energies below 2 - 3 MeV. Similar dependence was also obtained from the theoretical calculations of Ref. [@SHL91; @DE98] that investigated the mass dependence of the level density parameter at low exciation energy. For higher excitation energies, Fig. 2(c) shows a steady decline in the inverse level density parameter, which results in a plateau like behavior in the caloric curve (temperature versus excitation energy plot) for the hot and expanding nucleus.
In conclusion, it is shown that the mass dependence of the nuclear caloric curve can be modelled using Equations 5 and 7, with the effective nucleon mass of the form shown in Fig. 2(a), or alternatively, using Eq. 1 with the inverse level density parameter of the form shown in Fig. 2(c). The mass dependence of the inverse level density parameter thereby obtained is consistent with the experimentally and theoretically deduced level density parameter for low excitation energies. Furthermore, the present study demonstrates that the caloric curve can be used as a tool to fine tune the effective nucleon mass and study the nuclear interaction. A natural extension of the present study would be to apply the present approach to fine tune the effective mass further by including the isospin ($N/Z$) dependence. Such a study would require caloric curve measurements of asymmetric ($N/Z$ $>$ 1) nuclei using beams of radioactive nuclei. This would provide a complete understanding of the interaction under extreme conditions of excitation energy, density and isospin ($N/Z$).
This work was supported in part by the Robert A. Welch Foundation through grant No. A-1266, and the Department of Energy through grant No. DE-FG03-93ER40773.
L.G. Sobotka, R.J. Charity, J. Toke, and W.U. Schroder, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 132702 (2004). L.G. Sobotka and R.J. Charity, Phys. Rev. C [**73**]{}, 014609 (2006). J.B. Natowitz, R. Wada, K. Hagel, T. Keutgen, M. Murray, A. Makeev, L. Qin, P. Smith, and C. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. C [**65**]{}, 034618 (2002). W. Norenberg, G. Papp, and P. Rozmej, Eur. Phys. J. A[**14**]{}, 43 (2002). W.A. Friedman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 2125 (1988). J.P. Bondorf, R. Donangelo, I.N. Mishustin, and H. Schulz , Nucl. Phys. A[**444**]{}, 460 (1985). J.P. Bondorf, A.S. Botvina, and I.N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C [**58**]{}, 27 (1998).
J.N. De, S.K. Samaddar, X. Vinas, and M. Centelles, Phys. Lett. B[**638**]{}, 160 (2006). R.W. Hasse and P. Schuck, Phys. Lett. B[**179**]{}, 313 (1986). G. Nebbia [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**176**]{}, 20 (1986). K. Hagel [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Nucl. Phys. A[**486**]{}, 429 (1988). A. Chbihi, L.G. Sobotka, N.G. Nicolis, D.G. Sarantities, D.W. Stracener, Z. Majka, D.C. Hensley, J.R. Beene, and M.L. Halbert, Phys. Rev. C [**43**]{}, 666 (1991). B. Fornal [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**44**]{}, 2588 (1991). K. Yoshida [*[et al.]{}*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**46**]{}, 961 (1992). S. Shlomo and J.B. Natowitz, Phys. Rev. C [**44**]{}, 2878 (1991). J.N. De, S. Shlomo, and S.K. Samaddar, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 1398 (1998).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The effect of surface degradation of the thermolectric cobaltite on Raman spectra is discussed and compared to experimental results from Co$_3$O$_4$ single crystals. We conclude that on NaCl flux grown Na$_x$CoO$_2$ crystals a surface layer of Co$_3$O$_4$ easily forms that leads to the observation of an intense phonon around 700 cm$^{-1}$ \[Phys. Rev. B **70**, 052502 (2004)\]. Raman spectra on freshly cleaved crystals from optical floating zone ovens do not show such effects and have a high frequency phonon cut-off at approximately 600 cm$^{-1}$ \[Phys. Rev. Lett **96**, 167204 (2006)\]. We discuss the relation of structural dimensionality, electronic correlations and the high frequency phonon cut-off of the thermolectric cobaltite.'
author:
- 'P. Lemmens'
- 'P. Scheib'
- 'Y. Krockenberger'
- 'L. Alff'
- 'F. C. Chou'
- 'C. T. Lin'
- 'H.-U. Habermeier'
- 'B. Keimer'
title: 'Comment on “Raman spectroscopy study of Na$_x$CoO$_2$ and superconducting Na$_x$CoO$_2\cdot y$H$_2$O”'
---
Raman scattering is a well established probe for structural and electronic properties of solids as, e.g. compositional and symmetry information can be gained from the number and frequency of the observed phonon modes [@cardona]. On the other side its high surface sensitivity may also lead to challenges in sample preparation. The cobaltite Na$_x$CoO$_2\cdot y$H$_2$O is a correlated electron system with an enormous thermopower for large $x>0.7$ and superconductivity for smaller $x=1/3$ and hydration, $y=1.3$. Due to the large mobility of Na on different sites and the mixed nominal Co valency Na$_x$CoO$_2$ has a complex defect chemistry. In the presence of CO$_2$ and humidity surface layers are formed that consists of, e.g. CoCO$_3$, Na$_2$CO$_3$ and Co$_3$O$_4$. The latter compound is also used as an ingot material in sample preparation [@highT].
{height="4.5cm"}
The preparation of large single crystals has been reported from optical traveling floating zone (TFZ) ovens [@tfz] and from NaCl flux (NaCl, Na$_2$CO$_3$, and B$_2$O$_3$ in varying compositions) [@flux]. TFZ grown crystals can easily be cleaved, while samples from NaCl flux are washed-out from the flux in water. The latter step may lead to a Na nonstoichiometry. Evidence for degradation and crystallographic changes of Na$_x$CoO$_2$ and Na$_x$CoO$_2\cdot y$H$_2$O on time scales from minutes to weeks exist in literature. [@iliev; @fisher].
In a recent Raman scattering investigation of NaCl-flux grown Na$_x$CoO$_2$ crystals, Shi [*et al.*]{} have reported Raman spectra that show 5 phonons with in-plane polarization [@shi], see Fig. 1, curve a). These modes are attributed to five Raman active modes corresponding to displacements of sodium and oxygen [@iliev]. In contrast to these data Raman scattering investigations on freshly cleaved TFZ grown crystals give only two modes with larger intensity [@lemmens]. These modes are attributed to oxygen in-plane and out-of-plane displacements. While the non-observance of the low frequency Na modes is attributed to disorder on the partially occupied Na sites [@huang], the vibrations of oxygen within the CoO$_{2}$ layers should have characteristic frequencies. Indeed a linear frequency shift of the highest frequency, out-of-plane mode at 590cm$^{-1}$ by 5% has been found with increasing Na content in the TFZ crystals [@lemmens]. The shift implies that the oxygen modes only weakly depend on the stacking of the CoO$_2$ layers and the occupation of Na sites that characterize the ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ type) crystal structure [@huang]. With this respect the compound can be considered as two-dimensional and the evolution of electronic correlations with doping dominates the phonon frequency [@sherman]. Our experiments are further supported by recent inelastic X-ray scattering that show a bend over of the highest phonon branch at about 70meV $\equiv$ 583cm$^{-1}$ [@rueff].
In contrast, the three-dimensional Co$_3$O$_4$ has a very intense Raman mode at a higher frequency (690cm$^{-1}$), i.e. in the same frequency regime as Raman data [@shi] of NaCl-flux grown Na$_x$CoO$_2$ crystals. In Fig. 1 we show respective spectra. The small frequency shift and broadening of curve a) compared to b) is attributed to an oxygen deficiency or a small thickness of the surface layer. Similar data on Co$_3$O$_4$ have been reported earlier by Hadjiev [*et al.*]{} [@hadjiev] and more recently by Qu [*et al.*]{} discussing phase separation [@qu]. We conclude that the Raman data [@shi] of NaCl-flux grown Na$_x$CoO$_2$ are most probably interfered by a degradation of the sample leading to a surface layer of Co$_3$O$_4$. We highlight that although from symmetry analysis the same number of Raman active modes are expected, the frequency of the modes in Co$_3$O$_4$ and Na$_x$CoO$_2$ differ considerably. The intense Co$_3$O$_4$ mode at 690cm$^{-1}$ can be used as a quality measure of cobaltates in thermoelectric applications.\
**Acknowledgement:** We acknowledge support by the DFG within the project Le 967/4-1 and the ESF program *Highly Frustrated Magnetism*.
[99]{}
See, e.g. contributions to *Light Scattering in Solids*, edited by G. Güntherodt and M. Cardona (Springer, Berlin, 1984-2004).
At high temperatures ($T>$850$^\circ$C) Na$_2$O has a large volatility. As a result the more stable Co$_3$O$_4$ forms instead of Na$_x$CoO$_2$ with smaller or varying $x$. At ambient conditions the remaining Na$_2$O together with CO$_2$ and H$_2$O forms Na$_2$CO$_3$.
F. C. Chou, E. T. Abel, J. H. Cho, Y. S. Lee, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. **66**, 155 (2005); F. C. Chou, J. H. Cho, P. A. Lee, E. T. Abel, K. Matan, and Y. S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 157004 (2004); D. P. Chen, H. C. Chen, A. Maljuk, A. Kulakov, H. Zhang, P. Lemmens, and C. T. Lin, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 024506 (2004)
K. Fujita, T. Mochida, and K. Nakamura, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. **40**, 4644 (2001); M. Mikami, M. Yoshimura, Y. Mori, T. Sasaki, R. Funahashi and I. Matsubara, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. Vol. **41**, L777 (2002).
M.N. Iliev, A.P. Litvinchuk, R.L. Meng, Y.Y. Sun, J. Cmaidalka, C.W. Chu, Physica C **402** (2004) 239-242.
N. Oeschler, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, J. E. Gordon, M.-L. Foo, and R. J. Cava, cond-mat/0503690 (2005); M. Karppinen, I. Asako, T. Motohashi, and H. Yamauchi, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 092105 (2005); A. Zorkovsk$\acute{á}$, M. Orend$\acute{a}$$\check{c}$, J. $\check{S}$ebek, E. $\check{S}$antav$\acute{a}$, P. Svoboda, I. Bradari$\acute{c}$, I. Savi$\acute{c}$, and A. Feher, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 132412 (2005); C. de Vaulx, M.-H. Julien, C. Berthier, M. Horvati$\acute{c}$, P. Bordet, V. Simonet, D. P. Chen, and C. T. Lin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 186405 (2005); P.W. Barnes, M. Avdeev, J.D. Jorgensen, D.G. Hinks, H.Claus, S. Short, Phys. Rev. **B 72**, 134515 (2005); X.N. Zhang, P. Lemmens, B. Keimer, D.P. Chen, C.T. Lin, K.Y. Choi, V. Gnezdilov, F.C. Chou, Physica **B 359-361**, 424 (2005).
Y. G. Shi, Y. L. Liu, H. X. Yang, C. J. Nie, R. Jin, and J. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. **B** **70**, 052502 (2004).
P. Lemmens, K.Y. Choi, V. Gnezdilov, E.Ya. Sherman, D. P. Chen, C. T. Lin, F. C. Chou, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. Lett **96**, 167204 (2006).
Q. Huang, M. L. Foo, R. A. Pascal, Jr., J. W. Lynn, B. H. Toby, Tao He, H. W. Zandbergen, and R. J. Cava, Phys. Rev. **B 70**, 184110 (2004).
E. Sherman, M. Fischer, P. Lemmens, P.H.M. van Loosdrecht, G. Güntherodt, Europhys. Lett. **48**, 648 (1999).
J.-P. Rueff, M. Calandra, M. d’Astuto, Ph. Leininger, A. Shukla, A. Bosak, M. Krisch, H. Ishii, Y. Cai, P. Badica, T. Sasaki, K. Yamada, and K. Togano, Phys. Rev. **B 74**, 020504(R) (2006).
V. G. Hadjiev, M. N. Iliev and I. V. Vergilov, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. **21** L190 (1988) and references therein.
J. F. Qu, W. Wang, Y. Chen, G. Li, and X. G. Li, Phys. Rev. **B** **73**, 092518 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper we propose a model-based method for clustering subjects for which functional data together with covariates are observed. The model allows the covariance structures within the different clusters to be different. The model thus extends a model proposed by James and Sugar (2003). We derive an EM algorithm to estimate the parameters. The method is applied to annually laminated (varved) sediment from lake Kassjön in northern Sweden, to infer on past climate changes.'
bibliography:
- './referenser-v1.bib'
---
Introduction
============
There is an increasing literature addressing how to cluster functional data (curves), ranging from non-parametric methods [see, e.g. @abraham; @garcia; @tarpey; @serban] to model-based methods [see e.g. @james; @luan; @chiou]. In this paper we propose a model-based method to cluster independent subjects for which functional data as well as covariates are observed. The aim is to cluster the subjects into homogenous groups taking into account both the functional data and the covariates. In model-based clustering it is assumed that the observations are generated according to a mixture distribution with G components (clusters). The approach taken here extend James and Sugar’s (2003) proposed model-based functional clustering method for sparsely distributed functional data. The (discretely) observed random functions are there assumed to be Gaussian with a mean structure that depends on the cluster but with the same covariance structures for all clusters. In this paper, the model-based functional clustering method of James and Sugar is extended to allow for different covariance structures within the different clusters including additional covariates. We propose an EM algorithm to estimate the parameters of the model.
Our model-based functional clustering method is motivated by and applied to varved (annually laminated) sediment from lake Kassjön in northern Sweden, aiming to infer on past climate changes. The varved sediment of lake Kassjön covers approximately 6400 years. The varves (years) are clustered into similar groups based on their seasonal patterns (functional data) and additional covariates, all potentially carrying information on past climate/weather (cf. Section 4 for more details). The time dynamics of the resulting clusters are then used to infer on past climate. Functional clustering has been applied to the seasonal patterns of the sediment data of Kassj[ö]{}n before, [see @arnqvist00; @abramowicz], but this is the first time that both the seasonal patterns and additional covariates are used when clustering the varves.
The paper is structured as follows. The model-based functional clustering models with and without covariates are described in Section 2 allowing for different covariance structures in different clusters. In Section 3 ways of determining the number of clusters are discussed. Section 4 applies the model-based functional clustering methods to annually laminated sediment of lake Kassjön. Concluding remarks are given in Section 5. In Appendix A the EM-algorithms for the clustering models of Section 2 are derived, and in Appendix B, some implementation details of the EM algorithm are discussed.
The clustering model
====================
Model for functional data
-------------------------
Assume that for a set of $N$ independent subjects, we have observed a random function for each subject, and are interested in clustering the subjects into $G$ (homogenous) groups. In this paper, we adopt a model-based approach to clustering the subjects. The model is described below. For each subject $i$ we observe the true continuous random function $g_i(t)\in D$ with measurement error, over a set of $n_i$ time points $t_{i1},...,t_{in_i}$, and thus observe $$y_i(t_{ij}) = g_i(t_{ij})+\epsilon_i(t_{ij}), \hspace{3mm} j=1,...,n_,\hspace{2mm} i=1,...,N$$ where $y_i(t)$ is the observered function and $\epsilon_i(t)$ assumed to be independent and identically distributed (iid) measurement errors, normally distributed with mean zero and variance $\sigma^2$. Let $\boldsymbol{y}_i$, $\boldsymbol{g}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$ be the corresponding $n_i$-dimensional vectors for subject $i$, corresponding to the observed values, true values and measurment error, respectively. We further assume that the smooth function $g_i(t)$ can be expressed as $$g_i(t) = \boldsymbol{\phi}(t)^T \boldsymbol{\eta}_i,$$ where $\boldsymbol{\phi}(t)=[\boldsymbol{\phi}_1(t);,...,\boldsymbol{\phi}_p(t)]^T$ is a $p$-dimensional vector of known basis functions evaluated at time t, e.g. B-splines, Fourier or Wavelet basis, see [@ruppert] and $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$ a vector of unknown (random) coefficients. The $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$’s are modelled as $$\boldsymbol{\eta}_i = \boldsymbol{\mu}_{z_i} + \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \in N_p(\boldsymbol{\mu}_{z_i},\Gamma_{z_i}),$$ where $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{z_i}$ are a vector of expected spline coefficients for a cluster and $z_i$ denotes the unknown cluster membership, with $P(z_i=k)=\pi_k$, $k=1,...,G$. The random variable $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i$ corresponds to subject-specific within-cluster variability. Note that this variability is allowed to be different in different clusters, due to $\Gamma_{z_i}$. If desirable, given that subject $i$ belongs to cluster $z_i=k$, a further parametrization of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k}, k=1,...,G$ may prove useful, for producing low-dimensional representations of the curves as suggested by [@james]: $$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k} = \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+ \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}$$ where $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}$ are $p$- and $h$-dimensional vectors respectively and $\Lambda$ is a $p \times h$ matrix with $h \leq G-1$. Choosing $h<G-1$ may be valuable, especially for sparse data, cf [@james]. In order to ensure identifiability, some restrictions need to be put on the parameters. Imposing the restriction that $\sum_{k=1}^G \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k=\boldsymbol{0}$ implies that $\boldsymbol{\phi}^T(t) \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$ can be viewed as the overall mean curve. Depending on the choice of $h,p$ and $G$, further restrictions may need to be imposed in order to have identifiability of the parameters ($\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}, \Gamma$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}, k=1,...,G$ are confounded if no restrictions are imposed), see [@james] for some suggestions. In vector-notation we thus have $$\boldsymbol{y}_i = {\phi}_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0 + \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{z_i}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)+\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i, i=1,...,N,$$ where $\phi_i=\left[\boldsymbol{\phi}^T(t_{i1}); ...; \boldsymbol{\phi}^T(t_{in_i})\right]$ is an $n_i \times p$ matrix and $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i \in N_{n_i}(0,R)$ where $R=\sigma^2 \mathbb{I}_{n_i}$. We will also assume that the $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i$’s, $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i$’s and the $z_i$’s are independent. Hence, given that subject $i$ belongs to cluster $z_i=k$ we have $$\boldsymbol{y}_i | z_i=k \in N_{n_i}({\phi}_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0 + \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}),\phi_i \Gamma_k \phi_i^T+R).\label{eqn1}$$ Based on the observed data $\boldsymbol{y}_1,...,\boldsymbol{y}_N$, the parameters $\theta$ of the model can be estimated by maximizing the observed likelihood $$L_o(\theta|\boldsymbol{y}_1,...,\boldsymbol{y}_N)=\prod_{i=1}^N \sum_{k=1}^G \pi_k f_k(\boldsymbol{y}_i,\theta),\label{eqn2}$$ where $\theta = (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0,\Lambda,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_1,...,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_G,\pi_1,...,\pi_G,
\sigma^2,\Gamma_1,...,\Gamma_G),$ and $f_k(\boldsymbol{y}_i,\theta)$ is the normal density given in (\[eqn1\]). Note that throughout the paper $\theta$ will denote all scalar, vectors and matrices of parameters to be estimated.
In line with [@james], we propose to maximize (\[eqn2\]) by an EM-algorithm [@dempster]. The EM-algorithm iteratively performs two steps, an expectation and a maximization step. First, the expected value of the complete likelihood given the observed data and starting values for the parameter $\theta$ is computed. Then this expected value is maximized with respect to $\theta$. The updated parameter estimates are plugged into the expectation and a new iteration begins. The algorithm ends when the parameter changes between iterations are sufficiently small. In our situation, the complete likelihood is chosen to be $$L_c(\theta) = \prod_{i=1}^N f(\boldsymbol{y}_i, \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i, z_i | \theta).$$ Note that the joint density $f(\boldsymbol{y}_i, \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i, z_i | \theta)$ can be factorized as $$f(\boldsymbol{y}_i, \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i, z_i | \theta) = f(\boldsymbol{y}_i | \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i, z_i) f(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| z_i) f(z_i).$$ We have that $\boldsymbol{y}_i |\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i, z_i=k$ is normally distributed with $$\boldsymbol{y}_i |\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i, z_i=k \in N_{n_i}(\phi_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0+\Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i),R),$$ and $$\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i|z_i=k \in N_p(0,\Gamma_k).$$ For notational convenience, let us denote $\boldsymbol{z}_i=(z_{i1},...,z_{iG})$, where $z_{ik}=1$ if $z_{i}=k$ and 0 otherwise. Then $\boldsymbol{z}_i$ follows a multinomial distribution with $$f(\boldsymbol{z}_i)=\pi_1^{z_{i1}}...\pi_G^{z_{iG}}.%=P(z_i=k).$$ Under the assumption of independence between subjects, we thus have that the complete log likelihood, up to an additive constant, is $$\begin{aligned}
l(\theta) & =\sum
_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik}\log(\pi_{k})\nonumber\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik}\left[ \log\left\vert \Gamma_{k}\right\vert
+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T}\Gamma_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}\right]\nonumber\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik}\left[ n_{i}\log\sigma
^{2}+\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}\left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert ^{2}\right].
\label{eqn3}%\end{aligned}$$ The expected value of (\[eqn3\]), given the data $(\boldsymbol{y}_1,...,\boldsymbol{y}_N)$ and current parameter estimates is then maximized, (see further details in Appendix A). The EM-algorithm proceeds in an iterative manner until the parameter estimates have converged.
Once the parameters have been estimated via the EM-algorithm, the cluster label assignment of subject $i$ will rely on the posterior probabilities $$\hat{\pi}_{k|i} = P(z_i=k|\boldsymbol{y}_i,\theta) =\frac{f_k(\boldsymbol{y}_i,\theta)\pi_k}{\sum_{k=1}^G f_j(\boldsymbol{y}_i,\theta)\pi_j},\hspace{2mm} k=1,...,G,$$ where $\theta$ is replaced by the estimator $\hat\theta$. Here, subject $i$ is assigned to the cluster whose label correspond to the largest posterior probability.
Model for functional data and covariates
----------------------------------------
If additional covariates have been observed for each subject besides the functional data, they can also be included in the model when clustering the subjects. In this section we extend the functional clustering model, described in the previous section, to also include covariates. Given that individual $i$ belongs to cluster $k, (z_{i}=k)$ the $r$ covariates $\boldsymbol{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^r$ are assumed to have mean value $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_k$ and moreover $\boldsymbol{x}_{i} = \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k} + \boldsymbol{\delta}_{i} + \boldsymbol{e}_i,$ where we assume that $\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i}|z_{i}=k \sim N(\boldsymbol{0}, D_k)$ is the random deviation within cluster and $\boldsymbol{e}_i \sim N(\boldsymbol{0},\sigma_x^2 \mathbb{I}_r)$ independent remaining unexplained variability. Denote the observed data for subject $i$ by $$\boldsymbol{u}_i = \left( \begin{array}{c} \boldsymbol{y}_{i}\\ \boldsymbol{x}_{i} \end{array}\right ) \in \mathbb{R}^{n_i + r},$$ and let $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}= (\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^T,\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i}^T)^T$ with $\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}|z_{i}=k \sim N_{n_i + r}(\boldsymbol{0},\Delta_k)$, where $$\Delta_k = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \Gamma_k & L_k\\ L_k^T & D_k \end{array}\right ).$$
Given that subject $i$ belongs to cluster $k$, we can then write
$$\boldsymbol{u}_i = S_i (\boldsymbol{\mu}_k + \boldsymbol{\xi}_i) + \boldsymbol{\zeta}_i,$$ where $$S_{i} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
\phi_i & \boldsymbol{0} \\
\boldsymbol{0} & \mathbb{I}_r
\end{array}
\right]
%\in \mathbb{R}^{[(n_{i}+r) \times (p+r)]}
,
\boldsymbol{\mu}_{k} = \left( \begin{array}{c}
\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda \boldsymbol{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_{k} \\
\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ and $\boldsymbol{\zeta}_i =\left( \epsilon_i^T, e_i^T\right)^T\sim N_{n_i+r}(\boldsymbol{0},R)$, with $$R = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\sigma^2 \mathbb{I}_{n_i} & \large{\boldsymbol{0}}\\
\large{\boldsymbol{0}} & \sigma^2_{x} \mathbb{I}_{r}\\
\end{array}
\right],$$ and hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{u}_i|z_i=k \sim N_{n_i+r}(S_i \boldsymbol{\mu}_k,S_i\Delta_k S_i^T+R).\label{fu}\end{aligned}$$ Note that this model incorporates the dependence between covariates and the random functions via the random coefficients of the basis functions. The unknown vector of parameters to be estimated is\
$\theta = (\boldsymbol{\pi},\Delta_{1},...,\Delta_G,\sigma^{2},\sigma^2_x,
\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{1},..., \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{G}, \boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0},\Lambda,{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1,...,{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_G)$. Noting that the complete likelihood for subject $i$ can be factorized as $$\begin{aligned}
f(\boldsymbol{u}_i,\boldsymbol{\xi}_i,\boldsymbol{z}_i)=
f(\boldsymbol{y}_i|\boldsymbol{\xi}_i,\boldsymbol{z}_i)
f(\boldsymbol{x}_i|\boldsymbol{\xi}_i,\boldsymbol{z}_i)
f(\boldsymbol{\xi}_i|\boldsymbol{z}_i)f(\boldsymbol{z}_i),
\label{app.fact}\end{aligned}$$ and by the independence between individuals the complete log likelihood, up to an additive constant, is given by $$\begin{aligned}
l(\theta) & \propto \sum
_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik}\log(\pi_{k}) \nonumber \\%\label{app.piikgiveni}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik}\left[ \log\left\vert \Delta_{k}\right\vert
+\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}^{T}\Delta_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}\right] \nonumber \\%\label{app.gamma logl}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik}\left[ n_{i}\log\sigma
^{2}+ \frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}\left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert ^{2}
\right] \nonumber\\%\label{app.the rest}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}z_{ik} \left[ r \log(\sigma_x^2) + \frac{1}{\sigma_x^2} ||\boldsymbol{x}_{i} - \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i}||^2 \right].
\label{app.single.sigma}\end{aligned}$$
Using the EM-algorithm we want to maximize the expected value of $l(\theta)$ given the observed data $\boldsymbol{U} = (\boldsymbol{u}_1, ...., \boldsymbol{u}_N)$ and starting parameter values $
\theta^{[0]} %=( \boldsymbol{\pi}^{[0]}, \Delta_1^{[0]}, ...,\Delta_G^{[0]},
%\sigma^{2}_{{x_1}[0]},...,\sigma^{2}_{{x_r}[0]},
%\boldsymbol{\upsilon}^{[0]}_{1},..., \boldsymbol{\upsilon}^{[0]}_{G},\sigma^2_{[0]},\sigma^2_{x[0]},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]}, \Lambda^{[0]}, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_1^{[0]}, ..., \boldsymbol{\alpha}_G^{[0]}).
$ i.e. maximize $E[l(\theta)|\boldsymbol{U}, \theta^{[0]}]$, with respect to $\theta$. More computational details for the EM-algorithm is found in Appendix A. Again, once the parameter estimates $\hat{\theta}$ have been determined, cluster label assignment for each subject is determined by the maximum of the posterior probabilities $$\begin{aligned}
P(z_i=k|\boldsymbol{u}_i,\hat{\theta})=\frac{f_k(\boldsymbol{u}_i,\hat{\theta}) \hat{\tilde{\pi}}_k}{\sum_{j=1}^G f_j(\boldsymbol{u}_i,\hat{\theta}) \hat{\tilde{\pi}}_j}, \hspace{2mm} k=1,...,G, \label{maxpost}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_k(\boldsymbol{u}_i,\theta)$ corresponds to the distribution in (\[fu\]).
Determining the number of clusters
==================================
So far we have assumed that the number of clusters $G$ is known. However in practice it needs to be determined from the data. Several proposals have been suggested in the literature, [@abraham; @garcia; @tarpey; @serban]. In a model-driven approach it is natural to find the number of clusters needed based on the observed log likelihood, e.g. through information criteria such as AIC or BIC or by studying (relative) changes of the observed log likelihood as the number of clusters is increased. The information criteria are calculated as AIC = $2 \cdot m - 2 \log(L_o(\hat{\theta}))$ and BIC = $m \cdot \log(N) -2 \log(L_o(\hat{\theta}))$, where $m$ is the number of parameters and $\log(L_o(\hat{\theta}))$ is the observed log likelihood of the data consisting of $N$ subjects. For large number of observations the penalization of the log likelihood with respect to the number of parameters $m$ in AIC and BIC is often of minor importance. The best model according to AIC or BIC is the one that minimizes AIC or BIC. Another alternative could be to chose the number of clusters where the relative change in the observed log likelihood $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\log L_o(\hat{\theta}|G+1)-\log L_o(\hat{\theta}|G)}{\log L_o(\hat{\theta}|G+1)},
\label{relativelogL}\end{aligned}$$ levels out and is small. The relative differences for AIC, BIC or some parameter estimates like $\hat{\sigma}^2$ or $(\hat{\sigma}^2+\hat{\sigma}_x^2)$ could also be used for this purpose. Yet, another tool suggested by @james is the “distortion function” $$\begin{aligned}
d_G = \frac{1}{p}\min_{c_1, \dots, c_G} E[\boldsymbol{\eta}_i -\boldsymbol{c}_{z_i}]^T \Gamma^{-1}_{z_i} E[\boldsymbol{\eta}_i -\boldsymbol{c}_{z_i}],\label{dK}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$’s are the random spline coefficients in the clustering model, $p$ is the number of spline basis, and $\boldsymbol{c}_{1},...,\boldsymbol{c}_{G} $ are the $G$ cluster (coefficient) medoids. The distortion, $d_G$, is the average Mahalanobis distance between each $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$, and its closest cluster medoid (coefficient) $\boldsymbol{c}_{z_i}$. The difference $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta d^{-b}_{G,G-1}=d^{-b}_{G}-d^{-b}_{G-1}\label{delta},\end{aligned}$$ is then plotted for different values of G, where $b$ is a parameter that needs to be determined. See Appendix C for computational details.
Analyzing the varved sediment of lake Kassjön
=============================================
We will now analyze the annually laminated (varved) sediment of lake Kassjön, situated in northern Sweden. Varved lake sediment has the potential to play an important role for understanding past climate with their inherent annual time resolution and within-year seasonal patterns, see part of the varved sediment of lake Kassjön in Figure 1. The varved patterns of lake Kassjön have the following origin. During spring, in connection to snow melt and spring runoff, minerogenic material is transported from the catchment area into the lake through four small streams, which gives rise to a bright colored layer, (large gray-scale values) [@petterson1]. During summer, autochthonous organic matter sinks to the bottom and creates a darker layer (lower gray-scale values). Finally, during winter, when the lake is ice-covered, fine organic material is deposited, resulting in a thin blackish winter layer (lowest gray-scale values). Figure 1 reveals substantial within- and between year variation, reflecting the balance between minerogenic and organic material. The properties of each varve reflect, to a large extent, weather conditions and internal biological processes in the lake the year that the varve was deposited. The minerogenic input reflects the intensity of the spring run-off, which is dependent on the amount of snow accumulated during the winter, and hence the variability in past winter climate. Note also that the seasonal patterns may indicate important weather information. For example, a pronounced spring peak may correspond to a winter with rich amounts of snow, and a low spring peak a winter with less snow. A substantial flatter part after the spring peak could correspond to a thick organic layer, perhaps indicating a warmer summer.
Preliminaries
-------------
The information in the varved sediment of lake Kassjön was registered by image analysis as gray-scale values [cf. @petterson2; @petterson3]. The raw data set consists of a series of averages of five-pixel slices subjectively chosen from representative parts of the varved sediment images, cf Figure 1, [@petterson2; @petterson3]. The data were recorded as gray-scale values with yearly deliminators giving 6388 years spanning over the time period 4386 B.C. until A.D. 1901. Of the 6388 varves 62 of them had no gray scale values recorded and were therefore treated as missing. See [@arnqvist00] for more information. The data thus consists of $N=6326$ (subjects) years and the $n_{i}$ observations per year ranges from 4 to 37. For each year $i$ we observe the seasonal pattern in terms of average gray-scale values ($y_i$’s) of the five pixel slices at $n_i$ time points (pixels). In order to make the seasonal patterns comparable we first put them on the same time scale \[0,1\], such that pixel position $j$ at year $i$ corresponds to position $\tilde{t}_{ij}=(j-1)/(n_i-1), \hspace{2mm} j=1,...,n_i,\hspace{1mm} i=1,...,N.$ To make the patterns more comparable (with respect to weather/climate) they were further aligned by landmark registration, synchronizing the first spring peaks, that are directly related to the spring flood that occurs approximately the same time each year. More specifically, we used the first (spring) peak landmarks ($L_i$’s) identified by [@arnqvist00], and then warped the time points according to $$t_{ij} =w(\tilde{t}_{ij})= \begin{cases} \tilde{t}_{ij} b_i & \mbox{if } \tilde{t}_{ij}<L_i \\
(\tilde{t}_{ij}-1) d_i+1 & \mbox{if } \tilde{t}_{ij}\geq L_i \end{cases}$$ where $M_L=0.2944$, $b_i=M_L/L_i$ and $d_i=(1-M_L)/(1-L_i)$, $i=1,...,N$.
Focusing on the functional forms of the seasonal patterns we finally centered them within years and worked with (the centered values) $y_i(t_{ij})-\bar{y}_i, \hspace{2mm} j=1,...,n_i,\hspace{1mm} i=1,...,N$, where $\bar{y}_i = \sum_{j=1}^{n_i} y_i(t_{ij})/n_i$ is the mean grey scale value of varve (year) $i$. In addition to the seasonal patterns we also include 3 covariates; the mean grey scale $x_{1i}=\bar{y}_i$, the varve width (proportional to $n_i$) $x_{2i} = n_i$ and the minerogenic accumulation rate (mg/$cm^2$) corresponding to the accumulated amount of minerogenic material per $cm^2$ in varve $i$, $x_{3i}$, [for details see @petterson1].
Clustering the varved sediment of lake Kassjön
----------------------------------------------
Based on the functional data and the three covariates we fit the clustering model described in Section 2.2 for $G=2,3,...,11$ clusters. After some preliminary investigation we decided to use $p=8$ cubic B-spline basis functions formed from 6 evenly distributed knots $\kappa_r, r=(r-1)/5$, as our basis functions $\boldsymbol{\phi}(t)$ (see Figure \[basis\] for an illustration). For each given number of clusters $G=2,3,..., 11$ we initiated the corresponding EM algorithm with starting values for the parameters (see Appendix B for proposals). For $G=2,..., 9$ we set $h=G-1$ and for $G=10, 11$, $h=8$ was chosen. Similar to [@james] we used small absolute relative changes in $\sigma^2+\sigma_x^2$ between two successive EM iterations as convergence criterion, i.e. when the absolute relative changes were smaller than $0.001$ the algorithm stopped. To decide the number of clusters, we studied the relative differences in a) the observed log likelihood (\[relativelogL\]), b) $\sigma^2+\sigma_x^2$, c) AIC and BIC and finally, d) the difference in distortion functions (\[delta\]) with b=4 (see Figure \[reldiff\] for $G=2,...,11$). From this information we conclude that $G=7$ clusters seems feasible.
The estimated covariance matrices, $\Delta_k$, $k=1,...,7$, are given in Figure \[covar\]. In the figure the spline coefficients are numbered 1–8 and the covariates numbered 9–11 in the order MinAR, Number of observations and Mean grey scale values, respectively. It reveals that there is substantially larger variability in the covariates compared to the spline coefficients. We also see that the $\Delta_k$:s varies substantially between clusters, especially for the covariates. In Figure \[corell\] the correlation matrices are given corresponding to Figure \[covar\]. Here it is easier to reveal the dependency among and between the spline coefficients and the covariates. It can be seen that the correlation differs between different clusters, especially for the correlation between the spline coefficients and the covariates. The higher the signal in the covariates is then the higher the correlation becomes. It can also be noted that neighbouring spline coefficients are negatively correlated. The posterior probabilities (\[maxpost\]) were calculated for each varve and cluster labels given as the maximum value of the posterior probabilities. For illustration, the posterior probabilities are given for two years together with the estimated cluster mean curves, $\boldsymbol{\phi}(t)^T (\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_0+\hat{\Lambda} \hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k), k=1,...,7$ (solid colored lines), and estimated expected yearly curve given $\boldsymbol{u}_i$, i.e. $\boldsymbol{\phi}(t)^T E[\boldsymbol{\eta}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,\hat{\theta}]$ (dashed black lines), see Figures \[covill\] and \[covill2\].
Figures \[fourcluster\] and \[threecluster\] summarize the information in the achieved 7 clusters and their time dynamics. In each of the seven panels the overall mean curve is given, $\phi(t)^T \hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_0$ (dashed black line) together with the cluster mean curve (red solid line). In the top right corner, within each cluster, the mean values of the three covariates for that cluster are given. Box plots for the covariates of each cluster are given in Figure \[boxplots\], upper panels. The seasonal patterns of the 7 clusters are similar to those found by [@arnqvist00]. There are a few clusters with pronounced high spring peak, clusters 1, 3 and 7 (which probably correspond to winters with high snow accumulation); one rather flat profile, cluster 6 (probably corresponding to years with mild winters); a pronounced double peaked profile, cluster 2 (where the second peak might indicate a fall storm with heavy rain); and finally two medium spring peak patterns, clusters 4 and 5. Note that the mean gray-scale values and MinAr tend to be high for clusters with pronounced high spring peak and low for cluster 6 with the flat pattern. Also note that the doubled peaked cluster 2 also has high mean gray-scale value and MinAR. Cluster with 2 peaks in general has thicker varves compared to the other clusters.
The time dynamics of each cluster are represented in Figures \[fourcluster\] and \[threecluster\] as the number of years in cluster $k$ over 50 year bins (black solid lines with colored dots). The colored dots correspond to the average maximum posterior probabilities of the years included in that 50 year bin of that particular cluster, which gives an indication of the certainty of the cluster label assignment in each bin. Overall it can be seen that the (max) posterior probabilities of the assigned cluster labels often are very high. The median of all maximum posterior probabilities are 0.9523 and 132 years had a maximum posterior probability less than 0.5. When it comes to the time dynamics and climate interpretation, cluster 6 can be useful. It can be seen that a very high peak occurred about 1200 BC. Next peak was around 500 BC. Then AD 500, AD 900 and AD 1100 also had some peaks with high frequencies of the flat profile. This is probably an indication of time periods with warmer winter conditions.
As a comparison we also clustered the varves solely based on the seasonal patterns (functional data). By again using $p=8$ cubic B-splines basis functions the model in Section 2.1 was estimated for $G=2,...,11$ clusters and the corresponding quantities from Section 3 computed, as presented in Figure \[reldiff\], upper panels. Again $G=7$ clusters seem to be appropriate. Time dynamics, seasonal profiles and mean values for each of the three covariates (note that they were not taken into account when clustering) are given for all 7 clusters in Figures \[fourcluster.nocov\] and \[threecluster.nocov\]. The general trends compared to clustering with covariates (Figures \[fourcluster\] and \[threecluster\]) are still the same but in general the average posterior probabilities in the 50-year bins are smaller than those obtained when clustering with covariates. For the model without covariates the median posterior probabilities becomes 0.9473 and 116 years less than 0.5. This indicates a higher stability/certainty when adding covariates in the clustering model. The mean cluster curves are pretty similar but we see a movement of years that changed clusters, of around 25%, which means that the covariates affect the clustering. It can also be seen that the levels of the mean grey scale values and MinAR vary more between clusters when using covariates in the clustering process.
Concluding remarks
==================
We have proposed a model-based functional clustering method to group subjects where functional data and covariates are observed. We allow the covariance structure to be different in different clusters and suggest the EM-algorithm to estimate the parameters of the model.
When estimating the model based on the varved lake sediment data of Kassjön significant differences in the covariance matrices of the different clusters are revealed, exemplifying the usefulness of allowing different covariance matrices. For smaller sample sizes it may not be sufficient to allow so many parameters to be estimated, thus a more parsimonious model might be better suited, for example, as in [@james]. For the Kassjön data, clustering with covariates gave in general larger posterior probabilities for the assigned cluster labels compared to clustering without covariates, indicating a superior performance. Still it is an open question how to optimally weight the importance of the covariates versus the functional data. One might use prior expertise knowledge when available. It would also be interesting to investigate if the average entropy over the posterior probability distributions could be used for this purpose.
For the functional data, it is assumed that the variance of the measurement error is constant and independent over time. A natural extension would be to allow for a correlation structure for the measurement error within subjects. Warping is important for aligning the curves. Would it be possible to incorporate warping in the modelling structure?
Derivation of parameter estimates for the EM algorithm
======================================================
In this Appendix the needed expressions for estimating the parameters within the EM algorithm are derived. First all expressions for functional data without covariates and then in Appendix A.2 the covariates are included to be estimated in the EM algorithm.
Functional model without covariates
-----------------------------------
The expected value of the complete log likelihood $\sum_{i=1}^N \log f\left(\boldsymbol{y}_i,\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i,\boldsymbol{z}_i \right)$ in equation (\[eqn3\]) given the observed data $\boldsymbol{Y} = (\boldsymbol{y}_1, ...., \boldsymbol{y}_N)$ and starting parameter values $\theta^{[0]} =( \boldsymbol{\pi}^{[0]}, \Gamma_1^{[0]}, ...,\Gamma_G^{[0]},\sigma^2_{[0]},\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]}, \Lambda^{[0]}, {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_1^{[0]}, ...,{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_h^{[0]})$ will first be computed, noting that, due to independence $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} = E [z_{ik}|\boldsymbol{y}_i,\theta^{[0]}] = P(z_{ik}=1|\boldsymbol{y}_i, \theta^{[0]}) = \frac{f(\boldsymbol{y}_i|z_{ik}=1) \pi_k^{[0]}}{\sum_{j=1}^{G}f(\boldsymbol{y}_i|z_{ij}=1)\pi_j^{[0]}}\label{piikgiveni},\end{aligned}$$ where by (\[eqn1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
f(\boldsymbol{y}_i|z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]})\sim N_{n_i}(\phi_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]}+\Lambda^{[0]}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^{[0]}), \sigma_{[0]}^2\mathbb{I}_{n_i}+\phi_i\Gamma_k^{[0]} \phi_i^T). \label{ycond1}\end{aligned}$$
Furthermore, for any function $g(\cdot)$, $$\begin{aligned}
E[z_{ik}g(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)|\boldsymbol{y}_i, \theta^{[0]}] = E[g(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)|\boldsymbol{y}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] \pi_{k|i}^{[0]}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the expected value of (\[eqn3\]) given $\boldsymbol{Y}$ and $\theta^{[0]}$ is, due to independence between individuals $$\begin{aligned}
E[l(\cdot)|\boldsymbol{Y}, \theta^{[0]}] & = \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}\log(\pi_{k}) \nonumber\\%\label{Epiikgiveni}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ \log\left\vert \Gamma_{k}\right\vert
+E[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T}\Gamma_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}|\boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}]\right]\nonumber\\%\label{Egamma logl}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}\nonumber\\
&\left[ n_{i}\log\sigma
^{2}+\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}E\left[\left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert ^{2} | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\right] \label{Ethe rest}\end{aligned}$$ The next step in the EM algorithm to maximize the conditional expectation with respect to the parameters. Maximizing (\[Ethe rest\]) with respect to $\pi_1,...,\pi_G$ given that $\sum_{k=1}^G \pi_k = 1$ is equivalent to maximizing $$Q_1 = \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{k=1}^G \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \log(\pi_k) - {\kappa}(\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_k - 1).$$ Taking derivatives yields $$\frac{dQ_1}{d\pi_k} = \frac{1}{\pi_k}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}-{\kappa}=0,
\hspace{3mm} k=1,...,G,$$ and thus $$\hat{\pi}_k^{[1]}= \frac{1}{\kappa}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}, \hspace{3mm} k=1,...,G.$$ Knowing that $\sum_{k=1}^G \hat{\pi}_k^{[1]} = 1$ we have that $\kappa = \sum_{k=1}^G \sum_{i=1}^N \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} = N$ and thus that the updated parameter estimates are $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\pi}_{k}^{[1]} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \label{Piina}
,\hspace{3mm}k=1,...,G.\end{aligned}$$ In order to maximize (\[Ethe rest\]) with respect to $\Gamma_1, ..., \Gamma_K$, first note that $$\begin{aligned}
E [\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T}\Gamma_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}] = E [tr(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T}\Gamma_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}) ] = E [tr(\Gamma_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T})] = tr(\Gamma_{k}^{-1} E[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T}])\label{trace}\end{aligned}$$ always holds. Since there is a one to one relation between $\Gamma_k$ and $\Gamma_k^{-1}$ we maximize (\[Ethe rest\]) with respect to $\Gamma_k^{-1}$ which by (\[trace\]) is equivalent to maximizing $$\begin{aligned}
Q_2 = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ - \log\left\vert \Gamma_{k}^{-1}\right\vert
+ tr(\Gamma_{k}^{-1} E[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}^{T}|\boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta^{[0]}])\right],\label{E0}\end{aligned}$$ with respect to $\Gamma_k^{-1}$ where we have used the fact that $\log\left\vert \Gamma_{k}\right\vert = - \log\left\vert \Gamma_{k}^{-1}\right\vert$. We further have that $$\frac{dQ_2}{d\Gamma_k^{-1}} = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left( -\Gamma_k + E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta^{[0]} \right]\right), \hspace{3mm}k=1,...,G.$$ Setting the derivative equal to zero and solving the equations gives by (\[Piina\]) that (\[E0\]) is maximized by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Gamma}_k^{[1]} %= \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^N \pi_{k|i}^{[0]}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]
= \frac{1}{N\hat{\pi}_k^{[0]}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right], \hspace{3mm}k=1,...,G.\label{GammaK}\end{aligned}$$ We can further express $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] =
V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta^{[0]} \right] + \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]} \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]T}, \label{omskr1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]} = E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i|\boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right].\label{omskr2}\end{aligned}$$
Now, $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i$ given $\boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1$ and $\theta$ follows the $p$-dimensional multivariate normal distribution
$$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}|\boldsymbol{y}_{i},z_{ik}=1 & \sim\nonumber\\
& N_p((\sigma^{2}\Gamma_{k}^{-1}+\phi_{i}^{T}\phi_{i})^{-1}\phi_{i}
^{T}(\boldsymbol{y} _{i}-\phi_{i}\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}-\phi_{i}\Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k
),(\Gamma_{k}^{-1}+\phi_{i}^{T} \phi_{i}/\sigma^{2})^{-1}),\label{gammagivenyz}\end{aligned}$$
(see e.g Appendix $A.2$, equations (\[cond.norm\])–(\[cond.exp\]) for a similar justification).
Hence, $\hat{\Gamma}_k^{[1]}$ in (\[GammaK\]) can be calculated using (\[omskr2\]) and (\[omskr1\]) with the mean and variance given by (\[gammagivenyz\]) with $\theta = \theta^{[0]}$.
Next (\[Ethe rest\]) is maximized with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0, \Lambda, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k, k=1,...,G$ which is equivalent to maximizing $$Q_3 = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ n_{i}\log\sigma
^{2}+\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}E\left[\left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert ^{2} | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta^{[0]}\right]\right].$$
As in [@james], the maximization of $Q_3$ will be an iterative procedure where $Q_3$ is first maximized with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$ then to $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k, k=1,..,G$, and finally to the columns of $\Lambda$ repeatedly while holding all other parameters fixed. We start by maximizing $Q_3$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$, which implies maximizing $$\begin{aligned}
Q_3(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0) &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]}
E\left[(c_{ik}-\phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0)^T (c_{ik}-\phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0) | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\\
&= -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[ E[c_{ik}^Tc_{ik}| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] - 2 E[c_{ik}^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}]\phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0
+ \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^T \phi_i^T \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0 \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{ik} = \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k - \phi_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i$. Taking the derivative of $Q_3$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_3(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0)}{d\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0} =
-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[(-2)\phi_i^T E[c_{ik} | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] + 2 \phi_i^T \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0 \right],\end{aligned}$$ which by setting it equal to zero, by (\[omskr2\]) gives the updated parameter estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Rightarrow {\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_0^{[1]} &= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \phi_i^T E[c_{ik} | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}]\nonumber\\
&= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \left[ \boldsymbol{y}_i - \sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \phi_i (\Lambda_0 \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k + \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]})\right]. \label{lambdazero}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k$, $k=1,...,G$ in (\[lambdazero\]) are replaced by $\Lambda^{[0]}$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{[0]}_k$, $k=1,...,G$ respectively.
To maximize $Q_3$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k$ it is sufficient to maximize $$\begin{aligned}
Q_3(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k) &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} E[(g_i - \phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)^T(g_i - \phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ]\\
&= -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[ E[g_i^T g_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] - 2 E[g_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}]\phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k + \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^T \Lambda^T \phi_i^T \phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $g_i=\boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)$. The derivative of $Q_3(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_3(\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)}{d\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k} &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} (-2 \Lambda^T \phi_i^T E[g_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] + 2 \Lambda^T \phi_i^T \phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k), \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ which beeing set equal to zero by (\[omskr2\]) yields the updated parameter estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k^{[1]} &= \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \Lambda^{[0]T} \phi_i^T \phi_i \Lambda^{[0]} \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \Lambda^{[0]T} \phi_i^T ( \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]} - \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]} ), k=1,...,G. \label{alphak}\end{aligned}$$
We now maximize $Q_3$ for each column of $\Lambda = (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_1, \boldsymbol{\lambda}_2, ...,\boldsymbol{\lambda}_h)$. To maximize $Q_3$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m$ it is sufficient to maximize [$$\begin{aligned}
Q_3(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m) &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} E[(\boldsymbol{e}_{ikm}-\phi_i \alpha_{km} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_m)^T(\boldsymbol{e}_{ikm}-\phi_i {\alpha}_{km} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_m)| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}]\\
&= -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[ E[\boldsymbol{e}_{ikm}^T \boldsymbol{e}_{ikm} | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] -2 E[\boldsymbol{e}_{ikm}^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] \phi_i {\alpha}_{km} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_m
+\boldsymbol{\lambda}^T_m {\alpha}_{km}^2 \phi_i^T \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_m\right]\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $\boldsymbol{e}_{ikm} = \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0 -\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i -\sum_{l \neq m} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_l {\alpha}_{kl})$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k= (\alpha_{k1},...,\alpha_{kh})^T$. Next, taking the derivative of $Q_3(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m)$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_3(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m)}{d\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m} &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^G \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} (-2 {\alpha}_{km} \phi_i^T E[\boldsymbol{e}_{ikm}| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}] + 2 {\alpha}_{km}^2 \phi^T_i \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_m),\end{aligned}$$ which, equals to zero, by (\[omskr2\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_m^{[1]} &= \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^G \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} ({\alpha}_{km}^{[0]})^2 \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{G} \pi_{k|i}^{[0]} {\alpha}_{km}^{[0]} \phi_i^T \left( \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]} - \sum_{l\neq m}{\alpha}_{kl}^{[0]} \boldsymbol{\lambda}_l^{[0]} -\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]} )\right). \label{Lambdam}\end{aligned}$$
Finally maximize $Q_3$ with respect to $\sigma^2$ is equivalent to maximizing $$\begin{aligned}
Q_3(\sigma^2) &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[n_i \log(\sigma^2)+\frac{1}{\sigma^2} \tau_{ik}
\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau_{ik}= E\left[ \left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}) \right\vert \right\vert ^{2} | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]$. The derivative with respect to $\sigma^2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_3(\sigma^2)}{d\sigma^2} &= \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[\frac{n_i}{\sigma^2} -\frac{1}{(\sigma^2)^2} \tau_{ik}
\right]\end{aligned}$$ which equal to zero, yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma}^2 = \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_i} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\pi_{k|i}^{[0]} \tau_{ik}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\tau_{ik}=\tau_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0,\Lambda,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)$ can be computed as follows. By letting $$\begin{aligned}
r_{ik} = \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}_0 - \phi_i \Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k\end{aligned}$$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{ik} %&= E\left[(r_{ik}-\phi_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)^T(r_{ik}-\phi_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i) | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]
= r_{ik}^T r_{ik} -2 r_{ik}^T \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]} + E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T\phi_i^T \phi_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]
\label{tauik}.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[alphak\]) and (\[Lambdam\]) it further holds that $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T\phi_i^T \phi_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] &
%E\left[tr(\phi_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T \phi_i^T)| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] =
%tr(\phi_i E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] \phi_i^T)\\
&= tr(\phi_i V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i|\boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\phi_i^T) + tr(\phi_i \hat{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]} \hat{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]T}\phi_i^T).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $$\begin{aligned}
V[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i | \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ] &= E[(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i - \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik})^T(\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i - \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik})| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ]\\
&= E[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i^T| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ] -\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^T.\end{aligned}$$ It then gives us by (\[tauik\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0,\Lambda,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)
%&= r_{ik}^T r_{ik} -2 r_{ik}^T \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik} + tr(\phi_i (V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1 \right] \phi_i^T) + tr(\phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^T \phi_i^T)\\
%&= r_{ik}^T r_{ik} -2 r_{ik}^T \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik} + \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^T \phi_i^T + tr(\phi_i (V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1 \right] \phi_i^T)\\
&= (r_{ik}-\phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]})^T (r_{ik}-\phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]}) + tr(\phi_i
V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] \phi_i^T)\end{aligned}$$ where $ V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{y}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]$ is the covariance matrix of (\[gammagivenyz\]). The updated parameter estimate of $\sigma^2$ then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{\sigma}^2_{[1]}} = \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_i} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\hat{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \tau_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]},\Lambda^{[0]},\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^{[0]}) \label{sigma}%\\\end{aligned}$$
Functional model with covariates
--------------------------------
Covariates $\boldsymbol{x}_i$, can also be included together with the functional data when clustering individuals. The expected value of the complete log likelihood (6) including covariates given $\boldsymbol{U}$ and $\theta^{[0]}$ then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
E [l(\theta)|\boldsymbol{U}, \theta^{[0]}] & \propto \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\log(\pi_{k})\nonumber\\%\label{app.Epiikgiveni}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ \log\left\vert \Delta_{k}\right\vert
+E [\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}^{T}\Delta_{k}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}|\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ]\right]\nonumber\\%\label{app.Egamma logl}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ n_{i}\log\sigma
^{2}+\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}E\left[\left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert ^{2} | \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta^{[0]}\right]\right] \nonumber\\%\label{app.Ethe rest}\\
& -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ r \log(\sigma^2_x) + \frac{1}{\sigma^{2}_{x}} E\left[ \left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{x}_{i} -
(\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{j}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert^2 | \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\right], \label{app.covar}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} = E [z_{ik}|\boldsymbol{u}_i,\theta^{[0]}] %= P(z_{ik}=1|\boldsymbol{u}_i, \theta^{[0]})
= \frac{f_0(\boldsymbol{u}_i|z_{ik}=1) \pi_k^{[0]}}{\sum_{j=1}^{G}f_0(\boldsymbol{u}_i|z_{ij}=1)\pi_j^{[0]}},$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(\boldsymbol{u}_i|z_{ik}=1)\sim N_{n_i+r}(S_i \boldsymbol{\mu}_k^{[0]}, R^{[0]}_{(n_i+r)}+S_i \Delta_k^{[0]} S_i^{T}). \label{app.ycond1}\end{aligned}$$
Maximizing (\[app.covar\]) with respect to $\pi_k$, $k=1,...,G$ follows the same argument as when estimating the $\pi_k$:s without covariates as in Appendix A.1 pages 23-24, changing the conditioning from $\boldsymbol{y}_i$ to $\boldsymbol{u}_i$ giving the updated parameter estimates $$\hat{\pi}_{k}^{[1]} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}, \hspace{3mm} k=1,...,G.$$ Moreover, the $\Delta_k$ that maximizes (\[app.covar\]) satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\Delta}_k^{[1]} = \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^N \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} E\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i \boldsymbol{\xi}_i^T |\boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta{[0]}\right]
\hspace{3mm}k=1,...,G,%\label{app.GammaK}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i \boldsymbol{\xi}_i^T |\boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta{[0]}\right] =
V\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] + \hat{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{ik} \hat{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{ik}^T\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\boldsymbol{\xi}}_{ik} = E\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right],%\label{app.omskr2}\end{aligned}$$ motivated in a similiar way as equations (\[lambdazero\])-(\[Lambdam\]).
Note that, in order to fully compute $\hat{\Delta}_k^{[1]}$ we need to determine the conditional distribution of $\boldsymbol{\xi}_i$ given $\boldsymbol{u}_i$ and $z_{ik}=1$. First, since both $\boldsymbol{\xi}_i$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_i$ are normally distributed so is $\boldsymbol{\xi}_i$ given $\boldsymbol{u}_i$ with density $$\begin{aligned}
f(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i} | \boldsymbol{u}_{i}) %= \frac{f(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i} ,\boldsymbol{u}_{i})}{f(\boldsymbol{u}_{i})}
\propto f(\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i}) f(\boldsymbol{u}_{i}|\boldsymbol{\xi}_{i})\label{cond.norm}\end{aligned}$$
For any multivariate normally distributed random variable $\boldsymbol{x}$ with mean $\boldsymbol{a}$ and variance-covariance matrix $V$, the density function equals $$\begin{aligned}
f(\boldsymbol{x}) = C \exp(-\frac{1}{2}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})^T V^{-1}(\boldsymbol{x}-\boldsymbol{a})) \propto
\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{x}^T V^{-1} \boldsymbol{x} - 2 \boldsymbol{a}^T V^{-1} \boldsymbol{x} + \boldsymbol{a}^T V^{-1}\boldsymbol{a}\right)\right] \label{mult.norm.exp},\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is a normalizing constant. Given $z_{ik}=1$ we have that $\boldsymbol{\xi}_i \sim N(\boldsymbol{0},\Delta_k)$ and $\boldsymbol{u}_i|\boldsymbol{\xi}_i \sim N(S_i (\boldsymbol{\mu}_k+\boldsymbol{\xi}_i),R)$. By combining (\[cond.norm\]), (\[mult.norm.exp\]) we have that $$\begin{aligned}
-2 \ln f(\boldsymbol{\xi}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i) = C_1 +
\boldsymbol{\xi}_i^T \Delta_k^{-1}\boldsymbol{\xi}_i + (\boldsymbol{A} - S_i \boldsymbol{\xi}_i)^T R^{-1} (\boldsymbol{A} - S_i \boldsymbol{\xi}_i), \label{new.expr}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1$ is some constant and $\boldsymbol{A}=\boldsymbol{u}_i - S_i \boldsymbol{\mu}_{k}$. Rearranging terms in (\[new.expr\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\xi}_i^T (\Delta_k^{-1} + S_i^{T} R^{-1} S_i) \boldsymbol{\xi}_i + \boldsymbol{A}^T R^{-1} \boldsymbol{A} - 2(\boldsymbol{A}^T R^{-1} S_i)
\boldsymbol{\xi}_i,\end{aligned}$$ which, by comparison with(\[mult.norm.exp\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
Var\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1 \right] = V = (\Delta_k^{-1} + S_i^{T} R^{-1} S_i)^{-1}, \label{cond.var}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1 \right] = \left(S_i^T R^{-1} S_i +\Delta_k^{-1} \right)^{-1} S_i^T R^{-1}(\boldsymbol{u}_i-S_i \boldsymbol{\mu}_k).\label{cond.exp}\end{aligned}$$
To maximize (\[app.covar\]) with respect to $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0, \Lambda, \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k$ and $\sigma^2$ is equivalent to maximizing $$Q_3 = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ n_{i}\log\sigma
^{2}+\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}}E\left[\left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i)\right\vert \right\vert ^{2} | \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]\right].$$
Maximizing $Q_3$ will be an iterative maximization where first $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0$ then $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k$ and finally the columns of $\Lambda$ are repeatedly maximized while holding all other parameters fixed. In analogy with the motivation of (\[lambdazero\]) we have that $$\begin{aligned}
% \Rightarrow
\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_0^{[1]} &= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \phi_i^T E[c_{ik} | \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ]\\
%&= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \phi_i^T \left[ \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i \Lambda^{[0]} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^{[0]} - \phi_i E[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ]\right]\\
%&= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \phi_i^T \left[ \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i \Lambda^{[0]} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^{[0]} - \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i}^{[0]}\right]\\
&= \left( \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi_i^T \left[ \boldsymbol{y}_i - \sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \phi_i (\Lambda^{[0]} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^{[0]} + \tilde{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{ik}^{[0]})\right],\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]}=E\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]$ being the first $p$ rows of (\[cond.exp\]) with $\theta=\theta^{[0]}$. We further have that $Q_3$ is maximized with respect to $\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k$, $(k=1,...,G)$ for $$\begin{aligned}
%\frac{dQ_3^{(ii)}}{d\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k} &= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} (-2 \Lambda^T \phi_i^T E[g_i^T| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ] + 2 \Lambda^T \phi_i^T \phi_i \Lambda %\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k) = 0\\
%&=> \\
\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k^{[1]} &= \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N} \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \Lambda^{[0]T} \phi_i^T \phi_i \Lambda^{[0]} \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \Lambda^{[0]T} \phi_i^T ( \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i \boldsymbol{\lambda}^0_0 - \phi_i \tilde{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]} ),\end{aligned}$$ with parallell arguments as those for equation(\[alphak\]). Maximizing $Q_3$ with respect to each of the columns of $\Lambda = (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_1, \boldsymbol{\lambda}_2, ...,\boldsymbol{\lambda}_h)$ then, as for equation (\[Lambdam\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
%\frac{dQ_3^{(iii)}}{d\boldsymbol{\lambda}_m} &= \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^G \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} (-2 \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{km} \phi_i^T E[e_{ikm}| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} ] + 2 %\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{km}^2 \phi^T \phi \boldsymbol{\lambda}_m) = 0\\
%&\Rightarrow \\
\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_m^{[1]} &= \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N} \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{km}^{2(0)} \phi_i^T \phi_i \right)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \sum_{k=1}^{G} \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{km}^0 \phi_i^T \left( \boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i (\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^0 - \sum_{l\neq m}\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{kl}^0 \boldsymbol{\lambda}_l^0 -\tilde{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]} )\right), m=1,...,h.\end{aligned}$$
To maximize $Q_3$ with respect to $\sigma^2$ we maximize $$\begin{aligned}
Q_3^{(i)}(\sigma^2) &= -\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[n_i \log(\sigma^2)+\frac{1}{\sigma^2} \tilde{\tau}_{ik},
\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\tau}_{ik}= E\left[ \left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{y}_{i}-\phi_{i}%
(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_{i}) \right\vert \right\vert ^{2} | \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]$. Taking the derivative with respect to $\sigma^2$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_3^{(iv)}}{d\sigma^2} &= \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \left[\frac{n_i}{\sigma^2} -\frac{1}{(\sigma^2)^2} \tilde{\tau}_{ik}
\right] = 0,\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
(\hat{\sigma}^2) = \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_i} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \tilde{\tau}_{ik}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the computation of $\tau_{ik}$ in equation (\[sigma\]), $\tilde{\tau}_{ik}=\tilde{\tau}_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0,\Lambda,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)$ can be computed as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\tau}_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0,\Lambda,\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)
%&= r_{ik}^T r_{ik} -2 r_{ik}^T \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i} + tr(\phi_i (Cov\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] \phi_i^T) + tr(\phi_i %\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i}\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i}^T \phi_i^T)\\
%&= r_{ik}^T r_{ik} -2 r_{ik}^T \phi_i \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i} + \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i}\phi_i \phi_i^T \hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_{i}^T + tr(\phi_i (Cov\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| %\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] \phi_i^T)\\
&= (r_{ik}-\phi_i \tilde{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]T})(r_{ik}-\phi_i \tilde{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]}) +
tr\left(\phi_i V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right] \phi_i^T\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $r_{ik}=(\boldsymbol{y}_i-\phi_i(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0+\Lambda\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k)$ and $\tilde{\gamma}_{ik}^{[0]}= E\left[ \boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]$ is the first $p$ rows of (\[cond.exp\]) with $\theta=\theta^{[0]}$ and $V\left[\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]} \right]$ is the $p \times p$ matrix in the upper left corner of variance-covariance matrix (\[cond.var\]). The updated parameter estimate of $\sigma^2$ then becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{(\hat{\sigma}^2)^{[1]}} = \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}n_i} \sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} \tilde{\tau}_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\lambda}_0^{[0]},\Lambda^{[0]},\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k^{[0]}).\end{aligned}$$
Finally we maximize (\[app.covar\]) with respect to $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}$ and $\sigma_x^2$, which is equivalent to maximizing $$\begin{aligned}
Q_4 = & -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[ r \log(\sigma^2_x) +
\frac{1}{\sigma^{2}_{x}} E\left[ \left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{x}_{i} -
(\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert^2 | \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\right].\end{aligned}$$ We start by taking the derivative of $Q_4$ with respect to $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}$, giving then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_4}{d{\boldsymbol{\upsilon}}_{k}}= \sum_{i=1}^{N}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\frac{1}{\sigma_x^2}
\left(2 \boldsymbol{\upsilon}_k -2 (\boldsymbol{x}_i - \tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]})\right),
%E\left[x_{ij}-{\upsilon}_{jk}-{\delta}_{ij}| \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right] = 0\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]} =E\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1,\theta^{[0]} \right]$, corresponds to the last $r$ elements in (\[cond.exp\]) with $\theta=\theta^{[0]}$. Setting the derivative equal to zero and solving for $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_k$ giving the updated parameter estimate of $\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_k$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}^{[1]}= \frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}(\boldsymbol{x}_{i}-\tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]}) =
\frac{1}{N\pi_{k}^{[0]}}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}(\boldsymbol{x}_{i}-\tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]})\end{aligned}$$
If we set $b_{ik}=E\left[ \left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{x}_{i} -
(\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert^2 | \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]$ then the derivative of $Q_4$ with respect to $\sigma_x^2$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dQ_4}{d\sigma_{x}^2}= -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]}\left[\frac{r}{\sigma_x^2}-\frac{1}{(\sigma_x^2)^2} b_{ik}\right]\end{aligned}$$ which set to zero implies that, where $\sigma^2_x = \sigma^2_x(\boldsymbol{\upsilon})$, satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{r}{\sigma_x^2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} =
\frac{1}{(\sigma_x^2)^2}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} b_{ik}\end{aligned}$$ giving $$\begin{aligned}
{\sigma}_x^2 =
\frac{1}{Nr}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{k=1}^{G}\tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} E\left[ \left\vert \left\vert \boldsymbol{x}_{i} -
(\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_{k}+\boldsymbol{\delta}_{i})\right\vert \right\vert^2 | \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Now, in order to find $\sigma^2_x$ we need to find an estimate of $b_{ik}$. Let $d_{ik} = \boldsymbol{x}_i-\boldsymbol{v}_k$ then we can formulate $$\begin{aligned}
b_{ik} =
E\left[
\vert \vert
d_{ik} - \boldsymbol{\delta}_i
\vert \vert^2
| \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}
\right] =
{d}_{ik}^T {d}_{ik} - 2 d_{ik}^T \tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]} +
E\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i^T \boldsymbol{\delta}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right].\end{aligned}$$ However, $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i^T \boldsymbol{\delta}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right] =
tr\left(E\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i^T \boldsymbol{\delta}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\right) =
tr\left(V\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]+\tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]}\tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]T}\right)\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
b_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_k) =
(d_{ik}- \tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]})^T
(d_{ik}-\tilde{\delta}_{ik}^{[0]})+
tr\left(V\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $V\left[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i, z_{ik}=1, \theta^{[0]}\right]$ equals the $r \times r$ matrix in the lower right corner of (\[cond.var\]) with $\theta=\theta^{[0]}$. Thus, giving the updated parameter estimates of $\sigma_x^2$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\hat{\sigma}^2_x\right)^{[1]} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{k=1}^G \tilde{\pi}_{k|i}^{[0]} b_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\upsilon}_k^{[0]})\end{aligned}$$
EM-algorithm implementation
===========================
For the data at hand we have run the EM-algorithm in two different settings, without and with three covariates. The implementation of the EM-algorithm is done in three functions in R. First an initial step, **(I)**, which runs once. Then iteration between the E-step and the M-step with the chosen stop value as the criteria for convergence. The convergence criteria to stop the iterations was set to 0.001 for the absolute relative difference in the estimation of $\sigma^2$ without covariates. With the covariates we used the sum of $\sigma^2$ and $\sigma^2_x$.
The initial step **(I)** finds the starting values for the EM-algorithm. We started by fitting penalized cubic splines with the $p=8$ B-splines for each seasonal pattern. We penalized the second derivative and used the penalty weight $\boldsymbol{\lambda} = 0.00014625$. Then the initial groupings of the seasonal patterns into $G$ clusters could be done in two ways. One is by running k-means several times on the initial penelized spline coefficients of the data using the pre-specified penalty $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ and $p$ cubic spline functions with $G$ cluster centroids and keep the best fit. The second is to uniformly assign a cluster belongings for each subject. Both methods gives the the start values $\hat{\pi}_k$, k=1,...,G. The initial cluster belongings together with the spline coefficients are then used to estimate the initial parameters, $\pi_k^{[0]}$, $k=1,...,G$ as the relative frequencies in the clusters. $\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0}^{[0]}$ as the average of the spline coefficients, $\boldsymbol{\mu}_k$, $k=1,...,G$ as the average spline coefficients within each cluster. An eigendecomposition of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_1,...,\boldsymbol{\mu}_G$ was the used to initiate $\Lambda^{[0]}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}_k}^{[0]}$’s. The initial values of the $\Gamma_k$’s where found by setting them all equal to the covariance matrix of the spline coefficients. Finally ${\sigma^{2}}_{(0)}$ is set equal to $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N||\boldsymbol{y}_i-\phi_i\boldsymbol{\mu}_{z_i}^{[0]}||^2$.
One can note that when the EM-algorithm is implemented some modifications are performed in order to increase the numerical stability. First, according to the model specification we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{y}_i = \phi_i \boldsymbol{\eta}_i\end{aligned}$$ Now, a shift of base is performed, giving instead, $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{y}_i = \phi_i \boldsymbol{\eta}_i = U_i D V^T \eta_i = U_i \boldsymbol{\beta}_i\end{aligned}$$ Where the single value decomposition of $\phi_i$ is used. That gives us $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\beta}_i = D V^T \boldsymbol{\eta}_i\end{aligned}$$ When we want to transform back to our original $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\eta}_i = VD^{-1} \boldsymbol{\beta}_i.\end{aligned}$$ We can see this as a new basis-representation with the difference that all $p$ basis functions are defined over the whole domain, see Figure \[basis\]. The new basis functions are also orthogonal to each other. Calculating the inverse of expressions involving the $\boldsymbol{U}$-matrix is numerically more stable.
Second, by using the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury matrix identities the Variance of the coefficients for the splines and the covariates ${\boldsymbol{\xi}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1}$, (\[cond.var\]) is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{Var}\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}_i| \boldsymbol{u}_i,z_{ik}=1 \right] = \left(S_i^T R^{-1} S_i +\Delta_k^{-1} \right)^{-1} =\\
\Delta_k - \Delta_k S_i^T (R+ S \Delta_k S_i^T)^{-1} S \Delta_k = \\
\Delta_k - \Delta_k S_i^T R^{-1} (\mathbb{I}+S_i \Delta_k S_i^T R^{-1})^{-1} S_i \Delta_k\end{aligned}$$ and the same idea goes for estimating the variance for the spline coefficients, $\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i|\boldsymbol{y}_i,z_{ik}=1$, see equation (\[gammagivenyz\]).
Estimating the distortion function
==================================
In practice, when estimating the distortion function (\[dK\]), it is suggested in @james to set $b$ equal to half of the “effective” dimension of the parameters. It is also suggested to replace $\Gamma_{z_i}^{-1}$ with the identity matrix $\mathbb{I}$, the distortion thus being simplified, according to $$\begin{aligned}
d_G= \frac{1}{p}\min_{c_1, \dots, c_G} E[(\boldsymbol{\eta}_i -\boldsymbol{c}_{z_i})^T (\boldsymbol{\eta}_i -\boldsymbol{c}_{z_i})]\label{dK2}.\end{aligned}$$
[@james] also suggest to estimate (\[dK2\]) by the total within-cluster sum of squares (divided by $N$) of the K-means algorithm applied to the $E[\boldsymbol{\eta}_i|\boldsymbol{y}_i,\hat{\theta}]$’s, where we use an estimate of the expected value of $\boldsymbol{\eta}_i$ given the observed data $\boldsymbol{y}_i$ and the parameter estimate $\hat{\theta}$, $$E\left[\boldsymbol{\eta}_i|\boldsymbol{y}_i, \hat{\theta}\right]=E\left[\boldsymbol{\lambda}_i+\Lambda \boldsymbol{\alpha}_{z_i}+\boldsymbol{\gamma}_i|\boldsymbol{y}_i, \hat{\theta}\right]$$ that is $$\hat{\boldsymbol{\eta}}_i = \hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_0+\hat{\Lambda}\sum_{k=1}^G\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k \hat{\pi}_{k|i}+\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_i$$ where $$\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}_i = (\hat{\sigma}^2\sum_{k=1}^G\hat{\Gamma}_k^{-1}\hat{\pi}_{k|i}+\phi_i^T\phi_i)^{-1} \phi_i^T (\boldsymbol{y}_i - \phi_i (\hat{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}_0+\hat{\Lambda}\sum_{k=1}^G\hat{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}_k \hat{\pi}_{k|i}).$$ Also, in a similar way one can calculate $E[\boldsymbol{\delta}_i|\boldsymbol{u}_i,\hat{\theta}]$.
**Determining the number of clusters**
**Analysis with three original covariates**
**Analysis with three original covariates**
**Analysis without covariates**
**Analysis without covariates**
**Illustration of posterior probabilities for year -3633**
**Illustration of posterior probabilities for year -668**
**Boxplots of the three covariates**
**Covariance matrices, $\Delta_k$, k=1,...,7**
**Correlation matrices of $\Delta_k$, k=1,...,7**
**Different basis representations**
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate asymptotical behavior of numbers of long Hamiltonian walks (HWs), [*i.e.*]{} self-avoiding random walks that visit every site of a lattice, on various fractal lattices. By applying an exact recursive technique we obtain scaling forms for open HWs on 3-simplex lattice, Sierpinski gasket, and their generalizations: Given-Mandelbrot (GM), modified Sierpinski gasket (MSG) and $n$-simplex fractal families. For GM, MSG and $n$-simplex lattices with odd values of $n$, the number of open HWs $Z_N$, for the lattice with $N\gg 1$ sites, varies as $\omega^N N^\gamma$. We explicitly calculate the exponent $\gamma$ for several members of GM and MSG families, as well as for $n$-simplices with $n=3,5$, and 7. For $n$-simplex fractals with even $n$ we find different scaling form: $Z_N\sim \omega^N \mu^{N^{1/d_f}}$, where $d_f$ is the fractal dimension of the lattice, which also differs from the formula expected for homogeneous lattices. We discuss possible implications of our results on studies of real compact polymers.'
author:
- Sunčica
- Dušanka
- Slobodan
title: Scaling of Hamiltonian walks on fractal lattices
---
Introduction
============
Self–avoiding walks (SAWs) have long been used in the studies of configurational statistics of polymer chains in solution [@Vanderzande]. Due to excluded volume effect, at high temperatures $T$ (good solvent) long polymer chains are in swollen configurations. At low temperatures (poor solvent) polymers are in a collapsed state, caused by the attractive interactions of different sections of a polymer, mediated by a solvent. The transition between these two states occurs at the so–called $\theta$ temperature, at which excluded volume and attractive forces balance. Whereas the swollen and $\theta$ phases has been well investigated by now, the entropic scaling of the collapsed phase is still an open issue. A closely related problem is the scaling of Hamiltonian walks (HWs), which are SAWs that visit all the sites of the underlying lattice. HWs are believed to represent the $T=0$ limit of collapsed polymers, and they are also used in the studies of polymer melting [@JacobsenKondev], as well as in the context of protein folding [@Lua].
The number $Z_N$ of HWs on homogeneous lattices with $N \gg 1$ sites is expected to behave as $$Z_N\sim \omega^N {\mu^{N^\sigma}_S}N^a\, .
\label{eq:asimptotika}$$ Here $\sigma=(d-1)/d$, where $d$ is the dimensionality of the lattice, $\mu_S$ is some constant less than 1, and $\omega$ is the connectivity constant, defined as $$\ln\omega =\lim_{N\to\infty}{{\ln Z_{N}}\over N}\, .
\label{eq:definicija}$$ Proposed scaling form for HWs differs from the ordinary SAW case (swollen polymer), where average number of $N$-step SAWs, for large $N$, behaves as $\omega^N N^a$, and where the critical exponent $a$ depends only on $d$ (which is not the case for HWs). The term ${\mu^{N^\sigma}_S}$ in the HW case is expected on the basis of the exact study of HWs on the Manhattan lattice [@DuplantierDavid], as well as on the conjecture that collapsed polymer (globule) has a sharp boundary, so that a surface tension term should arise [@Owczarek]. The scaling form (\[eq:asimptotika\]) was confirmed by Owczarek [@SamoOwczarek] for collapsed partially directed SAWs on the square lattice. Baiesi [*et al*]{} [@Baiesi] recently performed extensive Monte Carlo simulations, which gave strong evidence that (\[eq:asimptotika\]) is also satisfied for undirected collapsed SAWs on the square lattice. There are hardly any results for higher dimensional lattices. To the best of our knowledge, the only clear indication that for collapsed SAWs on three-dimensional lattices there exists a surface term, as predicted by (\[eq:asimptotika\]), was obtained by Grassberger and Hegger [@Grassberger] via Monte Carlo simulations. There are also no results concerning scaling form for the collapsed SAWs on disordered lattices. Having all that in mind it might be useful to study HWs on fractals.
Fractal lattices are somehow intermediate between homogeneous and disordered ones, and their hierarchical and scale invariant structure often allows an exact recursive treatment of various physical phenomena. The ordinary SAW model (corresponding to the polymer chain at high temperatures) has been studied extensively in the past on different fractals [@DharNSimplex]-[@Marini]. These studies contribute to a better understanding of how dimension and topological structure of underlying space affect the critical behavior of SAWs in general. There are fewer papers about self-interacting SAWs on fractals [@Klein]-[@Dragica], and neither of them establishes the explicit form of the partition function at low temperatures. The closely related problem of finding the number of walks in the limiting HW case was analyzed only for closed walks on some fractals [@Bradley; @Stajic]. Here for the first time we investigate the scaling forms for the number of open HWs on a set of fractal lattices.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:SG\] we describe the technique used for an exact enumeration of closed HWs on the cases of 3-simplex lattice and Sierpinski gasket fractal, and extend it for enumeration of open HWs on these lattices. In Sections \[sec:GM\] and \[sec:MSG\] this technique is generalized for enumeration of HWs on Given-Mandelbrot (GM) and modified Sierpinski gasket (MSG) families of fractals. We find that there is no surface term in the scaling form for the number of HWs on neither of these lattices. For the number of closed HWs on MSG fractals we show that it varies as $\omega^N$, which is the same as in the case of GM fractals [@Stajic]. For open HWs we obtain scaling form $\omega^N N^\gamma$ for both fractal families, with $\omega$ and $\gamma$ depending on the particular parameters of the fractals. Furthermore, exponent $\gamma$ does not have the same value for corresponding fractals from these two families, as is the case for ordinary SAWs [@NeZnam; @EKM]. Similar violation of the universality was found for two-dimensional (2d) homogeneous lattices [@jane]. We extend our analysis to higher dimensional $n$-simplex lattices in Sec. \[sec:nsimplex\], where general exact scheme for obtaining numbers of HWs is described. It turns out that scaling form for HWs strongly depends on the parity of the fractal parameter $n$. In particular, for lattices with odd values of $n$ we find the same scaling form as for HWs on GM and MSG fractals, whereas for even $n$ we get $Z_N\sim \omega^N \mu^{N^{1/d_f}}$, with $d_f$ being the fractal dimension of the lattice, and different values of $\mu$ for closed and open HWs. All obtained results are summarized in Sec. VI, and some technical details are given in the appendixes.
Hamiltonian walks on 3-simplex lattice and Sierpinski gasket fractal {#sec:SG}
====================================================================
In order to explain the method used in this paper for obtaining the scaling forms of numbers of both closed and open HWs we start with the simplest case: HWs on the 3-simplex lattice, and proceed with HWs on the Sierpinski gasket.
3-simplex lattice
-----------------
To obtain the 3-simplex lattice [@NelsonFisher] one starts with a complete graph of three points and replaces each of these points by a new complete graph of three points. The subsequent stages are constructed self-similarly, by repeating this procedure. After $l$ such iterations one obtains [*3-simplex of order $l$*]{} (see Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\](a)), whereas the complete $3$-simplex lattice is obtained in the limit $l\to\infty$. The number of vertices within the $l$th order 3-simplex is $N_l=3^l$, and the fractal dimension of the lattice is $d_f=\ln 3/\ln 2$.
In Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\](a) we give an example of open HW on a 3-simplex of order $l=4$. Performing a coarse-graining process one notices in Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\](b) that this walk can be decomposed into parts corresponding to the second order simplices, which have two possible configurations: one traversing the simplex ($B$-type configuration) and the other consisting of two strands, one of which is traversing the simplex, and the other with one end at a corner vertex of the same simplex, and the second end anywhere within it ($C$-type configuration). The coarse-graining can be applied once more (Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\](c)), leading to a HW consisting of three parts corresponding to three simplices of order $l=3$, two of them being of the type $B$, and the third consisting of two strands (“legs”), each of them having one end-point at the corner vertex of the corresponding simplex and the other within it ($D$-type configuration).
![ (a) An open HW on a 3-simplex of order $l=4$. The first (b) and the second step (c) of the coarse-graining process. Gray triangles in (b) and (c) represent 3-simplices of order $l=2$ and $l=3$, respectively, whereas curved lines correspond to the coarse-grained walk. Different types of configurations within the third and the second order simplices are encircled. (d) Open HW on 3-simplex of order $(l+1)$, consisting of two $A$-type parts and one $B$-type part within the corresponding simplices of order $l$ (gray triangles).[]{data-label="fig:3simplexHW"}](fig1.eps){width="70mm"}
In a similar way, it is not difficult to see that each open HW on the $(l+1)$th order simplex can be decomposed in two ways, either as in the sample shown in Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\](c), or as in Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\](d), with one $B$-type part and two $A$-type parts (one strand with one end at the corner vertex and the other end anywhere within the corresponding $l$th order simplex). If we denote the number of open HWs on the $(l+1)$th order simplex by $Z_O^{(l+1)}$, then the following relation is valid: $$Z_O^{(l+1)}=3B^{(l)}\left[\left(A^{(l)}\right)^2+B^{(l)}D^{(l)}\right]\,
, \label{eq:otvorene}$$ where $A^{(l)}$, $B^{(l)}$ and $D^{(l)}$ are the numbers of HWs of types $A$, $B$ and $D$ within the $l$-th order simplex, respectively. Decomposition of closed HWs is even simpler, leading to the recursion relation: $$Z_C^{(l+1)}=\left(B^{(l)}\right)^3\, , \label{eq:zatvorene}$$ where $Z_C^{(l+1)}$ is the overall number of the closed HWs on the simplex of order $(l+1)$.
![(a) Four possible configurations of A-type HWs on a 3-simplex of order $(l+1)$, with the corresponding numbers of HWs. Gray triangles represent the $l$th order simplex. (b) Two possible A-type HWs on the first order 3-simplex. Small circles represent sites the lattice consists of.[]{data-label="fig:3simplexA"}](fig2.eps){width="80mm"}
Number $C^{(l)}$ of $C$-type HWs does not contribute directly to $Z_O^{(l+1)}$ and $Z_C^{(l+1)}$, but one can obtain (see Fig. \[fig:3simplexA\]) the following recursion relations: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(l+1)}&=&2B^2(A+C)\, ,\label{eq:a}\\
B^{(l+1)}&=&B^3 \, ,\label{eq:b}\\
C^{(l+1)}&=&B^2(A+3C)\, , \label{eq:c}\\
D^{(l+1)}&=&B(4AC+2A^2+3BD+6C^2)\, , \label{eq:d}\end{aligned}$$ for the numbers of HWs corresponding to simplices of two successive orders (where we have omitted index $(l)$ on the right-hand side of the relations). Iterating these relations, starting with the initial values $A^{(1)}=2$, $B^{(1)}=1$, $C^{(1)}=1$, and $D^{(1)}=2$, one can calculate $A^{(l)}$, $B^{(l)}$, $C^{(l)}$, and $D^{(l)}$ for any $l$, and, consequently, the numbers $Z_O^{(l+1)}$ and $Z_C^{(l+1)}$. Furthermore, these relations can be exactly analyzed, as follows. From (\[eq:b\]), and the corresponding initial condition, trivially follows $B^{(l)}\equiv 1$, which also transforms the set of relations (\[eq:a\]) i (\[eq:c\]) for one-leg walks $A$ and $C$ into a simple system of difference equations: $$A^{(l+1)}=2(A^{(l)}+C^{(l)})\, , \quad C^{(l+1)}=A^{(l)}+3C^{(l)}\,
,$$ whose solution is $$A^{(l)}={1\over 3}(4^l+2)\, , \quad C^{(l)}={1\over 3}(4^l-1)\,
.\label{eq:ackonacno}$$ Then, from recursion relation (\[eq:d\]) straightforwardly follows the difference equation for the number of two-leg walks $D$: $$D^{(l+1)}={2\over 3}4^{2r}+3D^{(l)}\, ,$$ whose solution is $$D^{(l)}={4\over{39}}16^r+{3\over{13}}3^r-{1\over 3}\, .
\label{eq:dkonacno}$$ Finally, putting (\[eq:ackonacno\]), (\[eq:dkonacno\]), and $B^{(l)}=1$ in formulas for the overall numbers of open (\[eq:otvorene\]) and closed (\[eq:zatvorene\]) HWs one gets $$Z_O^{(l)}={{25}\over{16\cdot 39}}16^l+{1\over
3}4^l+{3\over{13}}3^l+{1\over 3}\, , \quad Z_C^{(l)}=1\, .$$ From the last equation trivially follows that connectivity constant is $\omega=1$ and $Z_C^{(l)}=\omega^{N_l}$ for every $l$, whereas the number of open HWs for $l\gg 1$ behaves according to the asymptotic formula $$Z_O^{(l)}\sim N_l^{{\ln 16}\over{\ln 3}}=\omega^{N_l}
N_l^{\gamma}\, , \label{eq:3simplexOpenAsimp}$$ where $N_l=3^l$ is the number of vertices of the 3-simplex of order $l$, and $\gamma=\ln 16/\ln 3=2.52372\ldots$..
Sierpinski gasket
-----------------
In a similar way, one can analyze HWs on the Sierpinski gasket (SG) lattice. SG is a well known fractal lattice, which can be constructed recursively, starting with the generator (gasket of order $r=1$), which consists of three unit equilateral triangles, arranged to form a twice larger triangle (see Fig. \[fig:SGb2HW\](a)). The subsequent fractal stages are constructed self-similarly, by replacing each of the unit triangles of the initial generator with a new generator. To obtain the $r$th–-stage fractal lattice ($r$th order gasket), this process of construction has to be repeated $(r-1)$ times, and the complete fractal is obtained in the limit $r\to\infty$. The numbers of sites on the $r$th order gasket is equal to $N_r={3\over 2}(3^r+1)$. SG resembles 3-simplex lattice and indeed has the same fractal dimension $d_f=\ln 3/\ln 2$.
![ (a) An open Hamiltonian walk on Sierpinski gasket of order $r=3$. Vertices corresponding to the end-points of the walk are colored black, for the sake of easier recognition. The first (b) and the second step (c) of coarse-graining process. Gray triangles in (b) and (c) represent gaskets of order $r=1$ and $r=2$, respectively, whereas curved heavy lines correspond to the coarse-grained walk. Different kinds of configurations within the first and the second order gaskets are encircled.[]{data-label="fig:SGb2HW"}](fig3.eps){width="70mm"}
An open HW on a third order gasket is shown in Fig. \[fig:SGb2HW\], together with its coarse-grained versions. Comparing with Fig. \[fig:3simplexHW\] one can observe that larger number of types of possible HW configurations exists on SG than in the case of 3-simplex lattice. There are exactly 8 different types of walks, and they are depicted in Fig. \[fig:SGparametri\]. The corresponding numbers of HWs on the $r$th-order gasket will be denoted by $A^{(r)}$, $A_1^{(r)}$, $A_2^{(r)}$, $B^{(r)}$, $B_1^{(r)}$, $C^{(r)}$, $D^{(r)}$, and $D_1^{(r)}$. These numbers fulfill the following recursion relations: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(r+1)}&=&2\left(B^2C+ABB_1+
A_1B^2\right)\,, \label{eq:SGA}\\
A_1^{(r+1)}&=&A{B_1}^2+2A_1BB_1+2A_2B^2+2BB_1C\,,\label{eq:SGA1}\\
A_2^{(r+1)}&=&A_1{B_1}^2+2A_2BB_1+{B_1}^2C\,,\label{eq:SGA2}\\
B^{(r+1)}&=&2B^2B_1\,,\qquad B_1^{(r+1)}=2B{B^{2}_1}\,,\label{eq:SGBB1}\\
C^{(r+1)}&=&A{B_1}^2+2B(A_1B_1+A_2B+3B_1C),\label{eq:SGC}\\
D^{(r+1)}&=&4AB_1C+4ABA_2+4A_1BC+4BB_1D\nonumber\\
&+&4AB_1A_1+2B(3C^2+2BD_1+A_1^2),\label{eq:SGD}\\
D_1^{(r+1)}&=&4A_1A_2B+2AA_2B_1+2A_1CB_1
+4BB_1D_1\nonumber\\
&+&4A_2CB+3{C}^2B_1+{A_1}^2B_1+{B_1}^2D, \label{eq:SGD1}\end{aligned}$$ with the initial values: $A^{(1)}=4$, $A_1^{(1)}=6$, $A_2^{(1)}=3$, $B^{(1)}=3$, $B_1^{(1)}=2$, $C^{(1)}=4$, $D^{(1)}=6$, and $D_1^{(1)}=5$.
![Possible types of HWs on $r$th order gaskets (gray triangles), needed to decompose any HW on gasket of order $r+1$.[]{data-label="fig:SGparametri"}](fig4.eps){width="50mm"}
Iterating recursion relations (\[eq:SGA\])-(\[eq:SGD1\]) one can calculate numbers of all possible types of HWs, in principle for any $r$, and then eventually find the overall number $Z_O^{(r+1)}$ of open HWs on the $(r+1)$th order gasket, by putting them into the formula: $$Z_O^{(r+1)}=12\,{A_1}^{(r)}\,{A_2}^{(r)}\,{B_1}^{(r)} +
6\,({{B_1}^{(r)}})^2\,{D_1}^{(r)}\, .\label{eq:SGopen}$$ However, this is a tedious task, since all of these numbers quickly become extremely large. To avoid that, we analyze recursion relations in a similar manner as was done for 3-simplex lattice.
Introducing new variables: $x_r=A^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, ${x_1}_r=A_1^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, ${x_2}_r=A_2^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, $y_r=C^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, $z_r=D^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, ${z_1}_r=D_1^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, and noticing that $B_1^{(r)}/B^{(r)}=2/3$ is exactly satisfied for any $r$, from (\[eq:SGA\])-(\[eq:SGD1\]) one gets the new recursion relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x' \\
{x_1}' \\
{x_2}' \\
y' \\
\end{array}
\right) &=&\left(\matrix{ 1 & \frac{3}{2} & 0 & \frac{3}{2} \cr
\frac{1}{3} & 1 & \frac{3}{2} & 1 \cr 0 & \frac{1}{3} & 1 & \frac{1}
{3} \cr \frac{1}{3} & 1 & \frac{3}{2} & 3 \cr }\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x \\
{x_1} \\
{x_2} \\
y \\
\end{array}
\right)\,
,
\label{eq:SGxx1x2y}\\
\left( \begin{array}{c}
z' \\
z_1' \\
\end{array}
\right)&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
2 & 3 \\
{1\over 3} & 2 \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
z \\
z_1 \\
\end{array}
\right)+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
f_1 \\
f_2 \\
\end{array}
\right)\,
,\label{eq:SGz1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_1&=&2x x_1+
\frac{3}{2}{{x^2_1}} + 3 x x_2 + 2x y +
3 x_1 y+\frac{9}{2}y^2\, ,\nonumber\\
f_2&=& \frac{1}{2}{x^2_1} + x{x_2} + 3{x_1}{x_2} +
x_1y +
3x_2 y + \frac{3}{2}\,y^2\, .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From (\[eq:SGxx1x2y\]) for $r\gg 1$ follows $x_r$, ${x_1}_r$, ${x_2}_r$, $y_r \sim \lambda^r$, where $\lambda=4$ is the only eigenvalue of the $4\times 4$ matrix of this recursion relation which is larger than 1, and then, from (\[eq:SGz1\]), we find $z_r, {z_1}_r\sim 4^{2r}$.
To obtain the asymptotic formula for the number of open HWs, we express $Z_O^{(r+1)}$ from (\[eq:SGopen\]) as $$Z_O^{(r+1)}={8\over
3}\left(B^{(r)}\right)^3(3{x_1}_r{x_2}_r+{z_1}_r)\, .$$ Since in [@Stajic] it was exactly shown that $B^{(r)}=\mathrm{const}\,\omega^{N_r}$, with $\omega=12^{1/9}$, one finally gets the scaling form: $Z_O^{(r)}\sim\omega^{N_r}N_r^{\gamma}$, with $\gamma=\ln 16/\ln 3=2.52372\ldots$. For the sake of comparison, we have generated $Z_O^{(r)}$ by direct numerical iteration, for $r$ up to 100. In Fig. [\[fig:numerika\]]{} we depict $(\ln Z_O^{(r)})/N_r$, as a function of $(\ln N_r)/N_r$, for $21\leq r\leq 30$. As one can see, value of $(\ln Z_O^{(r)})/N_r$ for this range of $r$ is quite close to $\ln\omega$, whereas by fitting these data to linear function one obtains approximate value: $\gamma_{fit}=2.3$. For larger number of iterations $\gamma_{fit}$ becomes closer to the exact value of $\gamma$. For instance, fitting the numerical data for $91\leq r\leq 100$ gives $(\gamma-\gamma_{fit})/\gamma=2\%$.
![Values of $(\ln Z_O^{(r)})/N_r$, found by direct numerical iteration of relations (\[eq:SGA\])-(\[eq:SGD1\]) and (\[eq:SGopen\]), for $21\leq r\leq 30$. Line connecting the points has been obtained by linear fitting, and $\omega=12^{1/9}$.[]{data-label="fig:numerika"}](numerika.eps){width="70mm"}
Scaling form obtained for the number of open HWs on SG is the same as the one found for the 3-simplex lattice. As was shown in [@Stajic], the numbers of closed HWs on SG scale as $\omega^{N_r}$, again the same as in the case of 3-simplex. Equality of the exponents for SG and 3-simplex is in accord with the fact that SAWs on these two lattices belong to the same universality class [@NeZnam]. On the other hand, it is known that exponents for HWs on different 2d Euclidean lattices have different values [@jane], which is explained to be a consequence of the frustration, induced by the strong constraint that all the sites must be visited. It is believed that a relevant physical measure of this frustration is the number of contacts per monomer, [*i.e.*]{} vertex pairs which are not adjacent along the HW, but are the nearest neighbors on the lattice. Nevertheless, the number of contacts on 3-simplex is one, whereas it is two on SG, so that one could have expected different values of $\gamma$. In order to gain a deeper insight into the problem of universality and frustration of HWs on lattices embedded in 2d space, in the next two sections we analyze the asymptotic behavior of HWs on the appropriate generalizations of 3-simplex and SG fractals.
Hamiltonian walks on Given-Mandelbrot fractals {#sec:GM}
==============================================
One possible way to generalize the SG fractal is to start with a generator that consists of $b(b+1)/2$ unit equilateral triangles, arranged to form a $b$ times larger triangle. Enlarging the generator $b$ times and substituting the smallest triangles with the generator, and then repeating this procedure recursively [*ad infinitum*]{}, one obtains fractal lattice characterized with the integer $b$. For $b=2,3,...,\infty$ the complete so called Given-Mandelbrot (GM) family of fractals is obtained [@GivenMandelbrot]. SG is the first member of this family, with the scaling parameter $b=2$. The fractal dimension of GM fractal with scaling parameter $b$ is equal to $d_f=\ln[b(b + 1)/2]/\ln b$, and the number of sites $N_r$ at the $r$th stage of fractal construction is $$N_{r}={{b+4}\over{b+2}}\left[{{b(b+1)}\over
2}\right]^{r}+2{{b+1}\over{b+2}}\, . \label{eq:GMcvorovi}$$
The overall number of open HWs on the $(r+1)$th stage of construction of any GM fractal can be expressed in terms of numbers of 8 HW types within the $r$th order stage, in a similar manner as in the case of SG (Fig. \[fig:SGparametri\]). Recursion relations for numbers of $B$, and $B_1$-type walks on two successive stages of fractal construction have the following form: $$B'=p\, B^{\frac{b(b-1)}{2}+1}\, {B_1}^{b-1}\, ,\quad
B_1'=p\, {B}^{\frac{b(b-1)}{2}}\, {B_1}^{b}\,
, \label{eq:bezkrake}$$ as was shown in [@Stajic], whereas the numbers of one-leg configurations: $A$, $A_1$, $A_2$, and $C$, satisfy a closed set of recursion relations, which can be put in matrix form as: $$\left(\begin{array}{c}
A' \cr
A_1' \cr
A_2' \cr
C'
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\matrix{ a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} &a_{14}\cr a_{21} & a_{22}
& a_{23} &a_{24}\cr a_{31}& a_{32} & a_{33} &a_{34}\cr a_{41} &
a_{42} & a_{43} &a_{44} }\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
A \cr
A_1 \cr
A_2 \cr
C
\end{array}\right)\, , \label{eq:GMmatricno}$$ where $a_{ij}$ are polynomials in $B^{(r)}$ and $B_1^{(r)}$. In Appendix A we prove that each of these polynomials has only one term, which is of the form $K_{ij}[B^{(r)}]^\beta
[B_1^{(r)}]^\delta$, where $\beta+\delta=b(b+1)/2-1$. The coefficients $K_{ij}$ depend only on $b$, and each of them can be expressed in terms of the number $p$ (appearing in equations (\[eq:bezkrake\])), and additional 8 numbers: $a, a_1, a_2, c, a', a_1', a_2', c'$. Introducing new variables: $x_r=A^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, ${x_1}_r=A_1^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, ${x_2}_r=A_2^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, $y_r=C^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, relation (\[eq:GMmatricno\]) gives the new recursive relation: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x' \\
{x_1}'\\
{x_2}' \\
y' \\
\end{array}
\right) =\left(\matrix{ {a\over p} & \frac{a_1}{t\, p} &
\frac{a_2}{t^2\, p} & \frac{c}{t\, p} \cr \frac{t(2a-p)}{2\,p} &
\frac{a_1}{p} & \frac{a_2+p}{t\,p} & {c\over p} \cr
\frac{t^2(a-p)}{2\,p} & \frac{a_1\,t}{2\,p}
& \frac{a_2+2p}{2\,p} & \frac{c\,t}{2\,p} \cr
\frac{a't}{p} & \frac{a_1'}{p} &
\frac{a_2'}{t\,p} & {{c'}\over{p}} \cr }\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x\\
{x_1} \\
{x_2} \\
y \\
\end{array}
\right)\,
,
\label{eq:GMxx1x2y}$$ where $t=B_1^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$ is a coefficient that depends only on $b$, as can be seen from (\[eq:bezkrake\]). The particular values of the coefficients appearing in the last 4x4 matrix, for $2\leq
b\leq 7$, are given in Appendix A. For all $b$ considered here, this matrix has only one eigenvalue $\lambda$ larger than 1, implying that for $r\gg 1$ parameters $x_r$, ${x_1}_r$, ${x_2}_r$, and $y_r$ grow as $\lambda^r$, and consequently, numbers $A^{(r)}$, ${A_1}^{(r)}$, ${A_2}^{(r)}$, and $C^{(r)}$ asymptotically behave as $\lambda^r\, B^{(r)}$.
Numbers of two-leg HWs satisfy recursion relation: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
D' \\
{D_1}' \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
b_{11} & b_{12} \\
b_{21} & b_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
D \\
{D_1}\\
\end{array}
\right)+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
F \\
F_1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\, , \label{eq:GMTwoLeg}$$ where $b_{ij}$ are polynomials in $B^{(r)}$ and $B_1^{(r)}$ of the power $b(b+1)/2-1$ (see Appendix B), whereas $F$ and $F_1$ are of the form: $d_{AA}A^2+d_{AA_1}A\,A_1+d_{AA_2}A\,A_2+d_{AC}A\,C+d_{A_1A_1}A_1^2+d_{A_1A_2}A_1A_2+d_{A_1C}A_1C+
d_{A_2A_2}A_2^2+d_{A_2C}A_2C+d_{CC}C^2$, with $d_{XY}$ being polynomials in $B^{(r)}$ and $B_1^{(r)}$ of the power $b(b+1)/2-2$. With new parameters defined as $z_r=D^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$ and ${z_1}_r={D_1}^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, from (\[eq:GMTwoLeg\]) follows simpler recursion relation: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
z' \\
{z_1}' \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_{11} & m_{12} \\
m_{21} & m_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
z \\
{z_1} \\
\end{array}
\right)+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
f \\
f_1 \\
\end{array}
\right)\, , \label{eq:GMTwoLegLinearized}$$ where $m_{ij}$ are numbers, which do not depend on $r$, but only on $b$, whereas $f$ and $f_1$ are polynomials in $x_r$, ${x_1}_r$, ${x_2}_r$ and $y_r$. In particular, it can be shown that $m_{11}=m+1$, $m_{12}=2n/t$, $m_{21}=m t/2$, $m_{22}=n+1$, with $m=b(b-1)/2$, and $n=b-1$, whereas $f$ and $f_1$ have the form: $a_{xx}x^2+a_{xx_1}xx_1+a_{xx_2}xx_2+a_{xy}xy+a_{x_1x_1}x_1^2+a_{x_1x_2}x_1x_2+a_{x_1y}x_1y
+a_{x_2x_2}x_2^2+a_{x_2y}x_2y+a_{yy}y^2$, where $a_{XY}$ are again numbers depending only on the scaling parameter $b$. It turns out that for all $b$ considered here $\lambda^2$ is larger than eigenvalues $\lambda_D$ of the matrix $m_{ij}$, implying that $z_r$, ${z_1}_r\sim \lambda^{2r}$.
The number $Z_O^{(r+1)}$ of open HWs on the gasket of order $(r+1)$, can be expressed as:
$$\begin{aligned}
Z_O^{(r+1)}&=&k_1AA_{1}B^{m-3}B_{1}^{n+2}+k_2AA_{2}B^{m-2}B_{1}^{n+1}+k_3A_{1}A_{2}
B^{m-1}B_{1}^{n} +k_4ACB^{m-3}B_{1}^{n+2}\nonumber\\
&+&k_5A_{1}CB^{m-2}B_{1}^{n+1}+
k_6A_{2}CB^{m-1}B_{1}^{n}+k_7A^2B^{m-4}B_{1}^{n+3}+k_8A_{1}^2B^{m-2}B_{1}^{n+1}\nonumber\\
&+&k_9A_{2}^2B^{m}B_{1}^{n-1}+k_{10}C^2B^{m-2}B_{1}^{n+1}+k_{11}DB^{m-2}B_{1}^{n+2}+k_{12}D_{1}B^{m-1}B_{1}^{n+1}\,,
\label{eq:GMOpen}\end{aligned}$$
where we have suppressed index $r$ on the right-hand side of this relation, and $k_i$ are numbers that depend only on $b$. Substituting established asymptotical behavior of $A_i$, $C$ and $D_i$ in the latter expression, one finds that all terms on the right-hand side of equation (\[eq:GMOpen\]) have the same asymptotical form, so that $$Z_O^{(r+1)}\sim\lambda^{2r}(B^{(r)})^{\frac{b(b+1)}{2}}\, .$$ Since in [@Stajic] it was shown that numbers $B^{(r)}$ and $B_1^{(r)}$ for large $r$ behave as $\omega^{N_r}$, where the number of sites $N_r$ is given by (\[eq:GMcvorovi\]), it follows that $$Z_O^{(r)}\sim\omega^{N_r}N_r^{\gamma}\,, \quad \mathrm{with}
\quad \gamma={2}\frac{\ln\lambda(b)}{\ln\frac{b(b+1)}{2}}\,
.\label{eq:openGM}$$ The values of $\gamma$ for $2\leq b\leq 7$ are equal to $2.5237\ldots$, $2.1841\ldots$, $2.3411\ldots$, $2.2461\ldots$, $2.2981\ldots$, and $2.2755\ldots$, respectively. One should mention here that number of closed HWs asymptotically behaves as $Z_C^{(r)}\sim \omega^{N_r}$, as was established in [@Stajic], where also a closed formula for $\omega$ was derived.
Modified Sierpinski gasket fractals {#sec:MSG}
===================================
Intrigued by the fact that scaling relations for the numbers of HWs, as well as the corresponding values of the critical exponents, are the same for 3-simplex and SG lattices (Sec. II), here we examine HWs on modified Sierpinski gasket (MSG) fractals. In particular, the only difference between GM fractal and corresponding MSG fractal (with the same value of scaling parameter $b$) is that the generator of the MSG fractal is obtained by arranging $b(b+1)/2$ unit triangles in such a way that vertices of neighboring triangles are connected with an infinitesimal junction, [*i.e.*]{} not glued, as in the GM case (see Fig. \[fig:MSG\]).
![ (a) The $(r+1)$th order generator of the GM fractal with $b=4$. Grey triangles represent its 10 constitutive elements, each of them being the $r$th stage of construction of the fractal ($r$th order generator). Most of the corner vertices (black circles) of the $r$th order generators belong to more than one triangle. (b) The $(r+1)$th order generator of the MSG fractal with $b=4$ is obtained by connecting $r$th order generators (grey triangles) via infinitesimal junctions. Curved lines represent two similar $B$-type HWs which in (a) case consists of $B$ and $B_1$ type strands within the $r$th order triangles, whereas in (b) case each strand within the $r$th order triangle is of $B$ type, implying that all vertices within the triangle are visited (including the third corner vertex).[]{data-label="fig:MSG"}](fig6.eps){width="70mm"}
This insertion of junctions simplifies recursive scheme for counting HWs: instead of eight different types of walks in the case of GM fractals, one should consider only four types of walks in this case.
Any closed HW within the $(r+1)$th order generator of MSG can be decomposed into $b(b+1)/2$ strands, each of them being a $B$-type HW within one of the $b(b+1)/2$ $r$th order triangle inside it. Here, $B$-type HW has the same meaning as in the case of 3-simplex lattice, [*i.e.*]{} it is a HW that enters a generator at one of its corner vertices, and leaves it through another one, meanwhile visiting all the remaining vertices, including the third corner vertex (see Fig. \[fig:MSG\]). Recursion relation for the numbers of $B$-type walks is of the form $$B^{(r+1)}=q\left(B^{(r)}\right)^{{b(b+1)}\over 2}\, ,
\label{eq:BMSG}$$ where $q$ depends only on $b$, and, consequently, for $r>>1$, the number $B^{(r)}$ behaves as: $$B^{(r)}\sim \left[q^{\frac{2}{(b-1)(b+2)}}\right]^{\left(
{\frac{b(b+1)}{2}}\right)^{r}}\, .$$ The number of closed HWs on the $(r+1)$th order generator $Z_C^{(r+1)}$ is equal to: $$Z_C^{(r+1)}=\mathrm{const}\left(B^{(r)}\right)^{{b(b+1)}\over 2}\, ,$$ meaning that $Z_C^{(r)}$ has the same asymptotic form as $B^{(r)}$. Since the number $N_r$ of sites on the $r$th order generator is equal to $N_r=3[b(b+1)/2]^r$, for large $r$ one gets the following scaling form: $$Z_C^{(r)}\sim B^{(r)}\sim \omega^{N_r}\, , \quad \mathrm{with}
\quad \omega=q^{\frac{2}{3(b-1)(b+2)}} \, . \label{eq:closedMSG}$$ Values of $q$ and $\omega$ for $2\leq b\leq 8$ are given in Table \[table:MSG\].
$b$ $q$ $a$ $c$ $a'$ $c'$ $\omega$ $\gamma$
----- ------ -------- -------- -------- -------- ---------- ----------
2 1 2 2 1 3 1 2.52372
3 2 6 10 4 8 1.04729 2.12343
4 4 24 42 20 40 1.05269 2.3816
5 16 134 228 116 196 1.06824 2.23644
6 68 932 1460 886 1408 1.07286 2.32218
7 464 8656 12524 8372 11604 1.07875 2.27302
8 3838 101612 133764 103258 133428 1.08177 2.29907
: Coefficients $q$, $a$, $c$, $a'$, and $c'$, appearing in recursion relations (\[eq:BMSG\]), and (\[eq:ACMSG\]), for the numbers of $B$, $A$, and $C$-type HWs, found by direct computer enumeration of all possible corresponding configurations, together with the values of connectivity constant $\omega$ and exponent $\gamma$ for open HWs on MSG fractals with $2\leq b\leq
8$.[]{data-label="table:MSG"}
The number $Z_O^{(r+1)}$ of open HWs on the $(r+1)$th order generator is equal to: $$Z_O^{(r+1)}=B^{\frac{b(b+1)}{2}-2}\left(k_1A^2+k_2AC+k_3C^2+k_4BD\right)\,,$$ where $A=A^{(r)}$, $B=B^{(r)}$, $C=C^{(r)}$ and $D=D^{(r)}$ have the same meaning as in the case of 3-simplex lattice, and $k_i$ are some constants depending only on $b$. Numbers $A$ and $C$ for two consecutive stages of MSG fractal construction satisfy the recursion relation: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A' \\
C' \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(B^{(r)}\right)^{\frac{b(b+1)}{2}-1}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a & c \\
a' & c' \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A \\
C \\
\end{array}
\right)\, , \label{eq:ACMSG}$$ where $a$, $c$, $a'$, and $c'$ depend only on $b$, and can be found by enumeration of the corresponding one-leg HWs (see Table \[table:MSG\]). Dividing this relation by recursion relation (\[eq:BMSG\]) for the $B$ numbers, and introducing new variables: $x_r=A^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, and $y_r=C^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$, one gets $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_{r+1} \\
y_{r+1} \\
\end{array}
\right)={1\over q}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & c \\
a' & c' \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
x_r \\
y_r \\
\end{array}
\right)\, , \label{eq:MSGubaceno}$$ implying that for $r\gg 1$ parameters $x_r$ and $y_r$ behave as $\lambda^r$, where $$\lambda={1\over{2q}}\left(a+c'+\sqrt{(a-c')^2+4c\,a'}\right)\,
\label{eq:lambdaMSG}$$ is the larger eigenvalue of the 2x2 matrix in (\[eq:MSGubaceno\]).
The number $D^{(r)}$ of two-leg HWs transforms as: $$D'=B^{\frac{b(b+1)}{2}-2}\left(d_{AA}A^2+d_{AC}\,AC+d_{CC}C^2+d_DBD\right)\, ,$$ which, with $z_r=D^{(r)}/B^{(r)}$ can be rewritten as $$z_{r+1}={1\over
q}(d_{AA}\,x_r^2+d_{AC}\,x_r\,y_r+d_{CC}\,y_r^2)+{{d_D}\over{q}}\,z_r\,
. \label{eq:zMSG}$$ In a similar way as it was done for two-leg walks in the case of GM fractals (Appendix B) it can be deduced that $d_D/q=b(b+1)/2$. Then, equation (\[eq:zMSG\]) implies that the large $r$ behavior of $z_r$ is governed by the larger of numbers $\lambda^2$ and $b(b+1)/2$. By computer enumeration of all possible one-leg configurations we found that inequality $\lambda^2>b(b+1)/2$ is satisfied for $2\leq b\leq 8$, so that $z_r\sim\lambda^{2r}$.
With the established large $r$ behavior of $x_r$, $y_r$ and $z_r$, and consequent behavior of $A^{(r)}$, $C^{(r)}$ and $D^{(r)}$, together with the previously found relation (\[eq:closedMSG\]) for $B^{(r)}$, it is not difficult to find out that scaling form for overall number $Z_O^{(r)}$ on MSG fractal is the same as in the case of corresponding GM fractal (\[eq:openGM\]), but with different values of $\omega$ and $\lambda$. Consequently, the only exception - equality of the values of $\gamma$ for 3-simplex and SG fractals ($b=2$ case of MSG and GM fractals, respectively), seems to be accidental. Indeed, this exception is also an indication that number of contacts per monomer is not the only relevant physical measure of HWs frustration.
The particular values of the connectivity constant $\omega$ and the exponent $\gamma$ for MSG fractals with $2\leq b\leq 8$ are given in Table \[table:MSG\], whereas in Fig. \[fig:GrafikGMMSG\]
![Values of the exponent $\gamma$ appearing in the scaling form $Z_O\sim\omega^{N}N^{\gamma}$ found for the number of open HWs on GM (full triangles) and MSG ($\triangle$) fractals, together with the corresponding values for SAWs (o) on the same fractal families [@EKM], as functions of the reciprocal of the fractal parameter $b$.[]{data-label="fig:GrafikGMMSG"}](fig7.eps){height="80mm"}
we depict $\gamma$ as a function of $1/b$, for both GM and MSG fractals. One can see that $\gamma$ is not a monotonic function of $b$, which has not been found for any of the critical exponents connected with SAWs on these fractal families [@EKM; @ZivicGamaSG; @ZivicNiSG]. For the sake of comparison on the same figure we give the corresponding values of $\gamma$ for open SAWs [@EKM], which are the same for GM and MSG fractals with equal $b$. In addition, one can also observe that values of $\gamma$ for HWs are separated in two groups: for even values of $b$ exponent $\gamma$ decreases when $b$ grows, whereas for $b$ odd $\gamma$ increases with $b$. This, however, resembles the behavior of the exponent $\psi$, appearing in the scaling form ${\lambda^N}\mu^{N^{\psi}}$ for the average number of different configurations of a branched polymer of $N$ bonds on GM fractal with $b>2$. Namely, for even and odd values of $b$ in a recent paper [@DharBranched] Dhar obtained two different exact expressions for $\psi$. Finally, it is clearly seen in Fig. \[fig:GrafikGMMSG\] that the difference between $\gamma$ values for GM and MSG fractals becomes smaller with larger $b$, so it seems plausible to investigate HWs only on MSG fractals (which is simpler than GM case), in order to obtain the large $b$ behavior of the exponent $\gamma$. This limit is interesting because for large $b$ already at the first stage of the construction of the GM fractal, one gets finite, but large, homogeneous triangular lattice, for which asymptotic form of the number of HWs has not been established yet.
n-simplex lattices {#sec:nsimplex}
==================
In order to extend our analysis to higher dimensional lattices, in this section we turn to $n$-simplex fractals with $n>3$, which are embedded in $d=n-1$ dimensional Euclidean spaces. To obtain an $n$-simplex lattice [@DharNSimplex] one starts with a complete graph of $n$ points and replaces each of these points by a new complete graph of $n$ points. The subsequent stages are constructed self-similarly, by repeating this procedure. After $l$ such iterations one obtains an $n$-simplex of order $l$, which consists of $N_l=n^l$ points. The complete $n$-simplex lattice is obtained in the limit $l\to\infty$. Fractal dimension $d_f$ of $n$-simplex lattice is equal to $d_f=\ln n/\ln 2$.
Closed HWs {#closed-hws .unnumbered}
----------
Any closed HW on $n$-simplex of order $l+1$ can be decomposed into $n$ parts within its $n$ simplices of order $l$. Parts (steps) of the walk within the simplices of order $l$ can be of $[n/2]$ different types (see Fig. \[fig:nsimplexParametri\]),
![All types of HWs needed for determining the connectivity constants and asymptotic forms of the numbers of HWs for $n$-simplex lattices with $3\leq n\leq 7$. Gray polygons denote $n$-simplex of order $l$.[]{data-label="fig:nsimplexParametri"}](fig8.eps){width="80mm"}
and we shall denote the numbers of corresponding HWs by $B_1$, $B_2$, $\ldots$, $B_{[n/2]}$. The overall number of closed HWs is equal to $$Z_C^{(l+1)}=\sum\limits_{i_1+\cdots+ i_{[\frac{n-1}2]}=n}\, c_{i_1\,
i_2\ldots i_{[\frac{n-1}2]}}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{[\frac{n-1}2]}\,
B_j^{i_j}\, ,\label{eq:nSimplexZatvorene}$$ where $c_{i_1\, i_2\cdots i_{[(n-1)/2]}}$ is the number of closed HW configurations with $i_1$, ..., $i_{[(n-1)/2]}$ steps of $B_1$, ..., $B_{[(n-1)/2]}$ type, respectively. Numbers $B_i$ satisfy a closed set of recursion relations: $$\begin{aligned}
B_i^{(l+1)}&=&\sum\limits_{i_1+\cdots+ i_{[n/2]}=n}\,
b^{(i)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots i_{[n/2]}}\prod\limits_{j=1}^{[n/2]}\,
B_j^{i_j}\, ,\nonumber\\* i&=&1,2, \cdots, [n/2] \, ,
\label{eq:nSimplexTraversing}\end{aligned}$$ where $b^{(i)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots i_{[n/2]}}$ is the number of HW configurations of $B_i$-type that traverse the simplex of order $(l+1)$, and have $i_1$, ..., $i_{[n/2]}$ steps of $B_1$, ..., $B_{[n/2]}$ type, respectively. Due to the self-similarity of the underlying lattice both $c_{i_1\, i_2\cdots i_{[(n-1)/2]}}$ and $b^{(i)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots i_{[n/2]}}$ depend only on $n$. Starting with the initial values $B_1^{(0)}=1$, $B_2^{(0)}=\cdots=B_{[n/2]}^{(0)}=0$, one can iterate recursion relations (\[eq:nSimplexTraversing\]) and calculate $B_i^{(l)}$ and $Z_C^{(l)}$, in principle for any $l$, but since all these numbers grow very fast with $l$, it is useful to introduce new parameters: $x_i=B_i/B_{[n/2]}$, $i=1$, ..., $[n/2]-1$. Dividing relations for $B_i^{(l+1)}$ by $B^{(l+1)}_{[n/2]}$ one obtains new recursion relations: $$x_i^{(l+1)}=\frac{f_i\left(x_1^{(l)},\ldots,x^{(l)}_{[n/2]-1}\right)}{f\left(x_1^{(l)},
\ldots\,x^{(l)}_{[n/2]-1}\right)}\, ,
\label{eq:nSimplexX}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&&f_i(x_1^{(l)},\ldots,x_{[n/2]-1}^{(l)})=B_i^{(l+1)}/\left(B_{[n/2]}^{(l)}\right)^n,
\nonumber\\
&&f(x_1^{(l)},\ldots\,x_{[n/2]-1}^{(l)})=B_{[n/2]}^{(l+1)}/\left(B_{[n/2]}^{(l)}\right)^n, \label{eq:funkcijaf}\end{aligned}$$ $i=1,\ldots,[n/2]-1$. Iterating these relations (starting with $l=1$) one notices that large $l$ behavior of $x_i^{(l)}$ strongly depends on the parity of $n$. It turns out that for odd $n$ values all $x_i^{(l)}$ tend to some finite constants, whereas for even $n$ the following asymptotic relations are valid: $$x_i^{(l)}\sim\,
\left({\lambda_B}^{k-i}\right)^{2^l}\, , \quad i=1,\cdots, k-1\, ,
\label{eq:lambdab}$$ where $k=[n/2]$ and $\lambda_B$ is some finite constant less than 1. Such behavior is a direct consequence of the fact that for even values of $n$ none of $B_1$, $B_2$, $\ldots$, $B_{k-1}$-type configurations within a simplex of order $(l+1)$ can be accomplished by $n$ steps of $B_{k}$-type through comprising $n$ simplices of order $l$ (see Appendix \[ap:nsimplex\]), which is not the case for simplices with odd $n$, because $B_i$-type steps occupy even number of corner vertices of any simplex.
With the established large $l$ behavior of numbers $x_i$ it can be shown that from (\[eq:nSimplexZatvorene\]) follows $$Z_C^{(l+1)}\, \sim \cases{ \left(B_k^{(l)}\right)^n \, , &
for $n$ odd, \cr \left(\lambda_B^{2^l}B_k^{(l)}\right)^n \, ,& for
$n$ even.\label{eq:ZatvoreneN}}$$ Although these two asymptotic forms are not the same, from the definition (\[eq:definicija\]) of the connectivity constant $\omega$ in both cases one gets $$\ln\omega=\lim\limits_{l\to\infty}\frac{\ln
Z_C^{(l+1)}}{n^{l+1}}=\lim\limits_{l\to\infty}\frac{\ln
B_{[n/2]}^{(l)}}{n^{l}}\, .$$ The last limiting value can be obtained via numerical iteration of the recursion relation $$\frac{\ln B_{k}^{(l+1)}}{n^{l+1}}=\frac{\ln
B_{k}^{(l)}}{n^{l}}+{1\over{n^{l+1}}}\ln
f(x_1^{(l)},\ldots\,x_{k-1}^{(l)})\, , \label{eq:IteracijaZaOmega}$$ which follows directly from (\[eq:funkcijaf\]). Furthermore, from (\[eq:IteracijaZaOmega\]) one has $$\frac{\ln B_k^{(p)}}{n^{p}}=\frac{\ln
B_k^{(l)}}{n^{l}}+\sum\limits_{m=l}^{p-1}{1\over{n^{m+1}}}\ln
f(x_1^{(m)},\ldots ,x_{k-1}^{(m)}),$$ which, with $p\to\infty$, gives $$\ln\omega=\frac{\ln
B_k^{(l)}}{n^{l}}+\sum\limits_{m=l}^{\infty}{1\over{n^{m+1}}}\ln
f(x_1^{(m)},\ldots\,x_{k-1}^{(m)})\, .$$ Then, since $f(x_1^{(m)},\ldots\,x_{k-1}^{(m)})$ decreases with $m$, it follows that $n^l\ln\omega -\mathrm{const}<\ln
B_k^{(l)}<n^l\ln\omega$, [*i.e.*]{} $\ln B_k^{(l)}\sim n^l\ln\omega$. Using this, together with (\[eq:ZatvoreneN\]), for the numbers of closed HWs one finally obtains the scaling formulas $$Z_C^{(l)}\sim \cases{
\omega^{N_l}\, , & for $n$ odd, \cr
\omega^{N_l}\,\left(\lambda_B^{n/2}\right)^{N_l^\sigma}\, , & for $n$ even,}\label{eq:scalingClosed}$$ where $\sigma=\frac{\ln 2}{\ln
n}={1\over{d_f}}$, with $d_f$ being the fractal dimension of the $n$-simplex lattice. Scaling forms and particular values for $\omega$ were found in [@Bradley] for $n=4$, in [@Stajic] for $n=5$, and $6$, and for $n=7$ in Appendix \[ap:nsimplex\] of this paper.
Open HWs {#open-hws .unnumbered}
--------
Any open HW on $n$-simplex of order $(l+1)$ can be decomposed into $n$ parts within its $n$ simplices of order $l$. The two ends of the HW are either both in the same or in two different $l$th order $n$-simplices. In the first case the configuration of the corresponding HW part is of the two-leg type, whereas in the latter case the configurations of both ending parts are of the one-leg type. For each $n$ there are $n-[n/2]$ different types of one-leg configurations (for $3\leq n\leq 7$ they are depicted in Fig. \[fig:nsimplexParametri\]). The remaining $(n-1)$ or $(n-2)$ parts of the open HW correspond to $B_i$-type steps. If we denote the numbers of one- and two-leg walks by $A_i^{(l)}$ and $D_i^{(l)}$, respectively, then the overall number of open HWs on $n$-simplex of order $(l+1)$ is equal to $$Z_O^{(l+1)}=\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{n-\left[{n\over 2}\right]}
E_{ij}A^{(l)}_iA^{(l)}_j+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\left[{n\over
2}\right]}F_iD^{(l)}_i\, , \label{nSimplexOtvorene}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
E_{ij}&=&\sum\limits_{\sum\limits_{r=1}^{[n/2]}i_r=n-2}\,
e^{(ij)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots
i_{\left[{n/2}\right]}}\prod\limits_{r=1}^{\left[{n/2}\right]}\, \left(B_r^{(l)}\right)^{i_r}, \nonumber\\
F_i&=&\sum\limits_{\sum\limits_{r=1}^{[n/2]}i_r=n-1}\,
f^{(i)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots
i_{\left[{n/2}\right]}}\prod\limits_{r=1}^{\left[{n/2}\right]}\,
\left(B_r^{(l)}\right)^{i_r},\end{aligned}$$ with coefficients $e$ and $f$ being the numbers of corresponding HW configurations. Numbers $A_i^{(l)}$ of one-leg walks satisfy recursion relations which can be put in the following matrix form $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A_1^{(l+1)} \\
\vdots \\
A^{(l+1)}_{p} \\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
a_{11} & \cdots & a_{1p} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{p1} &
\cdots & a_{pp} \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
A_1^{(l)} \\
\vdots \\
A_{p}^{(l)} \\
\end{array}
\right)\, , \quad \label{eq:Jednokrake}$$ where $p=n-[n/2]$, and $$a_{ij}=\sum\limits_{\sum\limits_{r=1}^{[n/2]}i_r=n-1}\,
\alpha^{(ij)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots
i_{\left[{n/2}\right]}}\prod\limits_{r=1}^{\left[{n/ 2}\right]}\,
\left(B_r^{(l)}\right)^{i_r}\, ,\label{eq:alfa}$$ with $\alpha^{(ij)}_{i_1\, i_2\cdots i_{\left[{n/2}\right]}}$ being constant coefficients. Introducing parameters $y_i=A_i/B_{[n/2]}$, $i=1, ..., p$, and dividing relations for $A_i^{(l+1)}$ by $B^{(l+1)}_{[n/2]}$ one gets recursion relations for the new parameters: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1^{(l+1)} \\
\vdots \\
y_{p}^{(l+1)} \\
\end{array}\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
m_{11} & \cdots & m_{1p} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
m_{p1} & \cdots &
m_{pp} \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
y_1^{(l)} \\
\vdots \\
y_{p}^{(l)} \\
\end{array}
\right)\, , \label{eq:YJednokrake}$$ where $$m_{ij}=\frac{a_{ij}(B_1,\ldots,B_{[n/2]})}{f(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})(B_{[n/2]})^{n-1}}=
\frac{g_{ij}(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}{f(x_1,\ldots,x_{k-1})}\, ,$$ with $g_{ij}$ being polynomials of order $n-1$, whose coefficients depend only on $n$, and $f$ defined in (\[eq:funkcijaf\]). Numerically iterating relations (\[eq:nSimplexX\]) for $x_i$, and substituting them into functions $m_{ij}$, after large number of iterations one obtains constant values, such that
- for odd $n$, matrix $m_{ij}$ has only one eigenvalue $\lambda$ larger than 1, implying that $y_i^{(l)}\sim \lambda^l$,
- for even values of $n$, only $m_{pp}\to 1$, whereas all other $m_{ij}\to 0$, implying that $y_{p}^{(l)}$ tends to finite constant value, whereas all the other $y_i^{(l)}$ tend to 0.
Knowing the behavior of parameters $y_i^{(l)}$, one can get the large $l$ behavior of the numbers $A_i^{(l)}$, and, consequently, the asymptotic form of the first sum in the right-hand side of (\[nSimplexOtvorene\]). In addition, it can be shown that numbers of two-leg configurations $D_i$ are not necessary for establishing the asymptotical behavior of (\[nSimplexOtvorene\]) (terms with $D_i^{(l)}$ either scale as terms with $A_i^{(l)}A_j^{(l)}$ or they are much smaller). For $n$-simplex lattices with odd $n$ all terms with $A_i^{(l)}A_j^{(l)}$ have the same asymptotical behavior, whereas for even $n$ behavior of $Z_O^{(l+1)}$ is governed by the term with $(A_p^{(l)})^2$. In both cases the following asymptotical formula is valid: $$Z_O^{(l+1)}\sim \left(y_p^{(l)}\right)^2 \left(x_{[n/2]-1}^{(l)}\right)^{n-2}\left(B_{[n/2]}^{(l)}\right)^n\, ,$$ which, with obtained behavior of $y_p^{(l)}$ and $x_{[n/2]-1}^{(l)}$, directly gives: $$Z_O^{(l)}\sim\cases{\omega^{N_l}\, N_l^\gamma\, , \quad
\gamma=2\frac{\ln\lambda}{\ln n}\, ,& for odd $n$,\cr
\omega^{N_l}\,\left(\lambda_B^{\frac{n-2}{2}}\right)^{N_l^\sigma}\!\!\!, \,\sigma=\frac{\ln 2}{\ln n}, & for even $n$.}\label{eq:scalingOpen}$$ Details of the derivation of these formulas can be found in Appendix \[ap:nsimplex\]. Value of $\gamma=2.5237...$ for $n=3$ was found in Sec. II, whereas for $n=5$ and 7, exponent $\gamma$ is equal to 2.1668... and 2.1079..., respectively.
As in GM and MSG fractal cases, one observes that behavior of the number of long HWs on $n$-simplex lattices is strongly affected by the parity of the fractal parameter. For lattices with odd $n$ scaling forms are the same as for GM and MSG fractals. This scaling form coincides with the scaling forms for average numbers of $N$-bonded SAWs on these lattices: with commonly accepted symbols for critical exponents, average number of closed SAWs scales as $\mu^NN^{\alpha-3}$, whereas for the average number of open SAWs formula $\mu^NN^{\gamma-1}$ is valid (these are the same formulas as for SAWs on homogeneous lattices). Comparing these formulas with those obtained for HWs (and keeping in mind that formulas for HWs correspond to the overall numbers of HWs), one can say that corresponding value $\alpha=2$, obtained for closed HWs on all these lattices, certainly differs from the values obtained for SAWs [@EKM; @DharNSimplex; @KSJ]. The same holds for exponent $\gamma$, meaning that HWs and SAWs belong to different universality classes (see Fig. \[fig:GrafikGMMSG\]). For HWs on $n$-simplex lattices with even $n$ we obtained different scaling forms: $\omega^N(\lambda_B^{n/2})^{N^\sigma}$ for closed, and $\omega^N(\lambda_B^{(n-2)/2)})^{N^\sigma}$ for open walks. However, one should note here that, whereas polymers on GM, MSG, and $5$-simplex fractals for $T>0$ can exist only in swollen phase, on 4- [@DharVannimenus], and 6-simplex [@KumarSingh] lattices, bellow some finite temperature $T_\theta>0$ polymers collapse into a more compact phase. Scaling of collapsed polymers has not been analyzed so far, and behavior of HWs might be an indication that on $n$-simplex lattices with even $n$, for $T<T_\theta$ polymers do not scale in the same manner as they do for $T>T_\theta$.
Summary and conclusion
======================
In this paper we have analyzed asymptotic behavior of the numbers of open and closed Hamiltonian walks on Given-Mandelbrot, modified Sierpinski gasket and $n$-simplex fractal families. Obtained scaling forms are summarized in Table \[table:ScalingForms\].
[ccc]{} Lattice& Closed HWs&Open HWs\
all GM and MSG fractals\
$n$-simplex with odd $n$&$\omega^N$&$\omega^N N^\gamma$\
\
$n$-simplex with even $n$& $\omega^N\left(\lambda_B^{\frac n2}\right)^{N^{ 1/{d_f}}}$&$\omega^N \left(\lambda_B^{\frac{n-2}2}\right)^{N^{1/{d_f}}}$\
One can see that scaling form (\[eq:asimptotika\]): $Z_N\sim \omega^N {\mu^{N^\sigma}_S}N^a$, proposed and obtained for some homogeneous lattices with large number of sites $N$, is satisfied for all fractal lattices under consideration, but, with at least one of the exponents $\sigma$ and $a$ being equal to 0. For HWs on GM, MSG, and $n$-simplex lattices with odd $n$ scaling form is $\omega^N$ for closed, and $\omega^N N^\gamma$ ($\gamma>0$) for open walks, [*i.e.*]{} exponent $\sigma$ formally may be taken as 0. This value cannot be obtained with a simple generalization of the formula $\sigma=(d-1)/d$, valid for $d$-dimensional homogeneous lattice, but it can be explained following the original argument of Owczarek [*et al*]{} [@Owczarek], which led to (\[eq:asimptotika\]) for collapsed polymers on homogeneous lattices. Namely, collapsed polymer chain on a homogeneous lattice has a form of a compact globule, with a sharp boundary separating it from the surrounding solvent. Monomers on the boundary have smaller number of contacts with other monomers then those in the bulk of the globule, so that a factor $\mu_S^{N_S}$, with $N_S$ being the number of monomers on the boundary, should appear in the scaling form. Furthermore, if one assumes that the boundary itself is homogeneous surface, then $N_S\sim N^{(d-1)/d}$, where $N$ is the number of monomers in the polymer chain. The crucial point of this argument is existence of two sets of monomers with different number of contacts. For HWs on both 3-simplex lattice and Sierpinski gasket (MSG and GM with $b=2$, respectively), monomers at all sites, except for the three outer vertices of the lattices, have the same number of contacts (see Figs \[fig:3simplexHW\] and \[fig:SGb2HW\]), so that ’surface’ factor with nontrivial $\sigma$ cannot arise. For GM fractals with $b>2$ it can be shown that on the $r$th stage of fractal construction there are $N_B^{(r)}=\frac{b-2}b\{[b(b+1)/2]^r-1\}$ ’bulk’ monomers with four contacts, whereas $N_S^{(r)}-3=N^{(r)}-N_B^{(r)}-3$ ’surface’ monomers, with $N^{(r)}$ given by (\[eq:GMcvorovi\]), have two contacts. This means that for $r\gg 1$ both $N_B^{(r)}$ and $N_S^{(r)}$ scale as $N^{(r)}\sim [b(b+1)/2]^r$, so that $\mu_S^{N_S}$ can be incorporated into the term $\omega^N$, or formally one can put $\sigma=0$. For HWs on MSG fractals with $b>2$, as well as on $n$-simplex lattices with odd $n$, all sites have the same coordination number (except for the finite number of corner vertices of the whole lattice), and consequently all monomers have the same number of contacts. Hence, the argument of Owczarek [*et al*]{} for these lattices also gives $\sigma=0$. However, presence of the stretched-exponential term $(\lambda_B^{n/2})^{N^{1/d_f}}$ for closed, and $(\lambda_B^{(n-2)/2)})^{N^{1/d_f}}$ for open Hamiltonian walks on $n$-simplex lattices with even $n$, can’t be a consequence of surface effects, since all the sites of these lattices also have the same coordination number. This means that there is some additional effect that should be considered in order to explain obtained scaling forms. It is not clear what that effect is, but one should notice that for $l$th order $n$-simplex $N_l^{1/d_f}=2^l$, which is equal to the linear size of the lattice. Also, some clue about it can be achieved by careful inspection of the differences between the asymptotic behavior of the requisite numbers of HWs for lattices with even and odd values of $n$. For instance, for odd $n$ the numbers of long $B_i$-type HWs fulfil relation: $B_1^{(l)}\sim B_2^{(l)}\sim\cdots\sim B^{(l)}_{[n/2]}$, whereas for even $n$ the number $B^{(l)}_{n/2}$ is much larger than any other $B^{(l)}_i$. Hence, one can expect stretched-exponential terms in scaling forms for HWs on lattices on which ’entangled’ configurations are more probable. This bears some analogy with square lattice, for which it was found that large fraction of monomers participate in secondary structures [@proteinfolding].
To conclude, we can say that exact recursive technique, used in this paper for enumeration of all possible Hamiltonian walks on Given-Mandelbrot, modified Sierpinski gasket and $n$-simplex fractal lattices, proved to be very efficient for open, as well as for closed walks. Recursion relations for the number of different types of compact configurations in simpler cases could be obtained by direct enumeration of the corresponding walks, whereas for lattices with more complicated structure we used appropriate computer programs. Once recursion relations were established, it was possible to generate and analyze numbers of very long HWs, eventually obtaining their asymptotical behavior. We believe that obtained scaling forms can help in better understanding of real compact polymers, therefore we intend to apply this technique to HWs on fractals embedded in three-dimensional space, in particular on 3d generalizations of GM and MSG fractals. It would also be interesting to extend the method to interacting HWs. Finally, we hope that our results might be useful in finding scaling forms for collapsed phase of interacting self-avoiding walks on fractals for which transition from swollen to collapsed phase occurs at $T_\theta>0$.
We would like to thank I. Živi' c for careful and critical reading of the manuscript. SEH and SM acknowledge the financial support from the Serbian Ministry of Science and Environmental Protection (Projects No: OI 141020B and OI 144022).
Recursion relations for one-leg HW on GM fractals \[dod:JednokrakeGM\]
======================================================================
In this Appendix we prove that numbers of one-leg HWs: $A$, $A_1$, $A_2$, and $C$, on Given-Mandelbrot fractals, satisfy recursion relations of the form:
$$\begin{aligned}
A'&=&aAB^{m}B_1^{n}+a_1A_1B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}+a_2A_2B^{m+2}B_1^{n-2}+
\,cB^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}C\, ,\nonumber\\
A_1'&=&\left(a-\frac{p}{2}\right)AB^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}+
a_1A_1B^{m}B_1^{n}+(a_2+p)A_2B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}+\,cB^{m}B_1^{n}C\, ,\label{eq:onelegGM}\\
A_2'&=&\frac{a-p}{2}AB^{m-2}B_1^{n+2}+\frac{a_1}{2}A_1B^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}+
\left(\frac{a_2}{2}+p\right)A_2B^{m}B_1^{n-1}+
\frac{c}{2}B^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}C\, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $p$ is the number of $B$-type (or $B_1$-type) configurations within the $(r+1)$th order generator (see (\[eq:bezkrake\])), whereas $a$, $a_1$, $a_2$, and $c$ are some integers depending only on the scaling parameter $b$ of the fractal, and $m=b(b-1)/2$, $n=b-1$. In order to do that, we first notice that all configurations of $B$-type can be divided in four sets, regarding the last step (“step” is here a part of the walk within the $r$th-order generator), as is sketched in Fig. [\[fig:AppA1\]]{}(a).
{width="130mm"}
The number of configurations within each set is denoted by $n_i$, so that $n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=p$. Each of the configurations from any of these four sets can be transformed into one $A$-type configuration by cutting the last step. In such a way, if the last step was $B$-type it is converted into an $A$-type step, whereas a $B_1$-type step is converted into an $A_1$-type step. Number of configurations obtained in this manner, contributing to $A^{(r+1)}$, should be doubled, due to symmetry (there are two corner $r$th order generators in which $A$-type walk can terminate). This means that $(n_2+n_4)(B^{(r)})^{m+1}(B_1^{(r)})^{n}$ HWs of $B$-type on $(r+1)$th order generator can be transformed into $2(n_2+n_4)(B^{(r)})^{m}(B_1^{(r)})^{n}A^{(r)}$ HWs of $A$-type on the same generator. The remaining $(n_1+n_3)(B^{(r)})^{m+1}(B_1^{(r)})^{n}$ HWs of $B$-type on the $(r+1)$th order generator can be converted into $2(n_1+n_3)(B^{(r)})^{m+1}(B_1^{(r)})^{n-1}A_1^{(r)}$ HWs of $A$-type (Fig. [\[fig:AppA1\]]{}(a)).
In addition, an $A$-type configuration can have its last step in an interior $r$th order generator, and, as can be seen in Fig. [\[fig:AppA1\]]{}(b), that step can be of any of the four possible one-leg types. Number of such walks with the $A$-type end is of the form $n_A(B^{(r)})^{k}(B_1^{(r)})^{l}A^{(r)}$, where $k$ and $l$ are numbers of $B$ and $B_1$-type steps, respectively. Numbers $k$ and $l$ must satisfy equation $k+l+1=b(b+1)/2-2$, because every $r$th order triangle must be traversed by HW, and also $k+2l+2=(b+1)(b+2)/2-2$, because every corner vertex of every $r$th order generator within the $(r+1)$th order generator, with the exception of two outer vertices, must be visited. The only solution of these two equations is $k=m$, $l=n$. In a similar way one can obtain the numbers of walks with the $A_1$, $A_2$ or $C$-type end in interior $r$th order generators, so that the number $A^{(r+1)}$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(r+1)}&=&(2n_1+2n_3+n_{A1})B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}A_1\nonumber\\
&+&(2n_2+2n_4+n_A)B^{m}B_1^nA\nonumber\\*&+&
n_{A2}B^{m+2}B_1^{n-2}A_2+n_{C}B^{m+1}
B_1^{n-1}C\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from Fig. \[fig:AppA1\](a) it is quite obvious that $n_1=n_2$ and $n_3=n_4$, implying that $n_1+n_3=n_2+n_4=p/2$, and consequently: $$\begin{aligned}
A^{(r+1)}&=&(p+n_A)B^{m}B_1^nA+
(p+n_{A1})B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}A_1\nonumber\\
&+&n_{A2}B^{m+2}B_1^{n-2}A_2+n_{C}B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}C\,.\label{eq:recA}\end{aligned}$$
In a similar way, both $A_1$ and $A_2$-type configurations within the $(r+1)$th order generator can be divided in two classes: (1) configurations terminating in some interior $r$th order generator, and (2) configurations terminating in one of the two possible corner $r$th order generators. The number of $A_1$-type configurations in the first class is the same as in the corresponding case of $A$-type configurations, and the only difference between such $A$ and $A_1$-type configurations is that $B$-step through one corner triangle should be replaced by $B_1$-step. These configurations then give rise to terms $n_AB^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}A+n_{A1}B^{m}B_1^{n}A_1
+n_{A2}B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}A_2+n_{C}B^{m} B_1^{n}C$ in the relation for $A_1^{(r+1)}$. The number of $A_2$-type configurations in the first class can be obtained from the corresponding $A$-type configurations by dividing their number by two (because it is predefined in which order the corner vertices are visited) and substituting the two corner $B$-steps by $B_1$ steps, thus leading to terms $(n_AB^{m-2}B_1^{n+2}A$ $+n_{A1}B^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}A_1$ $+n_{A2}B^{m}B_1^{n-1}A_2$ $+n_{C}B^{m-1} B_1^{n+1}C)/2$ in the relation for $A_2^{(r+1)}$.
As for the second class, lets first consider $A_1$-type configurations which visit the upper corner vertex (Fig. \[fig:AppA2\](a)),
{width="130mm"}
and terminate in the right corner triangle. Each of them can be obtained from exactly one $B_1$-type configuration, by converting the last $B$ or $B_1$-step through the right corner triangle into $A$ or $A_1$-step, in a similar way as was done in the case of $A$-type configurations ($B_1$-type configurations can be partitioned in the same way as $B$-type configurations in Fig. \[fig:AppA1\](a), with the only difference that $B$-step through the upper corner triangle is substituted by $B_1$-step). In addition, $A_1$-type configurations that visit the upper vertex can terminate in the upper triangle, implying that the last step is of $A_1$ or $A_2$ type, whereas the step through the right-corner triangle is of type $B$. In Fig. \[fig:AppA2\](b) it is shown how these configurations can be obtained from $B$-type configurations. Finally, one obtains recursion relation for $A_1$-type configurations in the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
A_1'&=&\left({p\over 2}
+n_A\right)B^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}A+(p+n_{A1})B^{m}B_1^{n}A_1\nonumber\\
&+&(p+n_{A2})B^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}A_2+n_{C}B^{m} B_1^{n}C\,
.\label{eq:recA1}\end{aligned}$$
Since in the case of $A_2$-type configurations the order in which corner vertices are visited is fixed, corresponding walks from the class (2) can terminate only in one of the two corner triangles, lets say in the right corner one. Then, all possible cases, obtained from the partitioning of $B_1$-type configurations, are depicted in Fig. \[fig:AppA3\].
{width="130mm"}
These cases, together with configurations that terminate in interior triangles give the relation $$\begin{aligned}
A_2'&=&{{n_A}\over 2}B^{m-2}B_1^{n+2}A+{{p+n_{A1}}\over
2}B^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}A_1\nonumber\\&&\!\!+\left(\frac{n_{A2}}2\!+p\right)B^m\!B_1^n\!A_2\!+{{n_{C}}\over 2}B^{m-\!1}\!
B_1^{n+1}C\, . \label{eq:recA2}\end{aligned}$$ Finally, with $a=p+n_A$, $a_1=p+n_{A1}$, $a_2=n_{A2}$, and $c=n_C$ from (\[eq:recA\]), (\[eq:recA1\]), and (\[eq:recA2\]), one gets recursion relations (\[eq:onelegGM\]). Values of the coefficients $a$, $a_1$, $a_2$, and $c$ for $2\leq b\leq 7$, are given in Table \[tabela1\].
$b$ $a$ $a_1$ $a_2$ $c$ $p$
----- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ --------
2 2 2 0 2 2
3 12 14 4 22 8
4 122 128 36 212 40
5 $1\,842$ $1\,532$ 436 $2\,704$ 360
6 $35\,390$ $23\,812$ $5\,932$ $42\,368$ 3 872
7 $880\,646$ $486\,284$ $110\,876$ $878\,168$ 62 848
: Coefficients $a$, $a_1$, $a_2$, $c$, and $p$, appearing in recursion relations (\[eq:onelegGM\]) and (\[eq:bezkrake\]) for the numbers of $A$, $A_1$, $A_2$, $B$, and $B_1$-type HWs on GM fractals with $2\leq b \leq 7$, found by computer enumeration of the corresponding HW configurations.[]{data-label="tabela1"}
For $b=2$ and $3$ we could find them by direct enumeration of the corresponding HW configurations, whereas for larger $b$ we had to use computer facilities.
In a quite similar manner it can be shown that the number of $C$-type HWs fulfills the recursion relation $$C'=B^{m}B_1^{n}(a'\frac{B_1}BA+a_1'A_1+a_2'\frac B{B_1}A_2+c'C),
\label{eq:recC}$$ where coefficients $a'$, $a_1'$, $a_2'$, and $c'$ depend only on $b$, and their values for $2\leq b\leq 7$ can be seen in Table \[tabela2\].
$b$ $a'$ $a'_1$ $a'_2$ $c'$
----- --------------- ------------ ------------ ---------------
2 1 2 2 6
3 12 16 8 32
4 152 168 96 352
5 $2\,544$ $2\,120$ 848 $4\,048$
6 $52\,072$ $35\,152$ $13\,136$ $67\,680$
7 $1\,340\,536$ $735\,312$ $224\,176$ $1\,374\,944$
: Coefficients $a'$, $a_1'$, $a_2'$, and $c'$, appearing in recursion relation (\[eq:recC\]) for the number of $C$-type HWs on GM fractals with $2\leq b\leq 7$.[]{data-label="tabela2"}
Recursion relations for two-leg HW on GM fractals
=================================================
Here we prove that the numbers of two-leg HWs, $D$ and $D_1$, on GM fractals, satisfy recursion relation (\[eq:GMTwoLeg\]), where coefficients $b_{ij}$ are equal to: $$\begin{aligned}
b_{11}&=& p\,(m+1)B^mB_1^n, \, b_{12}=2p\,nB^{m+1}B_1^{n-1}\, , \nonumber\\
b_{21}&=&\frac{mp}2 B^{m-1}B_1^{n+1}, \, b_{22}=p\,(n+1)B^mB_1^n \,. \label{eq:DodatakB}\end{aligned}$$ The two strands which form any two-leg configuration can terminate either in two different $r$th order generators within the $(r+1)$th order generator, or in the same one. In the first case, the corresponding number of walks is of the form $B^kB_1^lXY$, where $X$ and $Y$ are $A$, $A_1$, $A_2$, or $C$, and $k+l+2=b(b+1)/2$, since all the $r$th order generators must be visited. In the letter case the number of walks is of the form $B^kB_1^lX$, where $X$ is $D$ or $D_1$, and $k+l+1=b(b+1)/2$. Each such configuration can be obtained by cutting some $B$ or $B_1$-step of the $B$ or $B_1$ configuration within the $(r+1)$th generator.
{width="130mm"}
All the possibilities in which this can be done are sketched in Fig. \[fig:AppB1\], so that (\[eq:DodatakB\]) directly follows.
Recursion relations for HW on $N$-simplex lattices \[ap:nsimplex\]
==================================================================
In this Appendix we give recursion relations for the requisite numbers of HWs, needed for obtaining the scaling forms for the overall numbers of HWs on $n$-simplex lattices, for $n=4,5,6$, and 7, together with some relevant details of the derivation of formulas (\[eq:scalingClosed\]) and (\[eq:scalingOpen\]).
4-simplex {#simplex .unnumbered}
---------
Closed HWs on 4-simplex were analyzed in [@Bradley]. Here we quote equations and results relevant for our present analysis. Recursion relations, as well as the initial values of the numbers $B_1^{(l)}$ and $B_2^{(l)}$ are $$\begin{aligned}
B_1'&=&2B_1^4+4B_1^3B_2+6B_1^2B_2^2\, , \quad B_1^{(1)}=2\,
,\nonumber\\ B_2'&=&B_1^4+4B_1^3B_2+22B_2^4\, , \quad B_2^{(1)}=1\end{aligned}$$ The requisite number $x\equiv x_1=B_1/B_2$ satisfies recursion relation $$x'=\frac{B_1'}{B_2'}=\frac{2x^4+4x^3+6x^2}{x^4+4x^3+22}\, , \quad
x^{(1)}=2\,. \label{eq:4simx}$$ Explicit numerical iteration shows that $x^{(l)}\to 0$, when $l\to\infty$, so that recursion relation obtains the approximate form $$x^{(l+1)}\approx \frac{3}{11}\left(x^{(l)}\right)^2\, .$$ This relation implies that $x^{(l)}\sim\lambda_B^{2^l}$, and precise numerical analysis gives $\lambda_B=0.836620\ldots$. The overall number of closed HWs on 4-simplex of order $(l+1)$ is equal to $$Z_C^{(l+1)}=3\left(B_1^{(l)}\right)^4\, ,$$ which, with established asymptotic behavior of $x^{(l)}$, for large $l$ gives the same form as in (\[eq:ZatvoreneN\]): $$Z_C^{(l+1)}\sim \left(\lambda_B^{2^l}B_2^{(l)}\right)^4\, ,$$ and, consequently, $Z_C^{(l)}\sim \omega^{N_l}(\lambda_B^2)^{N_l^{1/2}}$, with $\omega=1.39911\ldots$.
Directly enumerating one-leg HW configurations, we have found that numbers $A_1$ and $A_2$ satisfy recursion relations of the form (\[eq:Jednokrake\]) with $$\begin{aligned}
a_{11}&=&6{B_1^2}(B_1+B_2)\, , \quad
a_{21}={B_1^2}(2B_1+3B_2)\, ,\nonumber\\
a_{22}&=&22{B_2^2}(B_1+B_2)+B_1^2(7B_1+16B_2)\, ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $a_{12}=6a_{21}$, so that for parameters $y_1=A_1/B_2$, and $y_2=A_2/B_2$, one obtains relation (\[eq:YJednokrake\]), where $$\begin{aligned}
m_{11}&=&\frac{6x^2\left( 1 + x \right) }{22 + 4x^3 + x^4} \, , \quad m_{21}=\frac{x^2\left( 3 + 2x \right) }{22 + 4x^3 + x^4}\, , \nonumber\\
m_{22}&=&\frac{22 + 22x + 16x^2 + 7x^3}{22 + 4x^3 + x^4}
\, ,\quad m_{12}=6m_{21}\, .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Since $x^{(l)}=B_1^{(l)}/B_2^{(l)}$ tends to 0, it is obvious that $m_{11}$, $m_{12}$, and $m_{21}$ tend to 0, whereas $m_{22}\to 1$, when $l\to\infty$, which implies that $y_1$ tends to 0, and $y_2$ to some finite constant value. Explicit simultaneous iteration of relations (\[eq:4simx\]) and (\[eq:YJednokrake\]), starting with the initial values $x^{(1)}=2$, $y_1^{(1)}=6$, and $y_2^{(1)}=2$, indeed quickly shows that $y_1^{(l)}\to 0$, and $y_2^{(l)}\to 62.1081\ldots$.
The overall number of open HWs on $(l+1)$th order 4-simplex is equal to $$Z_O^{(l+1)}=12B_1^2\left(A_1^2+2A_1A_2+3A_2^2+B_1D_1\right)\, ,\label{eq:4simplexo}$$ where superscript $(l)$ was suppressed on the right-hand side, and $D_1$ is the number of one of two possible two-leg HWs (see Fig. \[fig:4simplex\])
![Possible types $D_1$ and $D_2$ of two-leg HWs on 4-simplex lattice of order $l$.[]{data-label="fig:4simplex"}](fig13.eps){width="40mm"}
on the $l$th order 4-simplex. To obtain asymptotical behavior of the numbers $D_1$ and $D_2$, one needs recursion relations: $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
D_1^{(l+1)} \\
D_2^{(l+1)}\\
\end{array}
\right)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
d_{11} & d_{12} \\
d_{21} & d_{22} \\
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
D_1^{(l)} \\
D_2^{(l)}\\
\end{array}
\right)+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
F_1 \\
F_2\\
\end{array}
\right)\, ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
d_{11}&=&12B_1B_2^2+12B_1^2B_2+8B_1^3,\nonumber\\
d_{21}&=&2B_1^2(B_1+3B_2), \, d_{22}=4B_1^3+88B_2^3,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $d_{12}=4d_{21}$, and $F_1=A_1^2B_1(4B_2+6B_1)+24A_1A_2B_1(B_2+B_1)+A_2^2B_1(42B_1+64B_2)$, $F_2=A_1^2B_1^2+6A_1A_2B_1^2+A_2^2(16B_1^2+44B_1B_2+66B_2^2)$. Introducing new variables $w_1=D_1/B_2$ and $w_2=D_2/B_2$ one gets new recursion relations, which show that $w_1^{(l)}\to 0$ for $l\to\infty$. Since from Eq. (\[eq:4simplexo\]) follows that $$Z_O^{(l+1)}=12x^2B_2^4(y_1^2+2y_1y_2+3y_2^2+xw_1)\, ,$$ one finds that two-leg HW configurations do not contribute significantly to the overall number of open HWs for large $l$, and, furthermore, that the following asymptotic formula is valid: $$Z_O^{(l+1)}\sim \left(x^{(l)}\right)^2\left(B_2^{(l)}\right)^4\, .$$ Finally, since $B_2^{(l)}\sim\omega^{4^l}$, and $x^{(l)}\sim \lambda_B^{2^l}$, one obtains $Z_O^{(l)}\sim \omega^{N_l}\lambda_B^{N_l^{1/2}}$.
5-simplex {#simplex-1 .unnumbered}
---------
According to [@Stajic] recursion relations for requisite numbers $B_1$ and $B_2$, and their initial values, needed for obtaining the number of closed HWs are such that $x_1^{(l+1)}\equiv x^{(l+1)}=B_1^{(l+1)}/B_2^{(l+1)}=f_1(x^{(l)})/f(x^{(l)})$, $x^{(1)}=3$, with $$\begin{aligned}
f_1&=&6 x^5+30 x^4+78x^3+96 x^2+132 x+132,
\nonumber\\
f&=&2 x^5+13 x^4 +32 x^3+88 x^2+220 x+186.\label{eq:5simplexf}\end{aligned}$$ Numerical iterations give $x^{(l)}\to 0.8023188...$, whereas further analysis of relation (\[eq:IteracijaZaOmega\]) reveals that $\omega=1.717769...$, and $B_2^{(l)}\sim\omega^{5^l}$. Since $$Z_C^{(l+1)}=12B_1^5 + 30B_1^4 B_2 + 60B_1^3 B_2^2 + 132B_2^5\, ,$$ it is obvious that for large $l$ one obtains $Z_C^{(l+1)}\sim
\left(B^{(l)}_2\right)^5$, and consequently $Z_C^{(l)}\sim\omega^{5^l}$.
For 5-simplex lattice there are three types of one-leg configurations, $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$, which, as we have found by computer enumeration, fulfil recursion relations (\[eq:Jednokrake\]), with coefficients $\alpha^{(ij)}_{i_1i_2}$ (see Eq. (\[eq:alfa\])) given in Table \[tabela56simplex\].
[ccccccccc]{}\
$i_1$&$i_2$&–&$\alpha^{(11)}_{i_1i_2}$&$\alpha^{(21)}_{i_1i_2}$ &$\alpha^{(22)}_{i_1i_2}$&$\alpha^{(31)}_{i_1i_2}$&$\alpha^{(32)}_{i_1i_2}$ &$\alpha^{(33)}_{i_1i_2}$\
0&4&&24&44&548&22&428&1042\
1&3&&0&44&636&0&296&472\
2&2&&72&38&374&0&104&0\
3&1&&72&24&140&4&36&0\
4&0&&0&6&26&1&6&5\
\
\
$i_1$&$i_2$&$i_3$&$\alpha^{(11)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$&$\alpha^{(21)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$ &$\alpha^{(22)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$&$\alpha^{(31)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$&$\alpha^{(32)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$ &$\alpha^{(33)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$\
0&0&5&0&0&0&0&0&541568\
0&1&4&0&0&0&0&0&541568\
0&2&3&0&0&57600&0&47168&447232\
0&3&2&0&0&82848&0&56768 &323264\
0&4&1&2640&2568&66744&1042&35256&148000\
0&5&0&2640&1776&23688&614 &10220&33160\
1 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 25008 & 0 & 9600 & 47168\
1 & 3 & 1 & 0 & 1776 & 45552 & 472 & 17352 & 58464\
1 & 4 & 0& 2640 & 2172 & 27768 & 538 & 9576 & 25586\
2 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 4248 & 0 & 0 & 0\
2 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 624 & 14616 & 0 & 3460 & 6768\
2 & 3 &0& 2280 & 1350 & 15360 & 192 & 3976 & 7708\
3&0&2&0&0&456&0&0&0\
3 & 1 & 1 & 480 & 216 & 2928 & 0 & 480 & 0\
3 & 2 & 0 & 1800 & 612 & 5358 & 68 & 1060 & 1188\
4&0&1&120&36&300&5&56&0\
4 & 1 & 0 & 720 & 180 & 1182 & 23 & 206 & 168\
5&0&0&120&24&126&3&20&21\
\
Parameters $y_i^{(l)}=A_i^{(l)}/B_2^{(l)}$ satisfy matrix relation (\[eq:YJednokrake\]), with all coefficients $m_{ij}$ tending to finite constant values when $l\to\infty$, such that corresponding matrix has one eigenvalue larger than one: $\lambda=5.718...$. This means that $y_i^{(l)}\sim \lambda^l$, which was also confirmed by direct iteration of the recursion relations for $x$ and $y_i$.
Overall number $Z_O^{(l+1)}$ of open HWs is of the form (\[nSimplexOtvorene\]), and, similar to the 3-simplex case, it turns out that terms with the numbers $D_i$ of two-leg HWs have the same large $l$ behavior as the terms with numbers of one-leg HWs. Consequently, explicit quoting of recursion relations for $D_i$ numbers is not necessary here, and for the number of open HWs one obtains: $Z^{(l+1)}_O\sim (B_2^{(l)})^3
A_i^{(l)}A_j^{(l)}\sim\lambda^{2l}(B_2^{(l)})^5$. Then, straightway follows that $Z_O^{(l)}\sim\omega^{N_l}N_l^\gamma$, with $\gamma=2\ln\lambda/\ln 5=2.1668...$.
6-simplex {#simplex-2 .unnumbered}
---------
From the recursion relations for the numbers $B_1^{(l)}$, $B_2^{(l)}$, and $B_3^{(l)}$, obtained in [@Stajic], certainly follows that $x_1^{(l+1)}=f_1(x_1^{(l)},x_2^{(l)})/f(x_1^{(l)},x_2^{(l)})$, and $x_2^{(l+1)}=f_2(x_1^{(l)},x_2^{(l)})/f(x_1^{(l)},x_2^{(l)})$, with $f_1$, $f_2$, and $f$ being polynomials of order 6. Iterating these relations one concludes that both $x_1^{(l)}$, and $x_2^{(l)}$ tend to 0, and also $x_2^{(l)}\gg x_1^{(l)}$, so that for large $l$ the following approximate relations are valid: $$x_1^{(l+1)}\approx \frac{25008 }{541568}(x_2^{(l)})^4\, , \quad x_2^{(l+1)}\approx
\frac{94336}{541568} (x_2^{(l)})^2\, .$$ From the latter of these relations follows $ x_2^{(l)}\sim
\lambda_B^{2^l}$, and then, from the first relation one gets $
x_1^{(l)}\sim \left(\lambda_B^2\right)^{2^l}$. Precise numerical analysis gives $\lambda_B=0.9888...$. Analysis of the corresponding relation (\[eq:IteracijaZaOmega\]) gives $\omega=2.0550047...$, and $B_3^{(l)}\sim\omega^{6^l}$. Finally, since $Z_C^{(l+1)}=60 B_1^6 + 360 B_1^5 B_2 + 1170 B_1^4 B_2^2+1920 B_1^3 B_2^3+3960 B_1^2B_2^4 +7920 B_1B_2^5 +5580 B_2^6$, for large $l$ one obtains $Z_C^{(l+1)}\approx \mathrm{const}
\left(B_3^{(l)}x_2^{(l)}\right)^6\sim
\left(\lambda_B^{2^l}B_3^{(l)}\right)^6$, and $Z_C^{(l)}\sim \omega^{6^l}(\lambda_B^3)^{{(6^l)}^{\ln 2/\ln 6}}$.
Numbers $A_1^{(l)}$, $A_2^{(l)}$, and $A_3^{(l)}$ of one-leg HWs for 6-simplex lattice satisfy recursion relations (\[eq:Jednokrake\]) with coefficients $\alpha^{(ij)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$ given in Table \[tabela56simplex\]. Direct numerical iteration of the recursion relations for $x_i$ and $y_i$ parameters, quickly shows that $y_1^{(l)}$ and $y_2^{(l)}$ tend to 0, whereas $y_3^{(l)}$ approaches large, but finite constant: $4.08311... 10^5$. This is in accord with the fact that $m_{33}$ is the only element of the matrix $m$ of the relation (\[eq:YJednokrake\]) which for large $l$ tends to finite constant, [*i.e.*]{} not to 0, as do all the other $m_{ij}$. Finally, the overall number (\[nSimplexOtvorene\]) of open HWs is for large $l$ governed by the term $A_3^2B_2^4$, so that $Z_O^{(l+1)}\sim \left(x_2^{(l)}\right)^4\left(B_3^{(l)}\right)^6\sim (\lambda_B^{2^l})^4\omega^{6^{l+1}}$, and $Z_O^{(l)}\sim \omega^{6^l}\left(\lambda_B^2\right)^{(6^l)^{\ln 2/\ln 6}}$.
7-simplex {#simplex-3 .unnumbered}
---------
To enumerate closed HWs on 7-simplex lattice one needs three requisite numbers $B_1$, $B_2$ and $B_3$ (see Fig. \[fig:nsimplexParametri\]), which satisfy recursion relations of the form $$B_i^{(l+1)}=\underbrace{\sum\limits_{i_1=0}^{7}\sum\limits_{i_2=0}^{7}\sum\limits_{i_3=0}^{7}}_{i_1+i_2+i_3=7}
b^{(i)}_{i_1i_2i_3}B_1^{i_1}B_2^{i_2}B_3^{i_3}\, , \quad i=1,2,3\, .$$ Coefficients $b^{(i)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$, found by explicit computer enumeration of the corresponding HW configurations, are given in Table \[tabela7simplexB\], whereas initial values are: $B_1^{(1)}=120$, $B_2^{(1)}=24$, and $B_3^{(1)}=3$.
$i_1$ $i_2$ $i_3$ $b^{(1)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$ $b^{(2)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$ $b^{(3)}_{i_1i_2i_3}$
------- ------- ------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
0 0 7 64988160 94599168 115468800
0 1 6 64988160 141735936 165548544
0 2 5 53667840 118798848 106301952
0 3 4 50112000 78990336 49499520
0 4 3 32536320 38795520 19747584
0 5 2 14097600 12925632 5819328
0 6 1 3787680 2712192 1077136
0 7 0 473760 275616 96864
1 0 6 0 6498816 11372928
1 1 5 0 10733568 9748224
1 2 4 5660160 15033600 6708480
1 3 3 9319680 13014528 5011200
1 4 2 7985040 7048800 2440224
1 5 1 3459360 2272608 704880
1 6 0 626400 331632 94692
2 1 4 0 566016 0
2 2 3 812160 1397952 283008
2 3 2 1953600 1597008 349488
2 4 1 1449360 864840 199626
2 5 0 396720 187920 43242
3 1 3 0 54144 0
3 2 2 266880 195360 20304
3 3 1 384000 193248 32560
3 4 0 163800 66120 12078
4 1 2 33600 13344 0
4 2 1 80400 28800 3336
4 3 0 50400 16380 2400
5 0 2 3720 672 0
5 1 1 12240 3216 336
5 2 0 11520 3024 402
6 0 1 840 204 31
6 1 0 1680 384 51
7 0 0 120 24 3
: Coefficients appearing in recursion relations $B_i'=\sum
b^{(i)}_{i_1i_2i_3}B_1^{i_1}B_2^{i_2}B_3^{i_3}$ for the numbers $B_i$ ($i=1,2,3$), needed for enumeration of closed HWs on 7-simplex lattice.[]{data-label="tabela7simplexB"}
Introducing parameters $x_1=B_1/B_3$, $x_2=B_2/B_3$, one obtains closed set of recursion relations $$x_1'=\frac{f_1(x_1,x_2)}{f(x_1,x_2)}\, , \quad
x_2'=\frac{f_2(x_1,x_2)}{f(x_1,x_2)}\,
,\label{eq:7simXrekur}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(x_1,x_2)&=&{\sum\limits_{i_1=0}^{7}\sum\limits_{i_2=0}^{7}
b^{(1)}_{i_1i_2(7-i_1-i_2)}x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}}\, ,\nonumber\\
f_2(x_1,x_2)&=&{\sum\limits_{i_1=0}^{7}\sum\limits_{i_2=0}^{7}
b^{(2)}_{i_1i_2(7-i_1-i_2)}x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}}\, ,\nonumber\\
f(x_1,x_2)&=&{\sum\limits_{i_1=0}^{7}\sum\limits_{i_2=0}^{7}
b^{(3)}_{i_1i_2(7-i_1-i_2)}x_1^{i_1}x_2^{i_2}}\, .\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ These recursion relations quickly lead to the conclusion that $x_1^{(l)}\to 0.690015\ldots$, and $x_2^{(l)}\to 1.14695\ldots$, as $l\to\infty$. The limiting values are indeed one of the solutions of the algebraic system of equations $x_1={f_1(x_1,x_2)}/{f(x_1,x_2)}$, $
x_2={f_2(x_1,x_2)}/{f(x_1,x_2)}$, actually the only positive one.
The overall $Z_C^{(l+1)}$ number of closed HWs on $(l+1)$th order 7-simplex is equal to $$Z_C^{(l+1)}=\sum\limits_{i_1=0}^{7}\sum\limits_{i_2=0}^{7}c_{ij(7-i-j)}B_1^iB_2^jB_3^{7-i-j}\, ,$$ which for large $l$ obtains approximate form: $$Z_C^{(l+1)}\approx\mathrm{const}\,
\left(B_3^{(l)}\right)^7\, ,$$ meaning that ${\ln Z_C^{(l+1)}}/{7^{l+1}}\sim {\ln
B_3^{(l)}}/{7^l}$. From the recursion relation for $B_3^{(l)}$ follows equation: $$\frac{\ln B_3^{(l+1)}}{7^{l+1}}=\frac{\ln
B_3^{(l)}}{7^l}+\frac{1}{7^{l+1}}\ln f(x_1^{(l)},x_2^{(l)})\,
,\label{eq:ZaOmega}$$ which can be numerically iterated, together with the recursive relations (\[eq:7simXrekur\]) for $x_1$ and $x_2$. In that way, one finds $\ln\omega=\lim_{l\to\infty}\,\left({\ln
B_3^{(l)}}/{7^l}\right)=0.87382\ldots$, [*i.e.*]{} $\omega=2.396056\ldots$. In addition, from relation (\[eq:ZaOmega\]) one can write $$\frac{\ln B_3^{(k)}}{7^{k}}=\frac{\ln
B_3^{(l)}}{7^{l}}+\sum\limits_{m=l}^{k-1}\frac{1}{7^{m+1}}\ln
f(x_1^{(m)},x_2^{(m)})\, ,$$ so that when $k\to\infty$ follows $$\ln\omega=\frac{\ln
B_3^{(l)}}{7^{l}}+\sum\limits_{m=l}^{\infty}\frac{1}{7^{m+1}}\ln
f(x_1^{(m)},x_2^{(m)})\, .$$ Since $f(x_1^{(m)},x_2^{(m)})$ decreases with $m$, the above sum is less then $\frac{\ln f(x_1^{(1)},x_2^{(1)})}{6*7^l}$, and consequently $7^l\ln\omega>\ln B_3^{(l)}>7^l\ln\omega-5.1$, for all $l$. This means that for $l\gg 1$ one has $\ln B_3^{(l)}\sim
7^l\ln\omega$, [*i.e.*]{} $B_3^{(l)}\sim \omega^{7^l}$, finally implying $Z_C^{(l)}\sim \omega^{N_l}$.
Recursion relations for the numbers $A_i^{(l)}$ of four possible one-leg HWs are too cumbersome to be quoted here, but are available upon request. Numerical analysis of corresponding relations (\[eq:YJednokrake\]) for parameters $y_i^{(l)}=A_i^{(l)}/B_3^{(l)}$ reveals that $y_i^{(l)}\sim \lambda^l$, with $\lambda=7.7749...$, being the largest eigenvalue of the matrix $m_{ij}$, obtained in the limit $l\to\infty$. All terms in the formula (\[nSimplexOtvorene\]) for the number $Z_O^{(l+1)}$ of open HWs are of the same order of magnitude for large $l$, so that $$Z_O^{(l+1)}\sim \lambda^{2l}\left(B_3^{(l)}\right)^7 \sim \lambda^{2l} \omega^{7^{l+1}}\, ,$$ and, consequently: $$Z_O^{(l)}\sim \omega^{7^l} \left(7^l\right)^\gamma, \, \gamma=2\frac{\ln\lambda}{\ln 7}=2.10791...\, .$$
[10]{}
C. Vanderzande, [*Lattice Models of Polymers*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
J. L. Jacobsen and J. Kondev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 210601 (2004).
R. Lua, A. L. Borovinskiy, and A. Y. Grosberg, Polymer [**45**]{}, 717 (2004).
B. Duplantier and F. David, J. Stat. Phys. [**51**]{}, 327 (1988).
A. L. Owczarek, T. Prellberg, and R. Brak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 951 (1993).
A. L. Owczarek, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**26**]{}, L647 (1993).
M. Baiesi, E.‘Orlandini, and A. L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 040602 (2006).
P. Grassberger and R. Hegger, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**102**]{}, 6881 (1995).
D. Dhar, [J. Math. Phys.]{} [**19**]{}, 5 (1978).
S. Elezovi' c, M. Kneževi' c, and S. Miloševi' c, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**20**]{}, 1215 (1987).
D. Dhar, [J. Phys.]{} (Paris) [**49**]{}, 397 (1988).
S. Kumar, Y. Singh and Y. P. Joshi, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**23**]{}, 2987 (1990).
S. Kumar and Y. Singh, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**23**]{}, 5115 (1990).
S. Miloševi' c and I. Živi' c, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**24**]{}, L833 (1991).
I. Živi' c and S. Miloševi' c, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**26**]{}, 3393 (1993).
F. A. C. C. Chalub, F. D. D. A. Reis, and R. Riera, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**30**]{}, 4151 (1997).
T. Hatori and T. Tsuda, J. Stat. Phys. [**109**]{}, 39 (2002).
A. Ordemann, M. Porto, and H. E. Roman, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**35**]{}, 8029 (2002).
Sumedha and D. Dhar, J. Stat. Phys. [**125**]{}, 55 (2006).
F. Marini, A. Ordemann, M. Porto, and H. E. Roman, [Phys.Rev. E]{} [**74**]{}, 051102 (2006).
D. J. Klein and W. A. Seitz, J. Physique Lett. [**45**]{}, L241 (1984).
D. Dhar and J. Vannimenus, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**20**]{}, 199 (1987).
M. Kneževi' c and J. Vannimenus, J. Phys. A: Math.Gen. [**20**]{}, L969 (1987).
S. Kumar and Y. Singh, [Phys. Rev. A]{} [**42**]{}, 7151 (1990).
D. Kneževi' c, M. Kneževi' c, and S. Miloševi' c, [Phys. Rev. B]{} [**45**]{}, 574 (1992).
R. M. Bradley, [J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**22**]{}, L19 (1989).
J. Staji' c and S. Elezovi' c-Hadži' c, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**38**]{}, 5677 (2005).
R. Rammal, G. Toulouse, and J. Vannimenus, [ J. Physique]{} [**45**]{}, 389 (1984).
J. Kondev and J. L. Jacobsen, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**81**]{}, 2922 (1998).
D. R. Nelson and M. E. Fisher, [Ann. Phys. (NY)]{} [**91**]{}, 226 (1975).
J. A. Given and B. B. Mandelbrot, [ J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.]{} [**16**]{}, L565 (1983).
D. Dhar, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**71**]{}, 031801 (2005).
H. S. Chan and K. A. Dill, [Macromolecules]{} [**22**]{}, 4559 (1989); R. Oberdorf, A. Ferguson, J. L. Jacobsen, and J. Kondev, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**74**]{}, 051801 (2006).
It can be shown by induction that for general $n$ the following relations are valid: $B_{i}^{(1)}(n)={(n-i-1)!}/{(i-1)!}$, $A_{i}^{(1)}(n)={(n-i)!}/{(i-1)!}$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The mean curvature flow is an evolution process under which a submanifold deforms in the direction of its mean curvature vector. The hypersurface case has been much studied since the eighties. Recently, several theorems on regularity, global existence and convergence of the flow in various ambient spaces and codimensions were proved. We shall explain the results obtained as well as the techniques involved. The potential applications in symplectic topology and mirror symmetry will also be discussed.'
author:
- 'Mu-Tao Wang'
date: 'March 11, 2002'
title: Mean Curvature Flows in Higher Codimension
---
email: [email protected] [^1]
Introduction
============
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold and $F:\Sigma \mapsto M$ an isometric immersion of a smooth compact submanifold. The second fundamental form $A$ of $\Sigma$ is defined by
$$A:T\Sigma\times T\Sigma \mapsto N\Sigma,$$ $$A(X,Y)=(\nabla_X^M Y)^{\perp}\,\,\text{where}\, X, Y \in T\Sigma$$
Here $\nabla^M$ is the Levi-Civita connection on $M$ and $(\cdot)^\perp$ denotes the projection onto the normal bundle $N\Sigma$.
The mean curvature vector $H$ is defined by $$H=Tr_g A\in N\Sigma$$ where the trace $Tr_g$ is taken with respect to the induced metric $g$ on $\Sigma$.
When $M={\mathbb R}^N$, if $x^1,\cdots ,x^n$ denote a local coordinate system on $\Sigma$ then the second fundamental form can be represented by $(\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x^i
\partial x^j})^\perp$ and the mean curvature vector is $H=(g^{ij}
\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x^i \partial x^j})^\perp$, where $g^{ij}$ is the inverse matrix to $g_{ij}=< \frac{\partial
F}{\partial x^i}, \frac{\partial F}{\partial x^j}>$, the first fundamental form. Here $\frac{\partial^2 F}{\partial x^i \partial
x^j}$ is considered as a vector in ${\mathbb R}^N$. In this case, it is not hard to check
$$\label{heat}
\,H=\Delta_\Sigma F$$
where $\Delta_\Sigma$ is the Laplace operator of the induced metric on $\Sigma$.
The importance of the mean curvature vector lies in the first variation formula of area.
$$\delta_V(area (\Sigma))=-\int_\Sigma H\cdot V$$ for any variation field $V$. Thus $H$ is the normal vector field on $\Sigma$ that points to the direction in which the area decreases most rapidly. $\Sigma$ is called a minimal submanifold if $H$ vanishes identically.
The mean curvature flow of $F:\Sigma \mapsto M$ is a family of immersions $F:\Sigma \times [0, \epsilon) \mapsto M$ parametrized by $t$ that satisfies $$\label{eq}
\begin{split}
&\frac{d}{dt} F_t(x)=H(x,t)\\
&F_0=F
\end{split}$$ where $H(x,t)$ is the mean curvature vector of $F_t(\Sigma)$ at $F_t(x)$.
This should be considered as the heat equation for submanifolds in view of equation (\[heat\]). A submanifold tends to find its optimal shape inside the ambient manifold.
If we assume $M={\mathbb R}^N$, in terms of coordinate $x^1,\cdots ,x^n$ on $\Sigma$, the mean curvature flow is the solution to the following system of parabolic equations $$F=F^A(x^1,\cdots, x^n, t),\,\, A=1,\cdots N$$ $$\frac{\partial F^A}{\partial t}
=\sum_{i, j, B}g^{ij}\,P^A_B\,\frac{\partial^2 F^B}{\partial
x^i\partial x^j}, \,\, A=1,\cdots N$$ where $P^A_B
=\delta^A_B-g^{kl}\frac{\partial F^A} {\partial x^k}
\frac{\partial F^B}{\partial x^l}$ is the projection operator to the normal direction.
The equation (\[eq\]) is a quasi-linear parabolic system and short time existence is guaranteed when the initial submanifold $\Sigma$ is compact and smooth [@lsu].
In general, the mean curvature flow fails to exist after a finite time. The singularity is completely characterized by the blow up of the second fundamental form. Namely, singularity at $t_0$ if and only if $\sup_{\Sigma_t} |A|^2\rightarrow \infty$ as $t\rightarrow t_0$. See for example [@hu1] for the hypersurface case.
The mean curvature flow has been studied by various approaches. In this article, we shall concentrated on the approaches of classical partial differential equations and geometric measure theory. For the level set approach and numerical methods, please see [@as] and the reference therein.
There are many beautiful results in the hypersurface (codimension one) case.
(Huisken, 1984 ($N\geq 3$)[@hu1], Gage-Hamilton, 1985 ($N=2$)[@gh]) Any convex compact hypersurface in ${\mathbb R}^N$ contracts to a round point after finite time along the mean curvature flow.
(Grayson, 1987 [@gr]) Any embedded closed curve in ${\mathbb R}^2$ contracts to a round point after finite time along the curvature flow.
In codimension one case, $H$ is essentially a scalar function and $H>0$ is preserved along the flow [@hu1]. As a contrast, in higher codimension $H$ is a genuine vector and we do not know how to control the direction of $H$. There are relatively very few results in the higher codimension case, see [@al], [@as] and [@sm].
We shall discuss some new results about mean curvature flows in higher codimension in this article. The guideline is to identify positive quantities preserved along the flow.
The author would like to thank Gerhard Huisken, Richard Hamilton, Richard Schoen, Leon Simon, Brian White and Shing-Tung Yau for valuable suggestions and discussions .
Applications in calibrated geometry
===================================
Let $M$ be an $N$-dimensional Riemannian manifold and $\alpha$ an $n$-form on $M$. For any $p\in M$ and $S$ any $n$-dimensional oriented subspace of $ T_p M$. Represent $S=e_1 \wedge \cdots
\wedge e_n$, where $e_1, \cdots e_n$ is an oriented orthonormal basis for $S$. Define the *comass* of $\alpha$ , $|\alpha|$ by
$$|\alpha|(p)=\sup_{S\subset T_pM}
\alpha(e_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge e_n)$$ Following Harvey and Lawson [@hl], a closed form $\alpha$ with $|\alpha|(p)=1$ at each $p\in M$ is called a *calibrating* form.
An oriented closed $n$-dimensional submanifold $\Sigma$ of $M$ is *calibrated* by $\alpha$ if $\alpha(T_p \Sigma)=1$ for any $p\in \Sigma$, or $\alpha|_\Sigma=vol|_\Sigma$. A fundamental fact in calibrated geometry is: a calibrated submanifold minimizes area in its homology class. This follows from Stoke’s Theorem:
Let $\Sigma'$ be any submanifold with $[\Sigma']=[\Sigma]$, then $$\int_{\Sigma'} vol|_{\Sigma'} \geq \int_{\Sigma'}
\alpha|_{\Sigma'} =\int_\Sigma \alpha|_\Sigma =\int_\Sigma
vol|_\Sigma$$
We are interested in the following two classes of calibrated submanifolds.
\(1) Let $(M, \omega)$ be a Kähler manifold and $\alpha=\frac{1}{n!}\omega^n$. Any $2n$ dimensional complex submanifold is calibrated by $\alpha$.
\(2) Let $(M,\omega, \Omega)$ be Calabi-Yau of complex dimension $m$ and $\Omega$ is the parallel holomorphic $(m, 0)$ form. $\alpha= Re \Omega$ is then a calibrating form. A Lagrangian submanifold calibrated by $\alpha$ is called a *special Lagrangian* submanifold.
Define the function $*\alpha(p)=\alpha (T_p\Sigma)$ on $\Sigma$, we may use $*\alpha$ to measure how far $\Sigma$ is away from being calibrated. On a calibrated submanifold $*\alpha \equiv 1$. It turns out the condition $*\alpha >0$ can be used to rule out a certain type of singularity.
There are two types of finite time singularity depending on the blow-up rate of $|A|$. Denote by $t_0$ the blow up time, then $\sup_{\Sigma_t} |A|^2\rightarrow \infty $ as $t\rightarrow t_0$. The singularity is said to be *fast-forming* (type I) if there exists a $C>0$ such that
$$\sup_t |A|^2\leq \frac{C}{t_0-t}$$
Otherwise, the singularity is called *slow-forming* (type II). For embedded curve on the plane, only type I singularity occurs.
[@mu1] Let $(M^4, \omega)$ be a Kähler-Einstein four-manifold, then a symplectic surface, i.e. $*\omega>0$ remains symplectic along the mean curvature flow and the flow does not develop any type I singularity.
The results in Theorem 2.1 were obtained in the summer of 1999 and announced in February 2000 at Stanford’s differential geometry seminar. Theorem 2.1 was also proved by Chen-Tian [@ct] and Chen-Li [@cl].
When $M$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold of arbitrary dimension, we prove the following theorem.
[@mu1] Let $(M, \omega, \Omega)$ be a Calabi-Yau manifold, then a Lagrangian submanifold with $*Re \Omega>0$ remains Lagrangian and $*Re\, \Omega>0 $ along the mean curvature flow and the flow does not develop any type I singularity.
That being Lagrangian is preserved along the mean curvature flow in Kähler-Einstein manifolds was proved by Smoczyk in [@sm].
. In [@mu1]( see page 324, remark 5.1), we sketch a proof of this theorem. For a Lagrangian submanifold of Calabi-Yau manifolds, the fundamental equations are, (see for example [@sm2] or [@ty])
$$\label{phase}
\Omega|_\Sigma=e^{i\theta} vol|_\Sigma$$
$$H=J(\nabla \theta)$$
Once we know being Lagrangian is preserved, then $\theta$ satisfies the heat equation
$$\frac{d}{dt}\theta=\Delta \theta$$
By equation (\[phase\]), $*Re\Omega=\cos\theta$. A straightforward calculation using $|H|^2=|\nabla \theta|^2$ shows
$$\frac{d}{dt}*Re\Omega=\Delta *Re\Omega+|H|^2*Re\Omega$$
The same argument in Proposition 5.2 of [@mu1] shows on a type I blow up limit $\Sigma_\infty$, we will have $|H|^2=0$. Since any type I blow up limit is smooth and satisfies $F^\perp=H$ [@hu2], $\Sigma_\infty$ must be a flat space. White’s regularity theorem [@w] shows there is no type I singularity.
Applications in mapping deformations
=====================================
Let $f:\Sigma_1\mapsto \Sigma_2$ be a smooth map between compact Riemannian manifolds. The volume form $\omega_1$ of $\Sigma_1$ extends to a parallel calibrating form on the product space $\Sigma_1\times \Sigma_2$. Let $\Sigma$ be the graph of $f$ as a submanifold of $\Sigma_1\times \Sigma_2$. On $\Sigma$, $*\omega_1
=Jac(\pi_1|_\Sigma)$ is the Jacobian of the projection $\pi_1:\Sigma_1\times \Sigma_2\mapsto \Sigma_1$ restricting to $\Sigma$. Any submanifold $\Sigma'$ of $ \Sigma_1\times\Sigma_2$ is a locally a graph over $\Sigma_1$ if $*\omega_1>0$ on $\Sigma'$ by the inverse function theorem.
We shall evolve $\Sigma $ by the mean curvature flow in $\Sigma_1\times \Sigma_2$ . If $*\omega_1>0$ is preserved along the flow then each $\Sigma_t$ is a graph over $\Sigma_1$ and thus the flow gives a deformation $f_t$ of the original map $f$. It turns out a stronger inequality is preserved.
[@mu1] If a smooth map $f:S^2\mapsto S^2$ satisfies $*\omega_1 >
|*\omega_2|$ on the graph of $f$, then the inequality remains true along the mean curvature flow, the flow exists smoothly for all time and $f_t$ converges to a constant map.
The assumption is the same as $Jac(\pi_1|_\Sigma)>|Jac(\pi_2|_\Sigma)|$. In other words, if we see more of $\Sigma$ from $\Sigma_1$ than from $\Sigma_2$, then $\Sigma$ converges to some $\Sigma_1\times \{p\}$ eventually. This is a natural geometric assumption and we believe such assumption is necessary for higher codimension mean curvature flow.
This theorem is generalized to arbitrary dimension and codimension in [@mu3] under a slightly stronger assumption.
[@mu3] Let $f:S^n\mapsto S^m$ be a smooth map. If $*\omega_1>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} $ on the graph of $f$, then the mean curvature flow of the graph of $f$ in $S^n\times S^m$ exists for all time, remains a graph, and converges smoothly to the graph of a constant map at infinity.
This theorem is true under various curvature assumptions, please see [@mu3] for the more general version. $*\omega_1$ should be considered as the inner product of the tangent space of $\Sigma$ and the tangent space of $S_n$. The condition $*\omega_1>\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ guarantees $T\Sigma$ is closer to $TS^n$ than to any other competing directions.
When $*\omega_1=*\omega_2$, we proved the following theorem.
[@mu2] Let $f:S^2\mapsto S^2$ be a smooth map such that $*\omega_1=*\omega_2>0$ on the graph of $f$, then the equality is preserved along the mean curvature flow and $f_t$ converges to an isometry of $S^2$.
The condition translates to $f^*\omega_2=\omega_1$, or $f$ is an area-preserving diffeomorphism (or symplectomorphism). Recall the harmonic heat flow of Eells-Sampson considers the deformation of a map $f:M\mapsto N$ along the gradient flow of the energy functional. When the sectional curvature of the target $N$ is non-positive, the flow exists for all time and $f_t$ converges to a harmonic map as $t\mapsto \infty$. For maps of nonzero degree between two-spheres $f:S^2\mapsto S^2$, singularities do occur in the harmonic heat flow even after finite time. It is quite surprising that the mean curvature deformation exists for all time and converges.
$f_t$ indeed provides a path in the diffeomorphism (symplectomorphism) group of $S^2$.
[@mu2] Any area preserving diffeomorphism of two-sphere deforms to an isometry through area preserving diffeomorphisms along the mean curvature flow.
For a Riemann surface $\Sigma $ with positive genus, the same result holds [@mu2] when $\Sigma$ has hyperbolic metric and the map $f:\Sigma \mapsto \Sigma$ is homotopic to identity.
Proof of Theorem 3.1
====================
We shall explain the techniques involved in the proof of Theorem 3.1 as it is the first complete solution to a higher codimension mean curvature flow.
Maximum principle
-----------------
The maximum principle of parabolic systems developed by R. Hamilton [@ha] plays an important role in the study of geometric evolution equations. The first step is to use maximum principle to show the inequalities $*\omega_1+*\omega_2>0$ and $*\omega_1-*\omega_2>0$ are preserved along the flow.
In fact, if we denote the singular values of ${df}$ by $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, then $$\omega_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1+\lambda_1^2)(1+\lambda_2^2)}}$$ and $$\omega_2=\frac{\lambda_1
\lambda_2}{\sqrt{(1+\lambda_1^2)(1+\lambda_2^2)}}$$
Let $\eta_1=*\omega_1+*\omega_2$ and $\eta_2=*\omega_1-*\omega_2$, then $0<\eta_1, \eta_2\leq 1$. The following equations are derived in [@mu1] (see [@mu3] for general parallel forms).
$$\label{eta_1}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta_1=\Delta
\eta_1+\eta_1|A_1|^2+\eta_1(1-\eta_1^2)$$
$$\label{eta_2}
\frac{d}{dt}\eta_2=\Delta
\eta_2+\eta_2|A_2|^2+\eta_2(1-\eta_2^2)$$
where $A_1$ and $A_2$ are part of the second fundamental form with $|A_1|^2+|A_2|^2=2|A|^2$.
The assumption of Theorem 3.1 implies $\eta_1, \eta_2>0$ initially. By maximum principle of parabolic equations, $\min_{\Sigma_t} \eta_i$ is nondecreasing. This guarantees $*\omega_1>|*\omega_2|$ is preserved. Adding equations (\[eta\_1\]) and (\[eta\_1\]), we get for $\mu=*\omega_1$,
$$\label{mu}
\frac{d}{dt}\mu\geq \Delta\mu+c|A|^2$$
where $c>0$ is $\min\{\eta_1, \eta_2\}$ at $t=0$.
Blow-up analysis
----------------
The blow-up analysis is used in proving long time existence of the flow. First let us recall the blow-up analysis for minimal surfaces. To study a possible singularity $x_0$, we blow up the minimal surface $\Sigma^n$ at $x_0$ by $B_\lambda:x \mapsto \lambda(x-x_0)$, $\lambda>0$. Any limit as $\lambda\rightarrow \infty$ is still minimal since the minimal surface equation is invariant under the scaling. It must be a cone as a consequence of the monotonicity formula. A minimal cone is rigid in the following sense: if it is close enough to a plane, then it must be a plane. The closeness is measured by the density function.
$$\Theta(x_0)=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} \Theta(x_0, r)=\lim_{r\rightarrow 0} \frac{area(B(x_0, r)\cap
\Sigma)}{\omega^n r^n}$$ where $\omega^n$ is the area of an $n$-dimensional unit ball. The monotonicity formula in minimal surface theory says $\Theta(x_0, r)$ is non-increasing as $r $ approaches $0$, in particular the limit exists. Allard’s regularity theorem [@all] then asserts there exists an $\epsilon>0$ such that if $\Theta(x_0) <1+\epsilon$, then $x_0$ is a regular point. We refer to Simon’s book [@gmt] for minimal surface theory.
For the mean curvature flow, we consider the total space time as a submanifold in $M\times {\mathbb R}$ and use parabolic blow up at a space time point $(x_0, t_0)$. The limit is still a mean curvature flow and the monotonicity formula of Huisken implies a time slice satisfies $F^\perp=H$, or the limit flow is self-similar. For a smooth point, we obtain the stationary flow of a plane.
The density function is now replaced by the integral of the backward heat kernel. To be more precise, we isometrically embed $M$ into ${\mathbb R}^N$. For any $\lambda
>1$, the parabolic blow up $D_\lambda$ at $(x_0, t_0)$ is defined by
$$\begin{split}
D_\lambda :\,{\mathbb R}^N \times[0, t_0) &\rightarrow
{\mathbb R}^N \times [-\lambda^2 t_0, 0)\\
(x,t)&\rightarrow (\lambda(x-x_0), \lambda^2 (t-t_0))
\end{split}$$
The (n-dimensional) backward heat kernel $\rho_{x_0, t_0}$ at $(x_0, t_0)$ is
$$\rho_{x_0, t_0}(x,t)=\frac{1}{(4\pi(t_0-t))^{n\over 2}} \exp
(\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4(t_0-t)})$$
Notice that the integral $\int \rho_{x_0, t_0} d\mu_t$ is invariant under the parabolic blow up, where $d\mu_t=\sqrt{\det
g_{ij}(F_t)}d\mu$ is the pull back volume form by $F_t$.
The monotonicity formula of Huisken [@hu2] says for $t<t_0$
$$\frac{d}{dt}\int \rho_{x_0, t_0} d\mu_t
\leq 0$$ so the limit as $t\rightarrow t_0$ exists. This formula holds only for mean curvature flows in Euclidean spaces. For a general ambient manifold, a modification to take care of curvature terms is necessary, see [@w2] or [@il1]. The analogue of Allard’s regularity theorem in mean curvature flow is the following theorem of White.
[@w] There is an $\epsilon >0$ such that if $$\lim_{t\rightarrow t_0}\int \,\rho_{x_0, t_0}
d\mu_t <1+\epsilon$$ then $(x_0, t_0)$ is a regular point.
In the proof of Theorem 3.1, the equation (\[mu\]) helps us find a subsequence $t_i\rightarrow t_0$ and blow up rate $\lambda_i\rightarrow \infty$ such that the $L^2$ norm of the second fundamental form $\int |A|^2$ of $\lambda_i
\Sigma_{t_i}$ approaches zero. The limit is thus a plane and $\int \rho_{x_0, t_0} d\mu_{t_i}\rightarrow 1$ as $t_i \rightarrow
\infty$. Monotonicity formula implies $\lim_{t\rightarrow t_0}\int
\,\rho_{x_0, t_0} d\mu_t =1$. By White’s theorem again it can be concluded that $(x_0, t_0)$ is a regular point.
Curvature estimate
------------------
From the calculation in [@mu1], the norm of the second fundamental form $|A|^2$ satisfies
$$\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt} |A|^2
&\leq \Delta |A|^2 -2|\nabla A|^2+K_1|A|^4+K_2 |A|^2\\
\end{split}$$ where $K_1, K_2$ are constants depending on the curvature and the covariant derivatives of curvature of the ambient space .
In general, $|A|^2 $ blows up in finite time because of the $|A|^4$ term. However, the equation of $\mu$ (\[mu\]) helps to control $|A|^2$ in the proof of Theorem 3.1.
By equation (\[mu\]) for any $k$, $0<k<1$, we have $$\frac{d}{dt}(\mu-k)\geq\Delta (\mu-k)+c\frac{\mu}{\mu-k} (\mu-k)|A|^2$$
where we use $0<\mu \leq 1$.
If $\min_{\Sigma_t} \mu$ is very close to one when $t$ is large, we may choose $k$ close to $1$ so that $\mu-k>0$ is preserved after some $t_1$ and $\frac{\mu}{\mu-k}$ is large. The quantity $g=\frac{|A|^2}{\mu-k}$ after time $t_1$ then satisfies $$\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt}g \leq \Delta g +V\cdot \nabla g-K_3 g^2+K_4 g
\end{split}$$ with $K_3>0$. The maximum principle shows $g$ is uniformly bounded for $t>t_1$ .
By equations (\[eta\_1\]) and (\[eta\_2\]) and a comparison argument, we see $\min_{\Sigma_t} \eta_1 \rightarrow 1$ and $\min_{\Sigma_t} \eta_2 \rightarrow 1$ as $t\rightarrow \infty$. In particular , $\min_{\Sigma_t} \mu \rightarrow 1$. The assumption on $\mu$ is true when $t$ is large enough and thus $|A|^2$ is uniformly bounded. Integrate equation (\[mu\]) over space and time shows $\int_{\Sigma_t}|A|^2\rightarrow 0$ and the sub mean value inequality in [@il1] shows $\sup
|A|^2\rightarrow 0$. The last step is to apply Simon’s [@si] general convergence theorem for gradient flows.
Related problems
================
Recall [@sm] that being Lagrangian is preserved along the mean curvature flow in Kähler-Einstein manifolds. The graph of a symplectomorphism of a Kähler-Einstein manifold $M$ is a Lagrangian submanifold in the product space $(M\times M,
\omega_1-\omega_2)$. The following question is thus a natural generalization of Theorem 3.3.
Can one prove the long time existence and convergence of mean curvature flows of symplectomorphisms of Kähler-Einstein manifolds?
Theorem 3.3 and the corresponding theorems for higher genus Riemann surfaces implies any Lagrangian graph is Lagrangian isotopic to a minimal Lagrangian graph along the mean curvature flow. This is related to the following conjecture due to Thomas and Yau [@ty].
Can one prove the long time existence and convergence of mean curvature flow of a stable graded Lagrangian submanifold in a Calabi-Yau manifold?
A notion of stability for Lagrangian submanifolds was formulated in [@ty] in terms of the range of the phase function $\theta$.
$$\Omega|_\Sigma=e^{i\theta}vol|_\Sigma$$ on any Lagrangian submanifold of Calabi-Yau manifold. Theorem 2.2 implies if $-\frac{\pi}{2}<\theta<\frac{\pi}{2}$ on a Lagrangian submanifold, then the mean curvature flow does not develop any type I singularity. How to exclude or perturb away type II singularities seems a very interesting yet hard problem.
[99]{}
W. K. Allard, *On the first variation of a varifold.* Ann. of Math. (2) 95 (1972), 417–491. S. Altschuler, *Singularities of the curve shrinking flow for space curves.* J. Differential Geom. 34 (1991), no. 2, 491–514.
L. Ambrosio and H. M. Soner, *Level set approach to mean curvature flow in arbitrary codimension.* J. Differential Geom. 43 (1996), no. 4, 693–737.
J. Chen and J. Li, *Mean curvature flow of surface in $4$-manifolds.* Adv. Math. 163 (2001), no. 2, 287–309.
J. Chen and G. Tian, *Moving symplectic curves in Kähler-Einstein surfaces.* Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 16 (2000), no. 4, 541–548.
K. Ecker and G. Huisken *Mean curvature evolution of entire graphs*, Ann. of Math. (2) 130 (1989), no. 3, 453–471.
K. Ecker and G. Huisken, *Interior estimates for hypersurfaces moving by mean curvature.*, Invent. Math. 105 (1991), no. 3, 547–569.
J. Eells and J. H. Sampson, *Harmonic mappings of Riemannian manifolds.* Amer. J. Math. 86 1964 109–160.
C. J. Earle and J. Eells, *The diffeomorphism group of a compact Riemann surface.* Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 1967 557–559.
M. Gage and R. Hamilton, *The heat equation shrinking convex plane curves.*, J. Differential Geom. 23 (1986), no. 1, 69–96.
M. Grayson, *The heat equation shrinks embedded plane curves to round points.* J. Differential Geom. 26 (1987), no. 2, 285–314. R. Hamilton, *Four-manifolds with positive curvature operator*. J. Differential Geom. 24 (1986), no. 2, 153–179.
R. Harvey and H. B. Lawson, *Calibrated geometries.* Acta Math. 148 (1982), 47–157.
G. Huisken, *Flow by mean curvature of convex surfaces into spheres.* J. Differential Geom. 20 (1984), no. 1, 237–266.
G. Huisken, *Asymptotic behavior for singularities of the mean curvature flow*, J. Differential Geom. **31** (1990), no. 1, 285–299.
T. Ilmanen, *Singularities of mean curvature flow of surfaces* , preprint , 1997.
T. Ilmanen, *Elliptic regularization and partial regularity for motion by mean curvature*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 108 (1994), no. 520,
O. A. Ladyzenskaja, V. A. Solonnikov and N. N. Uralceva *Linear and quasilinear equations of parabolic type*, Transl. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (1968).
L. Simon, *Asymptotics for a class of nonlinear evolution equations, with applications to geometric problems.*, Ann. of Math. (2) 118 (1983), no. 3, 525–571.
L. Simon, *Lectures on geometric measure theory.*, Proceedings of the Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Australian National University, 3. Australian National University, Centre for Mathematical Analysis, Canberra, 1983. vii+272 pp.
K. Smoczyk, *A canonical way to deform a Lagrangian submanifold.*, preprint, dg-ga/9605005.
K. Smoczyk, *Harnack inequality for the Lagrangian mean curvature flow.* Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations 8 (1999), no. 3, 247–258.
R. P. Thomas, S.-T. Yau *Special Lagrangians, stable bundles and mean curvature flow.*, math.DG/0104197.
M-T. Wang, *Mean Curvature Flow of surfaces in Einstein Four-Manifolds* , J. Differential Geom. **57** (2001), no. 2, 301-338.
M-T. Wang, *Deforming area preserving diffeomorphism of surfaces by mean curvature flow* , Math. Res. Lett. 8 (2001), no.5-6, 651-662.
M-T. Wang, *Long-time existence and convergence of graphic mean curvature flow in arbitrary codimension* , to appear in Invent. Math.
B. White, *A local regularity theorem for classical mean curvature flow*, preprint, 2000. B. White, *Stratification of minimal surfaces, mean curvature flows, and harmonic maps.* J. Reine Angew. Math. 488 (1997), 1–35.
[^1]: The author is supported in part by N.S.F. grant DMS 0104163.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a new methodology for simultaneous variable selection and parameter estimation in function-on-scalar regression with an ultra-high dimensional predictor vector. We extend the LASSO to functional data in both the *dense* functional setting and the *sparse* functional setting. We provide theoretical guarantees which allow for an exponential number of predictor variables. Simulations are carried out which illustrate the methodology and compare the sparse/functional methods. Using the Framingham Heart Study, we demonstrate how our tools can be used in genome-wide association studies, finding a number of genetic mutations which affect blood pressure and are therefore important for cardiovascular health.'
author:
- Rina Foygel Barber
- 'Matthew Reimherr [^1]'
- Thomas Schill
bibliography:
- 'flasso.bib'
title: |
The Function-on-Scalar LASSO\
with Applications to Longitudinal GWAS
---
[[*K*eywords:]{} Functional Data Analysis, High-Dimensional Regression, Variable Selection, Functional Regression]{}
Introduction
============
Over the last several decades, technological advances have supported and necessitated the rapid growth of high-dimensional statistical methods. One the most important applications for these methods are genome-wide association studies (GWAS). In these studies, researchers search through hundreds of thousands or millions of genetic mutations known as SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms, finding those which significantly impact an outcome or phenotype of interest, e.g. blood pressure, diabetes, asthma, etc. GWAS have been hugely successful at finding gene/disease associations as evidenced by the massive repositories of genetic studies and findings, such as dbGaP (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap). Next-generation or high-throughput sequencing technologies are capable of sequencing entire genomes, producing ever-larger genetic datasets to explore. Thus, to further our understanding of the genetic architecture of complex human diseases, there is a substantial and continuing need for powerful, high-dimensional association techniques.
The vast majority of GWAS are cross-sectional, examining only one point in time. The aim of this paper is to present a new framework which combines functional data analysis, FDA, and machine leaning for finding and estimating significant effects on longitudinally measured outcomes. We refer to this methodology as *Function-on-Scalar LASSO*, or FS-LASSO.
Our aim is to simultaneously exploit the sparse effect of the SNPs and the smooth nature of the longitudinal outcomes. While we are strongly motivated by genetic studies, our methods are general and allow for any setting with a longitudinal/functional outcome and high-dimensional scalar predictors. Our primary goal is to select and estimate the effect of predictors in the following functional linear model $$\begin{aligned}
Y_n(t) = \mu(t) + \sum_{i=1}^I X_{ni} \beta_i(t) + {\varepsilon}_n(t). \label{e:model}\end{aligned}$$ Here $Y_n(t)$ is the value of a quantitative outcome for subject $n\in \{1,\dots,N\}$, at time $t \in {{\mathcal T}}\subset {{\mathbb R}}.$ The scalars $X_{ni}$ are real-valued, though in our application they take values in $\{0,1,2\}$ indicating the minor allele count for the SNP. The number of predictors, $I$, is allowed to be much greater than the sample size $N$. This is known as a “scalar predictor/functional response” model. Functional data analysis (FDA) now consists of two main branches: (1) sparse FDA, where the outcomes, $Y_n$, are observed at a relatively small number of time points and are contaminated with noise, and (2) dense FDA, where outcomes are observed at a large number of time points (possibly with a small level of noise). We present our methodology for each scenario and we later explore how their performances differ via simulations. .
At the heart of our methodology is the now classic idea of combining basis expansions for estimating the functions $\beta_i$, with proper penalties which induce sparse estimates. While the methods and theory are new, we can phrase the problem as a type of group LASSO, which allows us to utilize existing computational tools.
The contributions of this paper include the following. First, we provide new asymptotic results for the sparse setting. Our results can be viewed as an extension of the varying coefficient methods discussed in @wei:huang:li:2011. In particular, we present a new restricted eigenvalue result which is one of the cornerstones for developing convergence rates in high dimensions, as well as the accompanying asymptotic convergence rates for our estimates. Second, we provide a new methodology and accompanying asymptotic theory for a broad class of dense settings, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been explored before. Interestingly, we show that the FS-LASSO applied to outcomes in any separable Hilbert space achieves the exact same rates of convergence as in the scalar setting. This could have broad implications for not only traditional functional outcomes, but also spatial processes, functional panels, and imaging data such as fMRI. Finally, we demonstrate via simulations some surprising results concerning the choice between the sparse and dense tool sets. In particular, we find that a dense approach is comparable to the sparse in terms of variable selection even in traditionally sparse settings. Furthermore, the dense methods can be carried out at a fraction of the computational cost (both in terms of power and memory). However, the sparse methods produce estimates which are more accurate in traditionally sparse settings. This opens the doors to interesting two-stage procedures where variable screening is done using dense tools, and final estimation is done via sparse ones.
#### Related literature
For foundations on functional data analysis we refer to @ramsay:silverman:2005 and @hkbook, while an overview of machine learning can be found in @HaTiFr:2001 and @james:etal:2013. The literature on functional regression is now quite large, but we attempt to provide several key methodological papers, which help outline the field. Functional regression methods for sparse data include the following. @hoover:etal:1998 examine spline based methods for estimating a simpler form of the functional predictor/functional response model. @fan:zhang:2000 provide a two step method based on local polynomial smoothing to estimate a functional predictor/scalar response model. @yao:muller:wang:2005AS present what has likely become the most common method based on scatter plot smoothing (i.e. local polynomial smoothing) and functional principal components for estimating a full functional predictor/functional response model. @zhu:etal:2012 extend local linear smoothing methods for estimating scalar predictor/multivariate functional response models. Methods for high dense FDA include the following. @cardot:ferraty:sarda:2003 explore spline based methods for a functional predictor/scalar response model. @kokoszka:maslova:s:z:2008 use a PCA based approach for estimating a full functional predictor/functional response model. @james:wang:zhu:2009 incorporate shrinkage methods in estimating a functional predictor/scalar response model (for the purposes of estimating the “zero” parts of the regression function). @reiss:etal:2010 examine a B-spline approach for scalar predictor/functional response models, while @ReNi:2014 explore more direct least squares (of a functional norm) estimators for scalar predictor/functional response models. However, all of these methods assume a fixed number of covariates. Related work which incorporates an increasing number of predictors mainly comes from the literature on varying coefficient models, for example @wang:etal:2008, @zhao:xue:2010 and @wei:huang:li:2011. The only related work in the FDA literature concerns scalar-on-function regression, the reverse of our focus.
#### Outline
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[s:sparse\] we provide a framework for scalar predictor/functional response regression with sparsely observed outcomes. We combine basis expansions with a group LASSO style penalty to carry out variable selection and parameter estimation simultaneously. In Section \[s:func\] we present the high dense setting. We provide a very general framework where the response functions are allowed to take values from a separable Hilbert space. This allows the functions to be from say $L^2({{\mathcal T}})$, which is commonly used, as well as more general spaces such as Sobelev spaces or product spaces of function spaces (i.e. vectors of functions). In Section \[s:comp\] we provide computational details, including a pre-screening rule which allows one to reduce $I$ substantially before fitting the FS-LASSO, and details for making use of established computational machinery for the group LASSO. We present a simulation study in Section \[s:sims\] where we explore our procedure in terms of variable selection, parameter estimation, and computational time. In Section \[s:FHS\] we apply our methods to the Framingham Heart Study (FHS), to identify genetic markers that influence blood pressure, in hopes of gaining a better understanding of cardiovascular disease. Genome–wide SNP data and phenotype information were downloaded from dbGaP (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap) study accession phs000007.v25.p9. Concluding remarks are given in Section \[s:conc\], while all theoretical results are proven in the Appendix.
The Sparse Setting {#s:sparse}
==================
Sparse FDA occurs quite often in longitudinal studies where one has a relatively small number of observed time points per subject or unit. In this case, it is common to work with the raw measurements as opposed to the functional embeddings discussed in Section \[s:func\]. A brief introduction to sparse FDA can be found in @muller:2008.
We begin with the underlying model.
\[a:sparse\] Assume, for $ 1 \leq n \leq N$ and $1 \leq m \leq M_n \leq M < \infty$, that $$Y_{nm} = \sum_{i=1}^I X_{ni} \beta_i^\star(t_{nm}) + {\varepsilon}_n(t_{nm}), \ \ \ t_{nm} \in {{\mathcal T}}.$$ The error processes $\{{\varepsilon}_n(t): t\in {{\mathcal T}}\}$ are iid Gaussian and we define the $M_n \times M_n$ covariance matrix $\Sigma_n: = \operatorname{Cov}\big(({\varepsilon}_n(t_{n1}), \dots, {\varepsilon}_n(t_{nM_n}))\big)$. The design matrix, ${{\bf X}}$, is deterministic.
For the moment, we do not include assumptions on $\{t_{nm}\}$ or coefficient functions $\beta_i^\star$. Note that the Gaussian assumption is not crucial—what is really needed is that the processes have subgaussian tails, though we make the Gaussian assumption to simplify the arguments.
Let $\{e_j(\cdot)\}$ be a basis in $L_2({{\mathcal T}})$. Approximating the functions $\beta_i^\star$ using this basis, we have that $$Y_{nm} = \sum_{i=1}^I \sum_{j=1}^J X_{ni} B_{ij}^\star e_j(t_{nm}) + T_{nm} + {\varepsilon}_n(t_{nm}),$$ where $T_{nm}$ is the truncation error obtained after cutting off the basis expansion at $J$. The following notation will be used repeatedly throughout this section and in the Appendix: $$T = (T_{11}, T_{12}, \dots, T_{NM_N})^\top \in {{\mathbb R}}^{\sum_n M_n},$$ $$E_{nm} = (e_1(t_{nm}),\dots,e_J(t_{nm}))^\top \in {{\mathbb R}}^{J},$$ $${{\bf E}}_n = \left(E_{n1}, \dots E_{nM_n} \right)^\top \in {{\mathbb R}}^{M_n \times J},$$ $${{\bf F}}= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf E}}_n \in {{\mathbb R}}^{J \times J}.$$ For a matrix ${{\bf B}}\in {{\mathbb R}}^{I\times J}$, define the *sparse target function* as $$L({{\bf B}})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{m=1}^{M_n}\left(Y_{nm}-\sum_{i=1}^I\sum_{j=1}^JX_{ni}B_{ij}e_j(t_{nm})\right)^2 +\lambda{\left\lVert{{{\bf B}}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\;,$$ where ${\left\lVert{{{\bf B}}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}=\sum_i {\left\lVert{B_{i*}}\right\rVert}_2$ promotes row-wise sparsity (here $B_{i*}$ denotes the $i$th row of the matrix ${{\bf B}}$). The estimate $\widehat {{\bf B}}$ is the minimizer of the above expression. The estimated coefficient functions are then given by $\widehat \beta_i(\cdot)=\sum_{j=1}^J \widehat B_{ij}e_j(\cdot)$. The target function can be rephrased so that traditional group LASSO machinery can be invoked. Notice that $$\sum_{i=1}^I\sum_{j=1}^JX_{ni}B_{ij}e_j(t_{nm}) = X_n^\top {{\bf B}}E_{nm}
= E_{nm}^\top {{\bf B}}^\top X_n
= (X_n^{\top} \otimes E_{nm}^\top ) \operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\top).$$ One can then stack the $(X_n^{\top} \otimes E_{nm}^\top ) $ vectors into a matrix, ${{\bf A}}$, $${{\bf A}}= \left(\begin{matrix}
X_1^{\top} \otimes E_{11}^\top \\
X_1^{\top} \otimes E_{12}^\top \\
\vdots\\
X_N^{\top} \otimes E_{NM_N}^\top
\end{matrix} \right) =
\left(\begin{matrix}
X_1^{\top} \otimes {{\bf E}}_{1} \\
X_2^{\top} \otimes {{\bf E}}_{2} \\
\vdots\\
X_N^{\top} \otimes {{\bf E}}_{N}
\end{matrix} \right)\in{{\mathbb R}}^{(\sum_n M_n) \times IJ}.$$ The target function can now be expressed as $$\label{eqn:grouplasso}
L({{\bf B}}) = \frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\top)\|_2^2 + \lambda \| {{\bf B}}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2},$$ where $$Y = (Y_{11}, \dots, Y_{1M_1},\dots,Y_{N,M_N})^\top.$$ Group LASSO computational tools can then be used to find $\widehat {{\bf B}}$. Since the matrix ${{\bf A}}$ will generally have more columns than rows, the linear system $Y\approx {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\top)$ is underdetermined; in particular the (right) null space of ${{\bf A}}$ is large. However, the grouped sparsity structure in ${{\bf B}}$ allows us to resolve this difficulty. We first recall the notion of restricted eigenvalues [@bickel2009simultaneous], used for sparse regression (without group structure):
\[def:RE\] A matrix ${{\bf A}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times I}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}(I_0,\alpha)$ condition if, for all subsets $S\subset \{1,\dots, I\}$ with $|S|\leq I_0$, $${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}w}\right\rVert}^2_2\geq \alpha N{\left\lVert{w}\right\rVert}^2_2 \text{ for all }w\in\mathbb{R}^I\text{ with }{\left\lVert{w_{S^c}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1}\leq 3{\left\lVert{w_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1}\;.$$
The constant $3$ here is somewhat arbitrary, but it is standard in the literature and we use it here for convenience. @lounici2011oracle extend this definition to the group-sparse setting:
\[def:RE\_group\] A matrix ${{\bf A}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times IJ}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{group}}(I_0,\alpha)$ condition if, for all subsets $S\subset \{1,\dots,I\}$ with $|S|\leq I_0$, $${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf W}}^\top)}\right\rVert}^2_2 \geq \alpha N{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}\text{ for all }{{\bf W}}\in\mathbb{R}^{I\times J} \text{ with }{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_{\!S^c}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq 3{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_{\!S}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\;.$$
Here ${{\bf W}}_{\!S}$ denotes the submatrix of ${{\bf W}}$ obtained by extracting the rows indexed by $S$, while ${{\bf W}}_{\!S^c}$ contains only the rows in $S^c$, the complement of $S$.
Bounding the error
------------------
With these definitions in place, our first result is a modified version of @lounici2011oracle’s analysis of the group LASSO. It proves resulting bounds on the error $\widehat{{{\bf B}}}-{{\bf B}}^\star$, where ${{\bf B}}^\star$ is the (truncated) true parameter matrix, as long as $\lambda$ is sufficiently large and ${{\bf A}}$ satisfies the grouped restricted eigenvalue condition.
\[thm:main\_sparse\] Suppose that Assumption \[a:sparse\] holds and that for some $\delta \in (0,1)$ $$\label{eqn:lambda_bound}
\lambda \geq 2\sqrt{N{\left\lVert{{{\bf F}}}\right\rVert}_\mathsf{op}}\left({\left\lVert{T}\right\rVert}_2 + \sqrt{\max_n{\left\lVert{\Sigma_n}\right\rVert}_\mathsf{op}\left(2J+3\log(2I/\delta)\right)}\right)\;.$$ Assume also that ${{\bf B}}^\star$ has at most $I_0$ nonzero rows, and that ${{\bf A}}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{group}}(I_0,\alpha)$ condition for some $\alpha>0$. Then with probability at least $1 - \delta$, any minimizer $\widehat{{{\bf B}}}$ of satisfies $${\left\lVert{\widehat{{{\bf B}}}-{{\bf B}}^\star}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}\leq \frac{3\lambda\sqrt{I_0}}{\alpha N}\text{ and }{\left\lVert{\widehat{{{\bf B}}}-{{\bf B}}^\star}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq \frac{12\lambda I_0}{\alpha N}\;.$$
As is widely appreciated by researchers working on such results, Theorem \[thm:main\_sparse\] essentially hinges on concentration inequalities and restricted eigenvalue type conditions. Neither of these tools can be readily applied to our setting. Thus, much of our theoretical work is focussed on showing how to extend these ideas to the functional setting. Below we discuss the restricted eigenvalue condition at length, while discussion of the concentration inequalities involved can be found at the end of Appendix \[a:proof\_sparse\]. Concentration inequalities allow us to control the stochastic error in the model and largely dictate the rates of convergence, while the restricted eigenvalue conditions allow us to bound the error ${\left\lVert{\widehat{{{\bf B}}}-{{\bf B}}^\star}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}$ from above by a term involving $\| {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}\big((\widehat{{{\bf B}}}-{{\bf B}}^\star)^\top\big)\|_{2}$, and therefore to obtain convergence rates for the parameters of interest.
\
[**Example:**]{} We next give an example to illustrate the type of scaling that is obtained in Theorem \[thm:main\_sparse\]. Let $W^{\tau,2}[0,1]$ denote the Sobelev space consisting of functions over $[0,1]$, which have square integrable derivatives of up to order $\tau$. Suppose that the coefficient functions, $\beta_i$, take values in a finite ball in $W^{\tau,2}$. Let the basis $e_1(\cdot), e_2(\cdot), \dots$ denote the Fourier basis and assume that the time points $t_{nm}$ are iid $U[0,1]$. Examining $\lambda$, there are now a number to terms which can be made more explicit. First, since the basis is orthogonal we have ${{\bf F}}\approx {{\bf I}}_{J \times J}$, so that $\| {{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}} $ is behaves like a constant. Next, examining the truncation term $T$, there are $\sum_n M_n \sim N$ coordinates, and each coordinate consists of a sum of $I_0$ functions each of which lies in a Sobelev ball, thus we have that $\| T\| \approx \sqrt {N I_0} J^{-\tau}$. Examining the second term in $\lambda$, we have that $$\sqrt{ \max_n{\left\lVert{\Sigma_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{op}}\left(2J+3\log(2I/\delta)\right)}
\sim \sqrt{J+\log(I)} \leq \sqrt{J \log(I)}.$$ We therefore want to choose $J$ to balance the two errors, which means taking $J$ such that $$\sqrt {N I_0} J^{-\tau} = \sqrt{J \log(I)} \Longrightarrow J = \left( \frac{N I_0}{\log(I)} \right)^{\frac{1}{1+2\tau}}.$$ Plugging this into our expression for the convergence rates, and assuming that the restricted eigenvalue condition $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{group}}(I_0,\alpha)$ holds for the matrix ${{\bf A}}$ with some $\alpha>0$ that we treat as a constant, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \Delta\|_{\mathsf{F}} & = O_P(1) \cdot \frac{N^{1/2} \sqrt{J \log(I)} I_0^{1/2}}{N}
= O_P(1)\cdot I_0 \left( \frac{ \log(I)}{ N I_0} \right) ^{\frac{\tau}{1+2 \tau}}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta:= {{\bf B}}- \widehat {{\bf B}}$. We see that the standard nonparametric rate of convergence appears which relates the convergence rates to the smoothness of the underlying parameter functions. This rate also applies to the difference $\|\widehat \beta - \beta\|_{L^2}$. Notice that by Parceval’s identity and the Triangle inequality $$\|\widehat \beta - \beta\|_{L^2} = \left( \sum_{i=1}^I \int (\widehat \beta_i(t) - \beta_i(t)^2 ) \ dt \right)^{1/2}
\leq \|\Delta\|_{\mathsf{F}} + \|\Pi_J^\perp \beta\|_{L^2},$$ where $\Pi_J^\perp$ is the projection onto the remaining basis functions $e_{J+1}(\cdot),\dots$. By the assumed smoothness of the $\beta$, we have that $$\|\Pi_J^\perp \beta\|_{L^2} \sim \sqrt{I_0}J^{-\tau}
= \sqrt{I_0}
\left( \frac{N I_0}{\log(I)} \right)^{\frac{-\tau}{1+2\tau}}
\leq I_0 \left( \frac{ \log(I)}{ N I_0} \right) ^{\frac{\tau}{1+2 \tau}},$$ Thus the rate for $\|\widehat \beta - \beta\|_{L^2}$ is the same as for $\| \Delta\|_{\mathsf{F}}$.
For the $\ell_1/\ell_2$ norm we then have $$\| \Delta\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} = O_P(1)\cdot \frac{\lambda I_0}{N} = O_P(1)\cdot I_0^{3/2} \left( \frac{ \log(I)}{ N I_0} \right) ^{\frac{\tau}{1+2 \tau}}.$$ By the same arguments as before, the above rate also applies to the sum of the normed differences between the functions, i.e. $\| \widehat \beta - \beta\|_{\ell_1}$. As we will see, when $\tau \to \infty$, the rate above converges to the rate found for the dense setting.
Restricted eigenvalue condition
-------------------------------
Our next result concerns the restricted eigenvalue condition. It proves that, if the covariates $X_n$ are drawn from a Gaussian or subgaussian distribution with well-conditioned covariance structure, then the grouped restricted eigenvalue condition will hold for ${{\bf A}}$.
\[t:RE\_gaussian\] $$\label{e:Econd}
\min_{w\in{{\bf R}}^J\backslash\{0\}}\frac{\sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n w}\right\rVert}_2}{N{\left\lVert{w}\right\rVert}_2}\geq \gamma_0>0, \quad \max_{w\in{{\bf R}}^J\backslash\{0\}}\sqrt{\frac{\sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n w}\right\rVert}^2_2}{N{\left\lVert{w}\right\rVert}^2_2}}\leq \gamma_1\;,$$ and define ${{\bf A}}\in {{\mathbb R}}^{\sum_n M_n \times IJ}$ as before. Then there exist $c_0,c_1,c_2>0$ depending only on $\nu,\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma),\gamma_0,\gamma_1$, such that, if $$\label{eqn:N_RIP_thm}N \geq c_0\cdot k \cdot \log(IJ)\cdot (J+\log(I))\;,$$ then with probability at least $1- e^{-c_1N}$, ${{\bf A}}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{group}}(k,c_2)$ condition.
The assumption given in is a condition number type constraint. The upper bound is simply a bound on the largest eigenvalue of ${{\bf F}}= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n} {{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf E}}_n$, while the lower bound is a bit stronger than a corresponding bound on the smallest eigenvalue. It is, in essence, saying that the norms $\|{{\bf E}}_n w\|_2^2$ should be on the order of ${\left\lVert{w}\right\rVert}_2^2$ for many of the indices $n$. (In contrast, upper and lower eigenvalue conditions would only ensure that $\|{{\bf E}}_nw\|_2^2$ is on the order of ${\left\lVert{w}\right\rVert}_2^2$ [*on average*]{}, but would not prevent degenerate scenarios such as $\|{{\bf E}}_1 w\|_2^2= N{\left\lVert{w}\right\rVert}_2^2$ and $\|{{\bf E}}_2 w\|_2^2=\dots=\|{{\bf E}}_N w\|_2^2 =0$.)\
The Dense Setting {#s:func}
=================
When the underlying functions are observed at a relatively large number of time points, a different approach than the one described in Section \[s:sparse\] is commonly employed. In particular, for each subject $n\in\{1,\dots,N\}$, the observations $Y_{nm}=Y_n(t_{nm})$ are embedded into a function space, which are then treated as though they were fully observed functions. Implicitly, one is assuming that the error from the embedding is negligible compared to other sources of variability. More details and background can be found in @hkbook. We begin by defining the underlying model.
\[a:f:model\] Let $Y_1,\dots,Y_N$ be independent random elements of a real separable Hilbert space, ${{\mathcal H}}$, satisfying the functional linear model $$Y_n = \sum_{i=1}^I X_{ni} \beta_i + {\varepsilon}_n.$$ Assume the $N \times I$ design matrix ${{\bf X}}= \{X_{ni}\}$ is deterministic and has standardized columns, the ${\varepsilon}_n$ are iid square-integrable Gaussian random elements of ${{\mathcal H}}$ with mean 0 and covariance operator $C$, and $\beta_i$ are deterministic elements of ${{\mathcal H}}$. Let $\Lambda = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots)$ denote the vector of eigenvalues of $C$.
The most common choice for the function space ${{\mathcal H}}$ is $L^2({{\mathcal T}})$ where ${{\mathcal T}}$ is a closed and bounded interval. However, the advantage of our phrasing is that we allow for a number of other spaces, including Sobolev spaces (if one wants to better utilize the smoothness of the data), product spaces (if the response is actually a vector of functions), or multidimensional domains (which could arise in areas such as spatial statistics). Throughout this section, when we write $\| \cdot\|_{{{\mathcal H}}}$ we will always mean the inner product norm on ${{\mathcal H}}$. Norms which deviate from this inner product norms will include alternative subscripts.
As before, when applying the FS-LASSO, we are assuming that the true underlying model is sparse, with $I_0$ denoting the number of true predictors and $S_0$ denoting the true set of predictors. The FS-LASSO estimate is then the solution to the following minimization problem $$\widehat \beta = \operatorname{argmin}_{\beta \in {{\mathcal H}}^{I}} L_{\mathsf{F}}(\beta),$$ where $$L_{\mathsf{F}}(\beta) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^N \| Y_n - X_n^\top \beta\|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2 + \lambda \|\beta\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \text{\quad for\quad } \|\beta\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} = \sum_{i=1}^I \|\beta_i\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \;.$$ The norm $\| \cdot \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}$ is a type of $\ell_1$ norm on the product space ${{\mathcal H}}^{I}$, which encourages sparsity among the list of functions $\beta_1,\dots,\beta_I$ (that is, the function $\beta_i$ will be uniformly zero for many indices $i$). The target function $L_{\mathsf{F}}(\cdot)$ is a direct Hilbert space generalization of the LASSO target function.
Next we introduce a functional restricted eigenvalue assumption, which is a direct analogue of similar assumptions in the LASSO literature (e.g. @bickel2009simultaneous).
\[d:f:comp\] We say a matrix ${{\bf A}}\in {{\mathbb R}}^{N \times I}$ satisfies a functional restricted eigenvalue condition, $\mathsf{RE_F}(I_0, \alpha)$, if for all subsets $S \subset \{1, \dots, I\}$ with $|S| \leq I_0$, we have $$\|{{\bf A}}x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}^N}^2 \geq \alpha N \| x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}^I}^2
\ \text{ for all } \ x \in {{\mathcal H}}^I
\ \text{ that satisfy }\ \| x_{S^c} \|_{\ell_1/ {{\mathcal H}}} \leq 3 \| x_{S} \|_{\ell_1/ {{\mathcal H}}}.$$
In fact, this functional restricted eigenvalue assumption is no stronger than the usual (scalar) restricted eigenvalue assumption—in the following theorem we show that any matrix ${{\bf A}}$ satisfying the usual (scalar) restricted eigenvalue assumption, will also satisfy the functional version given in Definition \[d:f:comp\].
\[t:res\] For a fixed matrix ${{\bf X}}\in\mathbb{R}^{N\times I}$, suppose that for some $c_1,c_2>0$, ${{\bf X}}$ satisfies $$\| {{\bf X}}z\|_{\mathsf{2}} \geq c_1 \sqrt{N}\cdot \|z\|_2 - c_2 \sqrt{\log(I)}\cdot \|z\|_{\ell_1},$$ for all $z \in {{\mathbb R}}^I$. Then the same inequality holds for all $x \in {{\mathcal H}}^{I}$, that is, $$\label{eqn:func_RE}
\| {{\bf X}}x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \geq c_1 \sqrt{N}\cdot \|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} - c_2 \sqrt{\log(I)}\cdot \|x\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} .$$[ Furthermore, if $c_1>4c_2\sqrt{\frac{I_0\log(I)}{N}}$, then ${{\bf X}}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{F}}(I_0,\alpha)$ property with $$\alpha = \left(c_1 - 4c_2\sqrt{\frac{I_0\log(I)}{N}}\right)^2.$$]{}
We are now ready to present the main result of the section.
\[t:highfreq\_main\] If Assumption \[a:f:model\] holds, ${{\bf X}}$ satifies $\mathsf{RE_F}(I_0, \alpha)$, and $$\lambda \geq 2 \sqrt{N} \sqrt{\| \Lambda\|_1 + 2 \|\Lambda\|_2 \sqrt{\log(I/\delta)} + 2 \| \Lambda \|_\infty (\log(I/\delta))},$$ then with probability at least $1 - \delta$, any minimizer $\widehat \beta$ of $L_F(\beta)$ satifies $$\| {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta - \beta^\star)\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \leq \frac{4 \lambda \sqrt{I_0} }{\sqrt{\alpha N}} \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad
\| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \leq \frac{16 \lambda I_0 }{\alpha N }. $$
Interestingly, the rates of convergence for ${{\mathcal H}}$-valued response variables are exactly the same as those for a scalar response. This is due to our ability to extend scalar concentration inequalities to general Hilbert spaces, see Lemma \[l:n\_exp\_ineq\].
Computational Details {#s:comp}
=====================
Here we present several computational tools which we utilize and can be found in Matlab code available through the corresponding authors’s website. We begin by providing computational details for the methods in Section \[s:func\]. Traditionally, when handling dense functional data, one constructs the functional objects by utilizing basis expansions. This is the cornerstone of the FDA package in R. If $e_1(\cdot), e_2(\cdot), \dots$ is a basis of ${{\mathcal H}}$ (e.g. B-splines or Fourier), then we can approximate $L_{\mathsf{F}}$ as $$L_{\mathsf{F}}(\beta)\approx
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^J \langle Y_n - X_n^\top \beta, e_j \rangle^2 + \sum_{i=1}^I \sqrt{ \sum_{j=1}^J \langle \beta_i, e_j \rangle^2 },$$ for $J$ large (often over one hundred). Letting $B_{i,j} = \langle \beta_i, e_j \rangle$ and $Y_{nj} = \langle Y_n, e_j \rangle,$ we have that the above can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{j=1}^J ( Y_{nj} - X_n^\top B_{*j})^2 + \sum_{i=1}^I \|B_{i*}\| \\
& = \frac{1}{2}\| Y - {{\bf A}}_{\mathsf{F}} \operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\top) \| ^2 + \sum_{i=1}^I \|B_{i*}\|,\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf A}}_\mathsf{F} = {{\bf X}}\otimes {{\bf I}}_{J \times J}.$ For large values of $J$, this can quickly become a substantial computational burden. However, one can use a data driven basis, such as FPCA, so that $J$ can be taken relatively small. However, we stress that dimension reduction is not our intent, and thus we can choose the number of FPCs to explain nearly all of the variability of the processes. Using such an approach, it is common to move from 200 B-spline basis functions down to 5-10 functional principal components, with nearly no information loss. This phrasing now allows us to use the same group LASSO computational tools as in the sparse setting. However, it is now possible (even in sparse data settings) that $J$ is less than the number observed time points, resulting in ${{\bf A}}_{\mathsf{F}}$ being smaller than ${{\bf A}}$ and with a far simpler form.
Since $I$, the number of groups (SNPs), will generally be extremely large, we implement a screening rule that allows us to substantially reduce the potential number of groups (SNPs) we consider when we minimize $L(\cdot)$ or $L_{\mathsf{F}}(\cdot)$ for some fixed $\lambda$. Using @wang2012lasso [Theorem 4], we do the following:
- (In parallel.) For each SNP $i$, define $A_i\in {{\mathbb R}}^{\sum_n M_n\times J}$ when using the sparse algorithm with entries $$(A_i)_{nm,j} = X_{ni}e_j(t_{nm})\;.$$ For the dense algorithm define $A_i\in {{\mathbb R}}^{N J \times J}$ as $
A_i = X^{(i)} \otimes {{\bf I}}_{J\times J}
$, and compute $${\left\lVert{A_i^\top Y}\right\rVert}_2\text{ and }{\left\lVert{A_i}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}\;.$$
- Find any $\lambda_0\geq \max_i {\left\lVert{A_i^\top Y}\right\rVert}_2$. At penalty parameter $\lambda_0$, the group LASSO solution will be $\widehat{B}_{\lambda_0}=0$.
- For any $\lambda<\lambda_0$, according to [@wang2012lasso], $$\frac{1}{\lambda_0}{\left\lVert{A_i^\top Y}\right\rVert}_2 +\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}-\frac{1}{\lambda_0}\right){\left\lVert{A_i}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}{\left\lVert{Y}\right\rVert}_2<1 \quad \Longrightarrow \quad (\widehat{B}_{\lambda})_{i*}=0\;.$$
Therefore, if our aim is to apply a convex optimizer to solve the group LASSO problem with at most $s$ SNPs, then after finding $\lambda_0=\max_i {\left\lVert{A_i^\top Y}\right\rVert}_2$ we can choose any $\lambda$ sufficiently large so that no more than $s$ SNPs violate the inequality above. SNPs which do violate the above are then dropped since they will not enter the solution path. This allows us to make a substantial reduction in the number of predictors. In our simulations and application we could handle on the order of 10000 SNPs jointly when fitting the FS-LASSO using the ADMM procedure, with the sparse tools requiring around 30gb of RAM, and the smooth requiring around 4gb. By using this screening rule, we can reduce millions of predictors to tens of thousands, and then do a final fit using any number of convex optimization routines. Finally, we mention the choice of the smoothing parameter $\lambda$. In our simulations we utilize the BIC, though we include several other options in the application section. We calculate the BIC as $$\log(\hat \sigma^2) \sum M_n + J I_{active} \log(N) \qquad \text{or} \qquad
\log(\hat \sigma^2) N M_{pc} + M_{pc} I_{active} \log(N),$$ for the sparse and dense methods respectively. Here $I_{active}$ is the number of predictors in the current model. The error $\hat \sigma^2$ is calculated as $$\frac{1}{\sum M_n} \sum_n \sum_m (Y_n(t_{nm}) - \hat Y_n(t_{nm}))^2
\qquad \text{or} \qquad
\frac{1}{N M_{pc}} \sum_n \sum_j (Y_{nj} - \hat Y_{nj})^2,$$ for the sparse and dense methods respectively. The predicted values are computed by recomputing the corresponding least squares estimates, to eliminate the effect of the bias. Given the dependence in the data, the BIC is an adequate, though not optimal choice. Further work is needed on tuning parameter selection for functional models, but we leave this for future research. Fitting the model for a grid of values for $\lambda$ can be done relatively quickly by utilizing a warm start, i.e. using the previous solution for a particular $\lambda$ value as the starting point for finding the next solution.
Simulations {#s:sims}
===========
In this section we present a simulation study to compare the performance of the discussed methods. The predictors, $X_{ni}$, are generated from a normally distribution with $\operatorname{Cov}(X_{ni},X_{n'j}) = 1_{n = n'} \rho^{|i - j|}$, which is an autoregressive covariance with the rate of decay controlled by $\rho$ (with independence across subjects, i.e. $X_{n*}$ and $X_{n'*}$ are independent for $n\neq n'$). We take $I=1000$ and $I_0=10$. The nonzero functions $\{\beta_i(t): t\in [0,1]\}$ are randomly generated from the Matérn process with parameters $(0,I_0^{-1},1/4,0,5/2)$ and the errors $\{{\varepsilon}_{n}(t) :t\in [0,1]\}$ are generated in the same way but with parameters $(0,1,1/4,0,3/2)$, which results in errors that are less smooth than the parameter functions. Each subject is observed at 10 uniformly distributed locations which differ by curve. We consider $N = 50, 100, 200$ and $\rho =0.5$ and $0.75$, and use 1000 repetitions of each scenario. For the functional method, FPCA is carried out using the PACE package in Matlab. For the sparse method we use cubic Bsplines with $J = 30$.
To compare the methods without having to worry about tuning parameter selection, we examine smoothed ROC curves which give the proportion of true positives found as a function of the false positives. The curves for all scenarios are given in Figure \[f:roc\].
![ROC curves comparing the smooth and sparse methods. \[f:roc\]](rho50.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ROC curves comparing the smooth and sparse methods. \[f:roc\]](rho75.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Prediction error and computation times for smooth and sparse methods. The top row is the MSE and computation time for the BIC, while the first panel on the second row is the MSE for AIC, and the second panel on the second row is the MSE for cross-validation. \[f:error\_time\]](BIC_error.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction error and computation times for smooth and sparse methods. The top row is the MSE and computation time for the BIC, while the first panel on the second row is the MSE for AIC, and the second panel on the second row is the MSE for cross-validation. \[f:error\_time\]](time.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction error and computation times for smooth and sparse methods. The top row is the MSE and computation time for the BIC, while the first panel on the second row is the MSE for AIC, and the second panel on the second row is the MSE for cross-validation. \[f:error\_time\]](AIC_error.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![Prediction error and computation times for smooth and sparse methods. The top row is the MSE and computation time for the BIC, while the first panel on the second row is the MSE for AIC, and the second panel on the second row is the MSE for cross-validation. \[f:error\_time\]](CV_error.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![ROC curves for scalar LASSO with (TC LASSO) and without (LASSO) a nonparametric estimate of the mean. \[f:reg\]](LASSO_05.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"} ![ROC curves for scalar LASSO with (TC LASSO) and without (LASSO) a nonparametric estimate of the mean. \[f:reg\]](LASSO_075.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}
![Mean squared prediction error for sparse FS-LASSO with differing numbers of basis functions. \[f:basis\]](basis_error.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
Lastly, we mention computation time and memory. Methods which scale well are critical for applications such as genetic association studies. There, one needs to work with millions of predictors and both computation time and memory become major issues. On a desktop computer, the sparse method presented here can be applied with predictors of the order of 10,000 or so, but not much higher. The smoothing method, which allows for the inclusion of an FPCA, can be applied with predictors of the order of 20,000. On clusters these numbers can be increased depending on the available memory. In Figure \[f:error\_time\] we plot average computation times for the two methods when taking $I = 10000$, but keeping everything else the same. We see that the smooth method has a substantial edge in computation time, resulting in shorter times which also scale better with sample size.
Framingham Heart Study {#s:FHS}
======================
![Left Panel: Systolic blood pressure as a function of age from the FHS. The red line is a local linear smoother estimating the mean. Right Panel: Plot of estimated effect for SNP rs10439990 using the ‘smooth’ algorithm (blue) and the ‘sparse’ algorithm (red). \[f:sbp\]](sBP.pdf "fig:"){width="48.00000%"} ![Left Panel: Systolic blood pressure as a function of age from the FHS. The red line is a local linear smoother estimating the mean. Right Panel: Plot of estimated effect for SNP rs10439990 using the ‘smooth’ algorithm (blue) and the ‘sparse’ algorithm (red). \[f:sbp\]](rs10439990_both "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
The Framingham Heart Study, FHS, is a long term longitudinal study with the goal of better understanding the risk factors for heart disease. Genome–wide SNP data and phenotype information were downloaded from dbGaP (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap) study accession phs000007.v25.p9. The study consists of three cohorts of subjects with the first cohort recruited in 1958. FHS has had a tremendous impact on our understanding of health and risk factors for heard disease. Since a full account would take far too much space, we refer the interested reader to [@o2008cardiovascular; @mahmood:2014; @chen:2016] for details on different findings and impacts due to FHS. Here we examine the second cohort which consists of 1924 subjects. Each subject contributed up to 7 clinical exams over 29 years, though some subjects passed away during the study and contributed less. The subjects were genotyped using the Illumina Omni 5M platform resulting in approximately 4.3 million SNPs genotyped. Our goal here is to find a subset of SNPs impacting systolic blood pressure, a primary risk factor for heart disease. As an illustration, in Figure \[f:sbp\] we plot all of the blood pressure measurements versus age and include a local linear smoother. We see that (as is well known) blood pressure increase monotonically, though nonlinearly, with age. When applying our procedures, we first remove the effects of gender, height, and HDL cholesterol levels nonparametrically using a local linear smoother.
Due to the size of the data, we cannot apply the methods to the entire set jointly. We thus first use our method to screen the number of predictors down to a computationally manageable size. One could take the top performers from marginal regression, but instead we use our procedure to rank the SNPs according to when they enter the model (as one varies the tuning parameter), and take the top ones. First, we divide up the genome into segments of 10K SNPs for the sparse methods and 20K for the smooth. Using our algorithm, we rank the SNPs in each segment according to the order in which they enter the model (as one decreases the tuning parameter). We take the top ranking SNPS so that, when pooled, we have screened down to approximately 10K SNPs for the sparse and 20K for the smooth. A final application of our methods are applied to these SNPs with the smoothing parameter chosen in four different ways: AIC, BIC, extended BIC with parameter $0.2$, and 2-fold cross-validation. The top SNPs for each method are presented in Table \[t:SNPs\_sparse\_and\_smooth\]. As we can see, the smoothing method has found substantially more significant SNPs than the sparse. However, there were 4 candidates which appeared in both lists.
As a final form of validation, we examined the different association results found in the literature for our selected SNPs. This was accomplished using GWAS Central, <http://www.gwascentral.org/index>, which provides a searchable database of GWAS results. There were at least a few results that validate some of our findings. In particular, SNP rs10439990 is located the gene ZBTB20, which has been associated with Triglyceride levels [@kathiresan:2007], a common risk factor for heart disease. SNP kgp29965466 is located on the gene ATRNL1, which is associated with several negative health outcomes and indicators including nicotine dependence [@bierut:2007]. SNP rs10497371 is on gene MYO3B, which has been associated with Diabetes [@scott:2007]. Lastly SNP rs7692492 is on gene FAM190A, which has been associated with coronary heart disease [@samani:2007; @larson:2007].
[l@|M|M|M|M||l@|M|M|M|M]{} &\
Chromosome, Name & AIC& BIC & EBIC & CV & Chromosome, Name & AIC& BIC & EBIC & CV\
2, rs3845756 & & & & & 1, kgp5933154 & & & &\
2, rs6414023& & & & & 1, rs17107710 & & & &\
2, rs10497371 & & & & & 2, kgp5982336 & & & &\
3, & & & & &3, kgp26868438 & & & &\
4, rs7692492 & & & & & 3, & & & &\
5, & & & & & 3, kgp11928513 & & &\
7, & & & & & 5, & & & &\
7, & & & & & 7, & & &\
8, kgp8137960 & & & & & 7, & & & &\
9, rs1702645 & & & & & 10, kgp29965466 & & & &\
12, rs978561& & & & & 11, kgp10123049 & & &\
13, rs1924783 & & & & &12, kgp6953877 & & & &\
15, kgp6228266 & & & & & 12, rs10859106 & & & &\
Conclusion {#s:conc}
==========
We have provided powerful new tools for analyzing functional or longitudinal data with a large number of predictors. In the sparse case we provided new theory in the form of a restricted eigenvalue condition and accompanying asymptotic theory. While phrased as a functional data method, the sparse case is closely related to varying coefficient models, and thus this work can be viewed as an extension of the work in [@wei:huang:li:2011]. In the dense case, we provide a completely new methodology and accompanying asymptotic theory which allows the response functions to take values from any separable Hilbert space. Such generality means the methods can be applied to a variety of settings including traditional functional outcomes, functional panels, spatial processes, and image data such as fMRI. We also provide accompanying computer code which takes advantage of the structure of group LASSO so that our methods can be applied efficiently.
Our simulations suggest that the choice between sparse and smooth tool sets is not straightforward. The simulations were done in a traditionally sparse setting, but the two methods were nearly equivalent in terms of variable selection and the functional method required far fewer computational resources. However, estimation accuracy was better for the sparse methods. This opens the door to future work which could involve multistage methods where selection is done via smooth methods and estimation via sparse methods.
While our methods perform well, they also highlight the need for better tuning parameter selection methods. Methods such as BIC and cross-validation can be applied in this setting with good results, but such methods are not tailored to the dependence inherent in functional data, and we hope to investigate possible adaptations to these selection criteria for the functional setting in future work.
shorttitle[Testing]{}
Binomial Simulations {#a:binom}
====================
![MSE curves comparing the smooth and sparse methods with $Binom(2,1/2)$ predictors. Tuning parameter is selected with cross-validation. \[f:mse\_b\]](binom_error.pdf){width=".49\textwidth"}
Proofs for Section \[s:sparse\]
===============================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_sparse\] {#a:proof_sparse}
-------------------------------------
Our analysis for this Theorem closely follows standard techniques for sparse and group sparse regression under restriced eigenvalue conditions, such as the work by @lounici2011oracle and @bickel2009simultaneous.
Recall that $\widehat{{{\bf B}}}$ is a minimizer of $$L({{\bf B}}) = \frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\top)\|_2^2 + \lambda \| {{\bf B}}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\;.$$ Then in particular, we must have $L(\widehat{{{\bf B}}})\leq L({{\bf B}}^\star)$, that is, $$\frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\widehat{{\bf B}}^\top)\|_2^2 + \lambda \| \widehat{{\bf B}}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}
\leq \frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\|_2^2 + \lambda \| {{\bf B}}^\star\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\;.$$ After rearranging some terms, $$\frac{1}{2}\|{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\widehat{{\bf B}}^\top-{{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\|_2^2 \leq \left\langle Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top),{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\widehat{{\bf B}}^\top-{{\bf B}}^\star)\right\rangle + \lambda \left(\| {{\bf B}}^\star\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}-\| \widehat{{\bf B}}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} \right)\;.$$ Let $S_0\subset[I]$ indicate the row support of ${{\bf B}}^\star$, with $|S|\leq I_0$. Write $\Delta=\widehat{{\bf B}}-{{\bf B}}^\star$. Then standard arguments show that $$\| {{\bf B}}^\star\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}-\| \widehat{{\bf B}}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} \leq \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} - \|\Delta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} \;.$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top),{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\widehat{{\bf B}}^\top-{{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right\rangle
&=\left\langle {{\bf A}}^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right), \operatorname{vec}(\Delta^\top)\right\rangle \\
&=\sum_i \left\langle {{\bf A}}_i^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right), \Delta_{i,*}\right\rangle\\
&\leq \sum_i \left( \left\| {{\bf A}}_i^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\right\|_2\cdot \|\Delta_{i,*}\|_2\right)\\
&\leq \max_i \left\| {{\bf A}}_i^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\right\|_2\cdot \|\Delta\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\bf A}}_i$ is the matrix with entries $({{\bf A}}_i)_{nm,j} = {{\bf A}}_{nm,ij}=X_{ni}\cdot e_j(t_{nm})$.
Consider the event $\lambda \geq 2 \max_i \left\| {{\bf A}}_i^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\right\|_2$. On this event, we would then have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}\|{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\Delta^\top)\|^2
& \leq {\left\lVert{\Delta}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot\max_i \left\| {{\bf A}}_i^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\right\|_2 + \lambda \left(\|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} - \|\Delta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} \right)\\ &\leq \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot 1.5\lambda - \|\Delta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot 0.5\lambda \;.\end{aligned}$$ Since the left-hand side is nonnegative, therefore, $ \|\Delta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq 3 \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}$. Applying the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{group}}(I_0,\alpha)$ condition, then, $$\|{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\Delta^\top)\|^2\geq N\alpha{\left\lVert{\Delta}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}\;.$$ Combining everything, $$\frac{1}{2}N\alpha{\left\lVert{\Delta}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}\leq \frac{1}{2}\|{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}(\Delta^\top)\|^2
\leq \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot 1.5\lambda - \|\Delta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot 0.5\lambda \leq \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot 1.5\lambda \;.$$ For the Frobenius norm result, we further write $$\|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\cdot 1.5\lambda \leq \sqrt{|S_0|}\cdot \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\mathsf{F}}\cdot 1.5\lambda \leq \sqrt{|S_0|}\cdot \|\Delta\|_{\mathsf{F}}\cdot 1.5\lambda$$ and so $$\|\Delta\|_{\mathsf{F}}\leq \sqrt{|S_0|}\cdot 1.5\lambda\cdot \frac{2}{N\alpha}$$ while for the $\ell_1/\ell_2$-norm result we have $$\|\Delta\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} = \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} + \|\Delta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq 4 \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/\ell_2} \leq 4\sqrt{|S_0|} \|\Delta_{S_0}\|_{\mathsf{F}}\leq 4\sqrt{|S_0|}\|\Delta\|_{\mathsf{F}}\;.$$ This proves the theorem, as long as we can show that with high probability, $$\lambda \geq 2 \max_i \left\| {{\bf A}}_i^\top\left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\right\|_2\;.$$ To prove this, take any $i\in[I]$. Then $$\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top \left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\|_2
=\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top \left(T + \mathbf{\epsilon}\right)\|_2 \leq \|{{\bf A}}_i^\top T\|_2 + \|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|_2\;,$$ where $T$ is the truncation error defined earlier while $\mathbf\epsilon$ has entries $\mathbf{\epsilon}_{nm}=\epsilon_n(t_{nm})$. Now we bound the two pieces separately. First, we bound the operator norm of ${{\bf A}}_i$. By definition, $({{\bf A}}_i)_{nm,j}=X_{ni}\cdot e_j(t_{nm})$ and so we have $${{\bf A}}_i^\top{{\bf A}}_i = \sum_n X_{ni}^2 {{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf E}}_n \preceq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}_{\infty}^2 \sum_n {{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf E}}_n = {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}_{\infty}^2 \cdot N \cdot {{\bf F}}\;,$$ proving that $\|{{\bf A}}_i\|_{\mathsf{op}}\leq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}_{\infty}\cdot\sqrt{N\|{{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}}}$. Then $$\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top T\|_2 \leq \|{{\bf A}}_i\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot \|T\|_2\leq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}_{\infty}\cdot\sqrt{N\|{{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}}}\cdot \|T\|_2\;.$$ Next, to bound $ \|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|_2$, observe that ${{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\sim N(0,{{\bf A}}_i^\top\Sigma{{\bf A}}_i)$, where where $\Sigma$ is a block-diagonal matrix with blocks given by $\Sigma_1,\dots,\Sigma_N$. Then, applying [@hsu2011tail Proposition 1.1], $$\mathbb{P}\left\{\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|^2_2>\operatorname{trace}({{\bf A}}_i^\top \Sigma{{\bf A}}_i) + 2\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}(({{\bf A}}_i^\top \Sigma{{\bf A}}_i)^2)\cdot t} + 2\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top \Sigma{{\bf A}}_i\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot t\right\}\leq e^{-t}$$ for any $t\geq 0$. Since $\operatorname{trace}(M)\leq J\|M\|_{\mathsf{op}}$ for any $J\times J$ matrix, and using the simple identity $2\sqrt{Jt}\leq J+t$, we simplify this to the weaker statement $$\mathbb{P}\left\{\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|^2_2>\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top \Sigma{{\bf A}}_i\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot (2J+3t)\right\}\leq e^{-t}$$ We calculate $$\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top \Sigma {{\bf A}}_i\|_{\mathsf{op}}\leq \|{{\bf A}}_i\|_{\mathsf{op}}^2 \cdot\|\Sigma\|_{\mathsf{op}} \leq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}^2_{\infty}\cdot N\|{{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot \max_n \|\Sigma_n\|_{\mathsf{op}}\;.$$ Combining everything, and setting $t=\log(I/\delta)$, for each $I$ we have $$\mathbb{P}\left\{\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|^2_2> {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}^2_{\infty}\cdot N\|{{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot \max_n \|\Sigma_n\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot (2J + 3\log(I/\delta))\right\}\leq \frac{\delta}{I}\;.$$ Therefore, with probability at least $1-\delta$, for all $i=1,\dots, I$, $$\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|^2_2\leq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}^2_{\infty}\cdot N\|{{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot \max_n \|\Sigma_n\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot(2J+3\log(I/\delta))$$ and so for all $i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|{{\bf A}}_i^\top \left(Y - {{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf B}}^\star{}^\top)\right)\|_2
&\leq \|{{\bf A}}_i^\top T\|_2 + \|{{\bf A}}_i^\top\mathbf{\epsilon}\|_2\\
&\leq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}_{\infty} \sqrt{N\|{{\bf F}}\|_{\mathsf{op}}}\cdot\left(\|T\|_2+\sqrt{\max_n \|\Sigma_n\|_{\mathsf{op}}\cdot(2J+3\log(I/\delta))}\right)\\& \leq \lambda/2 \;,\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Proof of Theorem \[t:RE\_gaussian\]
-----------------------------------
We use the Transfer Principle of @oliveira2013lower [Lemma 5.1], which connects sparse eigenvalues of ${{\bf A}}$ to a restricted eigenvalue property for ${{\bf A}}$. This result is stated for sparsity but can be straightforwardly extended to group-sparsity. We restate the group-sparse form here as a Lemma without proof.
\[lem:oliviera\] Suppose ${{\bf A}}$ satisfies that, for any $k_1$-row-sparse ${{\bf W}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{I\times J}$, $$\label{eqn:oliviera_assump}{\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf W}}^\top) }\right\rVert}^2_2\geq \lambda_0{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}\;.$$ Then for all $W\in{{\mathbb R}}^{I\times J}$, $${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf W}}^\top) }\right\rVert}^2_2 \geq\lambda_0{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}} - \frac{\max_i{\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}_i}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{op}}^2\cdot {\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}^2}{k_1-1}\;.$$
To apply this result to our work, we need to first find a $\lambda_0$ such that is satisfied (with high probability), and then we need to compute a bound (holding with high probability) on each ${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}_i}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{op}}$.
#### Step 1: finding $\lambda_0$ for condition
We first give another lemma, proved below:
\[lem:RIP\] Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem \[t:RE\_gaussian\] hold, and take any fixed sequence $\{{{\bf E}}_n\}$ satisfying . Choose any $\delta>0$ and any $k_1\geq 1$. Then there are constants $a_1,a_2>0$ depending only on $\nu,\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma),\gamma_0,\gamma_1$, such that if $$\label{eqn:N_RIP}N \geq a_1 (k_1 J+k_1\log(I)+\log(1/\delta)),$$ then with probability at least $1-\delta/2$, for all $k_1$-row-sparse ${{\bf W}}$, $$\frac{\sum_n{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}} \geq a_2\;.$$
To apply these results to our work, first note that by Lemma \[lem:RIP\], if $N$ satisfies , then with probability at least $1-\delta/2$, for all $k_1$-sparse ${{\bf W}}$ (where we specify $k_1$ later), $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert{A\cdot\mathsf{vec}({{\bf W}})}\right\rVert}^2_2 = \sum_n{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}^2_2 & \geq \frac{1}{N}\left(\sum_n{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2\right)^2 \\
& \geq N \operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})\cdot (a_2)^2\;.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the assumption in Lemma \[lem:oliviera\] holds with $\lambda_0 = N (a_2)^2\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma)$.
#### Step 2: bounding ${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}_i}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{op}}$
Next we bound $\max_i{\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}_i}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{op}}$. From the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\_sparse\], we know that ${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}_i}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{op}}\leq {\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}^2_{\infty}\cdot N{\left\lVert{{{\bf F}}}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{op}}$, where ${{\bf F}}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_n {{\bf E}}_n^\top{{\bf E}}_n$. By , we see that ${\left\lVert{{{\bf F}}}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{op}}\leq \gamma_1^2$. Furthermore, $X_{ij}$ is mean zero and $\nu$-subgaussian, and so, by standard subgaussian tail bounds, with probability at least $1-\delta/2$, $${\left\lVert{X}\right\rVert}_{\infty}=\max_{ni}|X_{ni}|\leq \nu\sqrt{2\log(4IJ/\delta)}\;.$$
#### Step 3: applying Lemma \[lem:oliviera\]
Combining the results from Step 1 and Step 2, and applying Lemma \[lem:oliviera\], we see that with probability at least $1-\delta$, for all ${{\bf W}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{I\times J}$, $${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf W}}^\top) }\right\rVert}^2_2 \geq N\left[(a_1)^2\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma)\cdot {\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}} - \frac{2\nu^2\log(4IJ/\delta)\cdot \gamma_1^2\cdot {\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}^2}{k_1-1}\right]\;.$$ For any ${{\bf W}}$ with ${\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_{S^c}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq 3{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}$ (where $|S|\leq k$), we then have $${\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2} \leq 4{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq 4\sqrt{k}{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_S}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}\leq 4\sqrt{k}{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}\;,$$ and so the result above gives $${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf W}}^\top) }\right\rVert}^2_2 \geq N{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}\left[(a_2)^2\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma) - \frac{2\nu^2\log(4IJ/\delta)\cdot \gamma_1^2\cdot 16k}{k_1-1}\right]\;.$$ Taking $$k_1 \geq 1 + \frac{2\nu^2\log(4IJ/\delta)\cdot \gamma_1^2\cdot 16k}{0.5(a_2)^2\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma)}\;,$$ we obtain $${\left\lVert{{{\bf A}}\operatorname{vec}({{\bf W}}^\top) }\right\rVert}^2_2 \geq N{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}\cdot 0.5(a_2)^2\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma)$$ for all ${{\bf W}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{I\times J}$ with ${\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_{S^c}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}\leq 3{\left\lVert{{{\bf W}}_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\ell_2}$ for any $|S|\leq k$, as desired. The sample size requirement in Theorem \[t:RE\_gaussian\] ensures that the sample size assumption in Lemma \[lem:RIP\] will hold for the specified choice of $k_1$.
### Proof of Lemma \[lem:RIP\]
For the proof of this lemma, we’ll need several supporting lemmas, proved below. The first lemma shows that $\sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2$ satisfies upper and lower bounds with high probability for any fixed [*single*]{} matrix ${{\bf W}}$.
\[lem:Wfixed\_highprob\] For any fixed ${{\bf W}}$, $$\mathbb{P}\left\{c_1 \leq \frac{\sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}}\leq c_2\right\} \geq 1 - 2e^{-c_3N}\;,$$ where $c_1,c_2,c_3>0$ depend only on $\nu,\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma),\gamma_0,\gamma_1$.
The next lemma shows that proving a lower bound on $\sum_n{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2$ over all row-sparse ${{\bf W}}$ can be reduced to proving a lower bound on a finite covering set. This result is a simple extension of @baraniuk2008simple [Lemma 5.1], from the sparse setting to the group-sparse setting, and so we do not give the proof here.
\[lem:covering\] Let $$\mathcal{W} = \left\{{{\bf W}}\in{{\mathbb R}}^{I\times J}:\text{ ${{\bf W}}$ is $k_1$-row-sparse}, \ \operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})=1\right\}\;.$$ Let $f({{\bf W}})$ be any seminorm (that is, $f(c\cdot {{\bf W}})=|c|\cdot f({{\bf W}})$ and $f({{\bf W}}_1+{{\bf W}}_2)\leq f({{\bf W}}_1)+f({{\bf W}}_2)$). Choose any $\epsilon\in(0,1/2)$. Then there exists $\mathcal{W}'\subset \mathcal{W}$ with $|\mathcal{W}'|\leq I^{k_1}(3/\epsilon)^{k_1J}$ such that $$\inf_{{{\bf W}}\in\mathcal{W}}f({{\bf W}})\geq \inf_{{{\bf W}}\in\mathcal{W}'}f({{\bf W}}) - \frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon}\sup_{{{\bf W}}\in\mathcal{W}'}f({{\bf W}})\;.$$
By Lemma \[lem:Wfixed\_highprob\], for any fixed ${{\bf W}}$, with probability at least $1-2e^{-c_3N}$, $$c_1 \leq \frac{\sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}}\leq c_2$$ where $c_1,c_2,c_3>0$ depend only on $\nu,\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma),\gamma_0,\gamma_1$. Now choose $\epsilon =\frac{c_1}{4c_2}$. In the notation of Lemma \[lem:covering\], let $f({{\bf W}})=\sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2$, and take $\mathcal{W}'$ as in the lemma. Since $|\mathcal{W}'|\leq I^{k_1}(3/\epsilon)^{k_1J}$, the above bound is true for all ${{\bf W}}\in\mathcal{W}'$ with probability at least $$1-2e^{-c_3N + \log( I^{k_1}(3/\epsilon)^{k_1J})}\geq 1-\delta/2,$$ by our lower bound $N\geq a_1 (k_1 J+k_1\log(I)+\log(1/\delta))$ as long as the constant $a_1$ is chosen appropriately. Next, applying Lemma \[lem:covering\], for all ${{\bf W}}\in\mathcal{W}$, $$\frac{ \sum_n{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}}\geq c_1 - \frac{\epsilon}{1-\epsilon}\cdot c_2 \geq \frac{c_1}{2}.$$ After defining $a_2=c_1/2$, this proves the lemma.
### Proof of Lemma \[lem:Wfixed\_highprob\]
We begin by stating a supporting lemma.
\[lem:subgaussian\_norm\_sum\] Let $B_1\in\mathbb{R}^{M_1\times d},\dots,B_N\in\mathbb{R}^{M_N\times d}$ be fixed matrices with $$\sum_{n=1}^N {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}} \geq c_1 N$$ and $$\sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}} \leq c_2 \sqrt{N}$$ for some $c_1,c_2>0$. Let $X_1,\dots,X_N\in\mathbb{R}^d$ be iid random vectors with ${\mathbb{E}\left[{X_n}\right]}=0$ and ${\mathbb{E}\left[{X_nX_n^\top}\right]}=\mathbb{I}_d$, which are $\sigma$-subgaussian, meaning that ${\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{v^\top X_n}}\right]}\leq e^{\sigma^2{\left\lVert{v}\right\rVert}^2_2/2}$ for all fixed $v\in\mathbb{R}^d$. Then $${\mathbb{P}\left\{{c_3 N \leq \sum_{n=1}^N {\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}_2 \leq c_4 N}\right\}}\geq 1 - 2e^{-c_5N},$$ where $c_3,c_4,c_5>0$ depend only on $c_1,c_2,\sigma$.
First we calculate $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_n {{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma^{1/2}}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}^2}
= \sum_n {\operatorname{trace}({{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma {{\bf W}}{{\bf E}}_n)}\\
= {\operatorname{trace}(\Sigma^{1/2}{{\bf W}}(\sum_n {{\bf E}}_n{{\bf E}}_n^\top){{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma^{1/2})}
\leq {\operatorname{trace}(\Sigma^{1/2}{{\bf W}}{{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma^{1/2})}\cdot N{\left\lVert{\frac{1}{N}\sum_n {{\bf E}}_n{{\bf E}}_n^\top}\right\rVert}\\
= {\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}\cdot N{\left\lVert{\frac{1}{N}\sum_n {{\bf E}}_n{{\bf E}}_n^\top}\right\rVert}
\leq \gamma_1 N {\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}\;.\end{gathered}$$ And, $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_n{\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma^{1/2}}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}
=\sum_n \sqrt{\sum_i {\left\lVert{(\Sigma^{1/2}{{\bf W}})_{i,*}{{\bf E}}_n}\right\rVert}^2_2}
\geq\sum_n \sum_i \frac{{\left\lVert{(\Sigma^{1/2}{{\bf W}})_{i,*}}\right\rVert}_2}{\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}}{\left\lVert{(\Sigma^{1/2}{{\bf W}})_{i,*}{{\bf E}}_n}\right\rVert}_2\\
\geq \gamma_0 N\sum_i \frac{{\left\lVert{(\Sigma^{1/2}{{\bf W}})_{i,*}}\right\rVert}^2_2}{\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}}
=\gamma_0 N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top\Sigma {{\bf W}})}\;.\end{gathered}$$
Now, writing $\widetilde{X}_n = \Sigma^{-1/2}X_n$ and defining $$B_n = \frac{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top}{\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma {{\bf W}})}},$$ we see that the $\widetilde{X}_n$’s are iid with mean zero, identity covariance, and are $\nu/\sqrt{\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma)}$-subgaussian. And, ${\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top {X}_n}\right\rVert}_2 = \sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma {{\bf W}})}\cdot {\left\lVert{B_n \Sigma^{1/2}\widetilde{X}_n}\right\rVert}_2$. Applying Lemma \[lem:subgaussian\_norm\_sum\], then, for some constants $c_1,c_2,c_3$ depending only on $\nu,\lambda_{\min}(\Sigma),\gamma_0,\gamma_1$, $$\mathbb{P}\left\{ c_1N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma {{\bf W}})}\leq \sum_n {\left\lVert{{{\bf E}}_n^\top {{\bf W}}^\top {X}_n}\right\rVert}_2\leq c_2N\sqrt{\operatorname{trace}({{\bf W}}^\top \Sigma {{\bf W}})}\right\}\geq 1 - 2e^{-c_3N}.$$
### Proof of Lemma \[lem:subgaussian\_norm\_sum\]
Before we prove Lemma \[lem:subgaussian\_norm\_sum\], we first state two additional supporting lemmas, proved below:
\[lem:proportion\_interval\] Let $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$ be a vector with $ {\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_1\geq c_1N$, ${\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_2\leq c_2\sqrt{N}$. Then $$\left|\left\{n: |x_n|\geq \frac{c_1}{2}\right\}\right| \geq \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2} N.$$
\[lem:nonneg\_subg\] Suppose $Z_1,\dots,Z_N$ are independent non-negative random variables with ${\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^2}\right]}\geq a_1$ and ${\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{(Z_n)^2}}\right]}\leq a_2$ for all $n=1,\dots,N$, where $a_1,a_2>0$. Then $${\mathbb{P}\left\{{ \sum_n Z_n < a_3 N}\right\}}\leq e^{-a_4 N}\text{\quad and \quad}
{\mathbb{P}\left\{{\sum_n (Z_n)^2> a_5 N}\right\}}\leq e^{-a_6 N}$$ where $a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6>0$ are constants depending only on $a_1,a_2$.
Now we prove Lemma \[lem:subgaussian\_norm\_sum\].
For each $n$, define $Z_n = \frac{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{2\sigma {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}}$. We have $${\mathbb{E}\left[{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}^2_2}\right]} = {\mathbb{E}\left[{X_n^\top B_n^\top B_n X_n}\right]} = {\mathbb{E}\left[{\operatorname{trace}(B_n^\top B_n X_n X_n^\top)}\right]} = \operatorname{trace}(B_n^\top B_n) = {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}},$$ and so ${\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^2}\right]} = \frac{1}{4\sigma^2}=: a_1$. Next, it is known from @hsu2011tail [Remark 2.3] that $${\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{\eta{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}^2_2} }\right]}\leq \sigma^2\operatorname{trace}(B_n^\top B_n) \eta + \frac{\sigma^4\operatorname{trace}((B_n^\top B_n)^2)\eta^2}{1 - 2\sigma^2{\left\lVert{B_n^\top B_n}\right\rVert}\eta}$$ for all $0\leq \eta < \frac{1}{2\sigma^2{\left\lVert{B_n^\top B_n}\right\rVert}}$. Using basic facts about matrix norms we have ${\left\lVert{B_n^\top B_n}\right\rVert}={\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2 \leq {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}$ and $\operatorname{trace}(B_n^\top B_n) = {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}$ and $\operatorname{trace}((B_n^\top B_n)^2) = {\left\lVert{(B_n^\top B_n)^2}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}} \leq {\left\lVert{B_n^\top B_n}\right\rVert}^4_{\mathsf{F}}$. Setting $\eta = \frac{1}{4\sigma^2{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}}$ we obtain $${\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{(Z_n)^2}}\right]} = {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}^2_2/(4\sigma^2{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}})}}\right]} \leq e^{3/8}=: a_2.$$ Applying Lemma \[lem:nonneg\_subg\] to $\{Z_n:n=1,\dots,n\}$, we see that for constants $a_5,a_6>0$ depending only on $a_1,a_2$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{{ \sum_n \frac{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}^2_2}{4\sigma^2 {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}} \leq a_5 N}\right\}}\geq 1 - e^{-a_6 N}.$$
Furthermore, setting $\mathcal{I} = \{n : {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}} \geq c_1/2\}$, by applying Lemma \[lem:proportion\_interval\] to the vector $({\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}})_{n=1,\dots,N}$, we see that $\left|\mathcal{I}\right| \geq \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2} N$. Applying Lemma \[lem:nonneg\_subg\] to $\{Z_n:n\in\mathcal{I}\}$ we see that for constants $a_3,a_4>0$ depending only on $a_1,a_2$, $${\mathbb{P}\left\{{ \sum_{n\in\mathcal{I}} \frac{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{2\sigma {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}} \geq a_3 |\mathcal{I}|}\right\}}\geq 1 - e^{-a_4 |\mathcal{I}|}\geq 1 - e^{-a_4 \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2} N}.$$
Next, assume these events hold. We have $$\sum_n {\left\lVert{B_nX_n}\right\rVert}_2
=\sum_n \frac{{\left\lVert{B_nX_n}\right\rVert}_2}{{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}} \cdot {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}\\
\leq \sqrt{\sum_n \frac{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}^2_2}{{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}}}\cdot\sqrt{\sum_n {\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}^2_{\mathsf{F}}}\\
\leq 2\sigma \sqrt{a_5 N}\cdot c_2\sqrt{N}.$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_n {\left\lVert{B_nX_n}\right\rVert}_2
\geq \sum_{n\in\mathcal{I}} {\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}_2
= \sum_{n\in\mathcal{I}} 2\sigma{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}} \cdot\frac{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{2\sigma{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}}\\
\geq c_1 \cdot \sum_{n\in\mathcal{I}} \frac{{\left\lVert{B_n X_n}\right\rVert}_2}{2\sigma{\left\lVert{B_n}\right\rVert}_{\mathsf{F}}}
\geq c_1 \cdot a_3|\mathcal{I}|
\geq c_1 \cdot a_3\cdot \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2} N\;.\end{gathered}$$
Setting $$c_3 = c_1 \cdot a_3\cdot \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2}, \ c_4 =2\sigma c_2\sqrt{a_5} , \ c_5 = \min\left\{ a_6, a_4 \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2} \right\},$$ we have proved the lemma.
Finally, we prove the two supporting results, Lemmas \[lem:proportion\_interval\] and \[lem:nonneg\_subg\].
We have $$\begin{aligned}
c_1N
&\leq \sum_{n=1}^N |x_n|
= \sum_{n=1}^N |x_n|\cdot {\mathbf{1}\left\{{|x_n|\geq c_1/2}\right\}} + \sum_{n=1}^N |x_n|\cdot {\mathbf{1}\left\{{|x_n|< c_1/2}\right\}} \\
&\leq \sum_{n=1}^N |x_n|\cdot {\mathbf{1}\left\{{|x_n|\geq c_1/2}\right\}} + N \cdot c_1/2\\
&\leq \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N |x_n|^2}\cdot \sqrt{\sum_{n=1}^N{\mathbf{1}\left\{{|x_n|\geq c_1/2}\right\}}^2} + N \cdot c_1/2\\
&\leq c_2\sqrt{N}\cdot \sqrt{\left|\left\{n: |x_n|\geq c_1/2\right\}\right| } + N \cdot c_1/2,\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, $\left|\left\{n: |x_n|\geq c_1/2\right\}\right| \geq \frac{(c_1)^2}{4(c_2)^2} N$.
For the upper bound, we have $${\mathbb{P}\left\{{\sum_n (Z_n)^2 > 2a_2 N}\right\}} \leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{\sum_n (Z_n)^2 - 2a_2N}}\right]} = \left(\prod_n {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{(Z_n)^2}}\right]}\right)\cdot e^{-2a_2N} = e^{-a_2N}.$$ For the lower bound, we have, for each $n$, $$\begin{gathered}
a_1
\leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^2}\right]}
= {\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^{0.5}(Z_n)^{1.5}}\right]}
\leq \sqrt{{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]}}\cdot\sqrt{{\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^3}\right]}}\text{\quad since $Z_n\geq 0$}\\
\leq \sqrt{{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]}}\cdot\sqrt[4]{{\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^6}\right]}}
\leq \sqrt{{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]}}\cdot\sqrt[4]{{\mathbb{E}\left[{6e^{(Z_n)^2} }\right]}}
\leq \sqrt{{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]}}\cdot\sqrt[4]{6a_2}\end{gathered}$$ and so ${\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]}\geq \frac{a_1^2}{\sqrt{6a_2}}$. Next, taking any $t\in[0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{-tZ_n}}\right]}
&= 1 - t{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]} + \sum_{k\geq 2} \frac{(-1)^kt^k{\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^k}\right]}}{k!}\\
&\leq -t{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]} + \left(1 + \sum_{k\geq 1} \frac{t^{2k} {\mathbb{E}\left[{(Z_n)^{2k}}\right]}}{(2k)!}\right)\text{\quad by removing negative terms}\\
&= -t{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]} + {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{t^2(Z_n)^2}}\right]}\text{\quad since $k!\leq (2k)!$}\\
&\leq -t{\mathbb{E}\left[{Z_n}\right]} + {\mathbb{E}\left[{t^2 e^{(Z_n)^2} + (1-t^2)\cdot 1}\right]}\text{\quad by convexity of $z\mapsto e^z$}\\
&\leq 1- t \frac{a_1^2}{\sqrt{6a_2}} + t^2 (a_2-1).\end{aligned}$$
Setting $t = \min\left\{1, \frac{a_1^2}{2(a_2-1)\sqrt{6a_2}}\right\}$ we get $${\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{-tZ_n}}\right]}\leq 1- t\frac{(a_1)^2}{2\sqrt{6a_2}}\leq e^{-t \frac{(a_1)^2}{2\sqrt{6a_2}}}.$$ Then $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{P}\left\{{\sum_n Z_n < \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}} N}\right\}} \leq {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{t N \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}} - t \sum_n Z_n}}\right]} \\= {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{tN \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}}}}\right]} \left(\prod_n {\mathbb{E}\left[{e^{-tZ_n}}\right]}\right) = e^{t N \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}}- t N \frac{(a_1)^2}{2\sqrt{6a_2}}} = e^{- t N \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}}}.\end{gathered}$$ Setting $$a_3 = \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}} , \ a_4 = \min\left\{1, \frac{a_1^2}{2(a_2-1)\sqrt{6a_2}}\right\}\cdot \frac{(a_1)^2}{4\sqrt{6a_2}}, \ a_5= 2a_2, \ a_6 = a_2,$$ we have proved the lemma.
Proofs for Section \[s:func\]
=============================
We begin this section with the proof of Theorem \[t:res\]. After, we will divide the proof of Theorem \[t:highfreq\_main\] into a sequence of lemmas.
Proof of Theorem \[t:res\]
--------------------------
Let $e_1, e_2, \dots$ be an orthonormal basis of ${{\mathcal H}}$. Then each coordinate $x_i$ of $x\in {{\mathcal H}}^I$, can be expressed as $$x_i = \sum_k x_{i,k} e_k.$$ We denote $x_{i,k} \in {{\mathbb R}}$ as the coordinates with respect to the $e_1,e_2,\dots$ basis, and we will also let $x^{(k)}$ represent the vector $\{x_{1,k}, \dots, {{\color{black}{ x_{I,k}}}}\}$. We can then write $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\bf X}}x \|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2
& = \langle {{\bf X}}x, {{\bf X}}x \rangle_{{{\mathcal H}}} = \sum_{n=1}^N \langle X_n x, X_n x \rangle \\
& = \sum_{n=1}^N \sum_{i=1}^I \sum_{j=1}^I X_{ni} X_{nj} \langle x_i ,x_j\rangle_{{{\mathcal H}}}\\
\intertext{Expressing the $x_i$ with respect to the orthonormal basis $e_1,e_2,\dots$,}
&= \sum_n \sum_i \sum_j \sum_k \sum_l X_{ni} X_{nj} x_{i,k} x_{j,l} \langle e_k, e_l \rangle \\
&= \sum_n \sum_i \sum_j \sum_k X_{ni} X_{nj} x_{i,k} x_{j,k} \\
& = \sum_k x^{(k) \top} {{\bf X}}^\top {{\bf X}}x^{(k)} \\
& =\sum_k \| {{\bf X}}x^{(k)}\|_2^2 .
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the last norm above is simply the Euclidean norm on ${{\mathbb R}}^N$. By assumption in the Theorem, we have that the above is bounded from below as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\bf X}}x \|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2 &= \sum_k \| {{\bf X}}x^{(k)}\|_2^2 \\
&\geq\sum_k \left(c_1 \sqrt{N } \|x^{(k)}\|_2 - c_2\sqrt{\log(I)} \|x^{(k)}\|_{1} \right)^2 \\
& = (c_1)^2 N \sum_k\|x^{(k)}\|_2^2
-2 c_1 c_2 \sqrt{N \log( I)} \sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_2 \|x^{(k)}\|_1
+ (c_2)^2 \log( I) \sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_{1}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ Examining the first sum in this last line, we have by Parceval’s identity $$\|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2 = \sum_i \|x_i\|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2 = \sum_i \sum_k | x_{i,k}|^2 = \sum_{k} \| x^{(k)}\|^2.$$ For the second sum, the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_2 \|x^{(k)}\|_1
\leq \| x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \sqrt{ \sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_1^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ So we have that $$\| {{\bf X}}x \|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2
\geq \left(c_1 \sqrt{N} \|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} - c_2 \sqrt{ \log( I)}\sqrt{ \sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_1^2}\right)^2$$ or equivalently $$\| {{\bf X}}x \|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \geq c_1 \sqrt{N} \|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} - c_2 \sqrt{ \log( I)}\sqrt{ \sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_1^2}.$$ Now for the last piece observe that (by Cauchy-Schwarz) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_k \|x^{(k)}\|_1^2 & = \sum_k \sum_i \sum_j |x_{i,k}| |x_{j,k}| \\
& \leq \sum_i \sum_j \left(\sum_k |x_{i,k}|^2\right)^{1/2} \left(\sum_k |x_{j,k}|^2\right)^{1/2} \\
& = \left(\sum_i \left(\sum_k |x_{i,k}|^2\right)^{1/2} \right)^2 \\
& = \left(\sum_i \| x_i\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \right)^2 = \| x\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ We can therefore conclude that $$\| {{\bf X}}x \|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \geq c_1 \sqrt{N} \|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} - c_2 \sqrt{\log(I)}\| x\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}$$ as claimed. [ Next suppose that $c_1>4c_2\sqrt{\frac{I_0\log(I)}{N}}$. We will show that ${{\bf X}}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{F}}(I_0,\alpha)$ property with $\alpha = \left(c_1 - 4c_2\sqrt{\frac{I_0\log(I)}{N}}\right)^2$. To see this, take any set $S$ with $|S|\leq I_0$, and any $x$ with ${\left\lVert{x_{S^c}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}}\leq 3{\left\lVert{x_{S}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}}$. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, which relates the $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ norms of any vector (including a vector of functions $x_S$), we have $${\left\lVert{x_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}}\leq {\left\lVert{x_S}\right\rVert}_{\mathcal{H}}\cdot \sqrt{|\text{Support}(x_S)|} \leq {\left\lVert{x_S}\right\rVert}_{\mathcal{H}}\cdot\sqrt{I_0}.$$ By the triangle inequality, $${\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}} \leq {\left\lVert{x_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}} + {\left\lVert{x_{S^c}}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}} \leq 4{\left\lVert{x_S}\right\rVert}_{\ell_1/\mathcal{H}} \leq 4{\left\lVert{x_S}\right\rVert}_{\mathcal{H}}\cdot\sqrt{I_0} \leq 4{\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_{\mathcal{H}}\cdot\sqrt{I_0}.$$ Then returning to the above, $$\begin{gathered}
\| {{\bf X}}x \|_{{{\mathcal H}}} \geq c_1 \sqrt{N} \|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} - c_2 \sqrt{\log(I)}\| x\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\geq c_1 \sqrt{N} \|x\|_{{{\mathcal H}}} - c_2 \sqrt{\log(I)}\left( 4{\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_{\mathcal{H}}\cdot\sqrt{I_0}\right)\\
= {\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_{{{\mathcal H}}} \cdot \sqrt{N}\cdot \left(c_1 - 4c_2 \sqrt{\frac{I_0\log(I)}{N}}\right) = {\left\lVert{x}\right\rVert}_{{{\mathcal H}}}\cdot \sqrt{\alpha N},\end{gathered}$$ proving that ${{\bf X}}$ satisfies the $\mathsf{RE}_{\mathsf{F}}(I_0,\alpha)$ property. ]{}
Proof of Theorem \[t:highfreq\_main\]
-------------------------------------
We follow a very similar structure to the one found in Chapter 6 of @buhlmann:vandegeer:2011, adapting the arguments for function spaces as needed. We break the proof into a sequence of Lemmas which can be thought of as a basic inequality, a functional concentration inequality, applying that inequality, a last lemma to set up the final proof. We then combine all the lemmas to prove Theorem \[t:highfreq\_main\].
\[l:basic\_ineq\] With probability one, we always have the inequality $$\frac{1}{2} \| {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\|_{{{\mathcal H}}}^2 + \lambda \| \widehat \beta\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\leq \left( \max_{1 \leq i \leq I} \|{\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}\| \right) \| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \lambda \| \beta^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}.$$
We can set up a *basic inequality* using $$\frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf X}}\widehat \beta\|^2 +\lambda \| \widehat \beta \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\leq \frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf X}}\beta^\star\|^2 + \lambda \| \beta^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}.$$ We can rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf X}}\widehat \beta\|^2
& = \frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf X}}\beta^\star - {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta- \beta^\star)\|^2 \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \| Y - {{\bf X}}\beta^\star \|^2 + \frac{1}{2} \| {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\|^2- \frac{2}{2}\langle Y - {{\bf X}}\beta^\star, {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ This gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2} \| {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\|^2 + \lambda \| \widehat \beta\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
& \leq \langle Y - {{\bf X}}\beta^\star, {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\rangle + \lambda \| \beta ^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^I \langle {\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}, \widehat \beta_i-\beta^\star_i \rangle + \lambda \| \beta ^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \\
& \leq \sum_{i=1}^I \| {\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}\| \| \widehat \beta_i-\beta^\star_i \| + \lambda \| \beta ^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \\
& \leq \max_{1 \leq i \leq I} \| {\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}\| \| \widehat \beta-\beta^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \lambda \| \beta ^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}},\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired result.
\[l:n\_exp\_ineq\] Let $X$ be an ${{\mathcal H}}$ valued Gaussian process with mean zero and covariance operator $C$. Let $\Lambda^\top= (\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \dots)$ be a vector of the eigenvalues of $C$ (in decreasing order). Then we have the bound $$P\left\{
\| X\|^2 \geq \| \Lambda\|_1 + 2 \|\Lambda\|_2 \sqrt{ t } + 2 \|\Lambda\|_\infty t
\right\}
\leq \exp(-t).$$
Using the Karhunen-Loeve expansion, we can express $$\|X\|^2 \overset{{{\mathcal D}}}{=} \sum_{j=1}^\infty \lambda_j Z_j^2,$$ where $\{Z_j\}$ are iid standard normal. Note that since $X$ is square integrable, we have that $\sum_i \lambda_i = \|\Lambda\|_1< \infty$, and therefore $\|\Lambda\|_2 < \infty $ as well. Define the events, for $J = 1, 2, \dots$ $${\mathcal{A}}_J = \left\{ \sum_{j=1}^J \lambda_j Z_j^2 \geq \| \Lambda\|_1 + 2 \|\Lambda\|_2 \sqrt{ t } + 2 \lambda_1 t \right\}.$$ Since $\| \Lambda\|_1 \geq \sum_{j=1}^J \lambda_j $ and $\|\Lambda\|_2^2 \geq \sum_{j=1}^J \lambda_j^2$, it follows from Lemma 1 in @laurent:massart:2000 that $$P({\mathcal{A}}_J) \leq \exp(-t),$$ for all $J$. Since $ \sum_{j=1}^J \lambda_j Z_j^2$ is a strictly increasing sequence of $J$ we have that $${\mathcal{A}}_1 \subseteq {\mathcal{A}}_2 \subseteq {\mathcal{A}}_3 \dots$$ Using the continuity from below of probability measures, we can pass the limit $J \to \infty$ to obtain the desired result.
\[l:F\] Assume that ${\varepsilon}= ({\varepsilon}_1, \dots, {\varepsilon}_N)$ are iid Gaussian elements of ${{\mathcal H}}$ and ${{\bf X}}$ is a design matrix with standardized columns. Define the event $$\mathscr{F} = \left\{ \max_{1 \leq i \leq I} \|{\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)} \| \leq \lambda_0 \right\}$$ where, for $\delta > 0$, $$\lambda_0 = \sqrt{N} \sqrt{ \| \Lambda\|_1 + 2 \|\Lambda\|_2 \sqrt{\log(I/\delta)} + 2 \lambda_1 \log(I/\delta)}.$$ Then we have that $$P( \mathscr{F}) \geq 1 - \delta.$$
Notice that if $\{{\varepsilon}_n\}$ are iid Gaussian with mean zero and covariance operator $C$, then ${\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}/\sqrt{N}$ is also mean zero Gaussian, and the covariance operator is given by $$\frac{1}{N }\operatorname{Cov}({\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}) = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N \operatorname{Cov}({\varepsilon}_n X_{ni}) = C,$$ since the columns of ${{\bf X}}$ are standardized. Therefore, $V_ i = {\varepsilon}^\top {{\bf X}}^{(i)}/\sqrt{N}$ is also Gaussian with mean zero and covariance operator $C$. Now apply Lemma \[l:n\_exp\_ineq\] with $t = -\log(\delta)$ to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P & \left\{
\max_{1 \leq i \leq I} \| V_i\|^2 \geq \| \Lambda\|_1 + 2 \|\Lambda\|_2 \sqrt{t + \log(I)} + 2 \|\Lambda\|_\infty (t + \log(I))
\right\} \\
& \leq I \exp(-(t + \log(I)) = \exp(-t).\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \exp(-t) = \delta$, the claim holds.
\[l:bound\] On ${\mathscr{F}}$ with $\lambda \geq 2 \lambda_0$ we have that $$\| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2 + \lambda \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\leq 3 \lambda \| ( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}.$$
Applying Lemma \[l:basic\_ineq\] and multiplying both sides by 2, we have that, on ${\mathscr{F}}$, $$\| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2 + 2 \lambda \| \widehat \beta\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\leq \lambda \| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}+ 2 \lambda \| \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}.$$ Analyzing the penalty term on the LHS, we can apply the reverse triangle inequality to obtain $$\| \widehat \beta\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} = \| \widehat \beta_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\geq \| \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} - \| \widehat \beta_{S_0} - \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}$$ and on the RHS we we have $$\| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
= \| \widehat \beta_{S_0} - \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}.$$ Combining these two calculations we arrive at the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2
\leq & \lambda \| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}+ 2 \lambda \| \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
- 2 \lambda \| \widehat \beta \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \\
\leq & \lambda( \| \widehat \beta_{S_0} - \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c}\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}})
+ 2 \lambda \| \beta^\star_{S_0}\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \\
& - 2 \lambda( \| \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} - \| \widehat \beta_{S_0} - \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}) \\
= & 3 \lambda \| \widehat \beta_{S_0} - \beta_{S_0}^\star \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} - \lambda \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}},\end{aligned}$$ which is the desired result.
We examine both terms together to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\|^2 + \lambda \| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
= \|{{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\|^2 + \lambda \|( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \lambda \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemmas \[l:F\] and \[l:bound\] we have that, with probability $1-\delta$, $$\| {{\bf X}}(\widehat \beta-\beta^\star)\|^2 + \lambda \|( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \lambda \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|
\leq 4 \lambda \|( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}\leq 4\lambda\sqrt{I_0}\|( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0} \|.$$ Applying Definition \[d:f:comp\], we have that the RHS above is bounded by $$4 \lambda \sqrt{I_0}\|( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0} \|
\leq \frac{4 \lambda \sqrt{I_0}}{\sqrt{\alpha N}} \| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star - \widehat \beta)\|
\leq \frac{1}{2} \| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2 + \frac{8 \lambda^2 I_0}{\alpha N} .$$ Note the last inequality follows from the simple bound $4uv \leq \frac{1}{2}u^2+8v^2$ for any real $u$ and $v$ (the LHS just completes the square). We therefore have that $$\| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2 + \lambda \|( \widehat \beta - \beta^\star)_{S_0} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} + \lambda \| \widehat \beta_{S_0^c} \|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}}
\leq
\frac{1}{2} \| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2 + \frac{8 \lambda^2 I_0}{\alpha N} \;.$$ This implies $$\frac{1}{2} \| {{\bf X}}(\beta^\star-\widehat \beta)\|^2 + \lambda \| \widehat \beta - \beta^\star\|_{\ell_1/{{\mathcal H}}} \leq \frac{8 \lambda^2 I_0}{\alpha N },$$ which proves the claim.
[^1]: Corresponding Author: Department of Statistics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recent experiments imaging fluid flow around swimming microorganisms have revealed complex time-dependent velocity fields that differ qualitatively from the stresslet flow commonly employed in theoretical descriptions of active matter. Here we obtain the most general flow around a finite sized active particle by expanding the surface stress in irreducible Cartesian tensors. This expansion, whose first term is the stresslet, must include, respectively, third-rank polar and axial tensors to minimally capture crucial features of the active oscillatory flow around translating Chlamydomonas and the active swirling flow around rotating Volvox. The representation provides explicit expressions for the irreducible symmetric, antisymmetric and isotropic parts of the continuum active stress. Antisymmetric active stresses do not conserve orbital angular momentum and our work thus shows that spin angular momentum is necessary to restore angular momentum conservation in continuum hydrodynamic descriptions of active soft matter.'
author:
- Somdeb Ghose
- 'R. Adhikari'
title: Irreducible representations of oscillatory and swirling flows in active soft matter
---
The collective dynamics of microscopic particles that swim in viscous fluids by converting chemical energy to mechanical work is a topic of current interest in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics [@pedley1992; @*cisneros2007; @*lauga2009; @*ramaswamy2010; @*cates2011; @*koch2011; @*lauga2012; @*marchetti2013]. Biological and biomimetic examples of such “active” particles include molecular motors [@nedelec1997], active nanobeads [@paxton2004; @*vicario2005; @*catchmark2005; @*fournier2005; @*dreyfus2005], ATP driven biomimetic systems [@sanchez2011; @*sanchez2012], light-activated colloidal surfers [@palacci2013] and swimming microorganisms. Momentum conservation and the lack of inertia at the microscopic scale imply that the fluid flow around such particles must be both force-free and torque-free, thus constraining it to decay no slower than the inverse square of the distance from the particle. Thus, at distances large compared to the particle size the dominant contribution to the flow is from the dipolar stresslet singularity [@batchelor1970]. Continuum theories, applicable at scales much larger than the particle size, employ the stresslet flow to obtain the long-wavelength, long-time features of the collective dynamics of active suspensions [@simha2002a; @*saintillan2008a].
The flow around one class of active particles, swimming microorganisms, has been resolved in unprecedented spatial and temporal detail in recent experiments [@drescher2009; @*guasto2010; @*drescher2010]. These reveal near field features that cannot be captured by the standard purely stresslet description [@batchelor1970; @blake1971c; @simha2002a; @saintillan2008a]. The complex flow around Chlamydomonas has easily identifiable qualitative features like stagnation points and strong lateral circulations that vary periodically with time. Both Chlamydomonas and Volvox rotate about their axis while swimming [@guasto2010; @drescher2009] and thus generate swirling flows. Further, the experimentally measured value of the power dissipated in swimming cannot be computed from the stresslet singularity, which dissipates an infinite amount of power.
The above experiments point to the need of a time-dependent description of active microswimming that accounts for both axisymmetric and swirling flows, and instead of constructing the flow from singularities, obtains it from the governing equations by satisfying the fluid boundary conditions that prevail on the surface of a finite-sized swimmer. These boundary conditions, which may prescribe stresses or velocities, must be able to produce both particle translations and particle rotations. Stresslet flow can do neither and thus it is imperative to identify the minimal set of independent stress modes that can produce a general rigid body motion of the particle.
With these motivations we present, in this Letter, the most general representation of Stokes flow around a finite-sized active particle as an expansion in irreducible Cartesian multipoles of the surface stress. The orthogonality and completeness of the tensorial multipoles provide simple relations between the stresses and velocities that allow us to identify the multipoles necessary and sufficient for active translation and rotation. Knowing the rigid body motion we are thus able to reconstruct, using only a few irreducible multipoles, the complex time-dependent flows observed in experiment. The power dissipation and swimming efficiency obtained in terms of these multipoles are in good agreement with experiment.
The irreducible tensor expansion provides a particle level description for studying the collective microhydrodynamics of active soft matter [@pedley1992; @*cisneros2007; @*lauga2009; @*ramaswamy2010; @*cates2011; @*koch2011; @*lauga2012; @*marchetti2013]. We illustrate this by formally deriving a constitutive equation for the active continuum stress in terms of densities of the irreducible multipoles. Previously, symmetry arguments were used to derive the first term of this constitutive equation [@simha2002a]. Our formal derivation reveals the generic presence of antisymmetric stresses in the constitutive equation, which lead to counterintuitive effects such as the separate global conservation of orbital and spin angular momentum and the generation of macroscopic flows in suspensions of spinning particles. Our results show that extant continuum descriptions of active soft matter based on second-rank symmetric tensor order parameters are incomplete, and the formalism developed in this work provide the basis for the most general description in terms of higher rank order parameters.
*Irreducible representations of Stokes flow:* Creeping flow around a particle obeys the Stokes equation, $\nabla \cdot \bm{\sigma} = - \nabla p + \eta \nabla^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}} = 0$, $\nabla \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}} = 0$, where ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}$ is the flow within the volume $V$, $\bm{\sigma}$ is the stress, $p$ is the pressure and $\eta$ is the viscosity. Chemomechanical activity can regulate either the velocity ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S$ or the stress $\bm{\sigma}^S$ on the surface $S$ of the particle, which requires Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions, respectively. In either case, the flow in the bulk can be expressed as an integral over the boundary $S$, where a single layer density ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ is convolved with the dyadic Green’s function ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) = (\mathbb{I} + {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}} \, {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}}) / |{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}|$ [@ladyzhenskaya1969; @*pozrikidis1992; @*kim2005] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BI_representation_and_equation}
\int_{S'}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} - {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S'
&=
- 8 \pi \eta \,
\begin{cases}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}), \,\, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in V
\\
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}), \,\, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in S,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}$ is the field point in the bulk $V$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}'$ is the source point on the surface $S$. Eq. (\[eq:BI\_representation\_and\_equation\]), ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in V$, provides a complete solution for the Neumann problem with known single layer density. For the Dirichlet problem, Eq. (\[eq:BI\_representation\_and\_equation\]), ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in S$, must be solved to obtain the unknown single layer density in terms of the prescribed boundary velocity ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S$.
We expand the single layer stress density on a sphere of radius $a$, which may represent the physical boundary of the particle or a spherical surface enclosing the particle, in terms of irreducible Cartesian tensors ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$, [@coope1965; @*jerphagnon1970; @*jerphagnon1978; @*mazur1982; @*ladd1988] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:traction_jump_irred_expansion}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
\frac{( 2p + 1 ) !!}{4 \pi a^2} \,
\, {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \odot \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)}, \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in S\end{aligned}$$ where the multipole moments $\displaystyle {Q}^{(p+1)}_{i\alpha_1 \ldots \alpha_p}$, symmetric and traceless in the last $p$ indices, are given by $p! \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} = \int {\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S$. Here $\odot$ indicates a $p$-fold contraction between a $p$-th rank tensor and another of higher rank, contracting the last index of the first tensor with the first index of the latter till $p$ indices are contracted, such that ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \odot \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} = \overbracket[0.7pt][3.0pt]{\widehat{r}_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \ldots \alpha_{p-1} \alpha_p}} {Q}^{(p+1)}_{\alpha_p \alpha_{p-1} \ldots \alpha_2 \alpha_1 \, i}$. The $p$th rank tensor ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$ is symmetric and traceless in every pair of its $p$ indices and obeys the orthogonality relation $(2p+1)!! \, {\langle}{\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(q)}}}} {\rangle}=
p! \, \delta_{p,q} \, \bm{\Delta}^{(p,p)}$. The surface average ${\langle}\ldots {\rangle}= (1/4 \pi a^2) \int {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S$, while the rank $2p$ tensor $\bm{\Delta}^{(p,p)}$ projects any $p$-th rank tensor ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}$ to its irreducible form ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$ [@hess1980; @mazur1982].
Substituting Eq. (\[eq:traction\_jump\_irred\_expansion\]) into the boundary integral Eq. (\[eq:BI\_representation\_and\_equation\]), and following the method detailed in the supplemental material [@SI], we obtain the solution of the Stokes equation as ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) = \sum_{p=0}^{\infty} (-1)^{p+1} \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}_p ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:stokes_flow_for_single_sphere}
8 \pi \eta \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}_p({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
a^p \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \odot
\left( 1 + \frac{a^2 }{4p+6} \nabla^2 \right)
\bm{\nabla}^{(p)} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}).\end{aligned}$$ The flow ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}_p$ at any order $p$ has contributions which decay as $r^{-p}$ and $r^{-(p+2)}$. Thus the stress multipole expansion automatically generates the Faxén corrections $a^2 \nabla^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) /(4p+6) $ that must be manually reconstructed when expanding in the velocity multipoles of Lamb’s general solution [@lamb1916].
The reducible surface stress multipoles of rank $p$ can be expressed as a direct sum of their irreducible parts, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p)} = \oplus_{j} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p; \, j)}$ [@SI], indexed by their weights $j\leq p$. The constraints imposed by incompressibility, biharmonicity and spherical symmetry imply that, at each order, only the three highest irreducible parts contribute. Here we focus on the minimal set of multipoles required to produce active translations and rotations. The decompositions we require are [@coope1965; @*jerphagnon1970; @*jerphagnon1978; @andrews1982; @SI] ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(1)} = {\ensuremath{\mathbf{F}}}$, $a \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(2)}
= {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}} - \frac12 \bm{\epsilon} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{T}}} $, $a^2 \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(3)}_{i \alpha \beta}
= \bm{\Gamma}_{i \alpha \beta}
+ \frac13
\big\{
\bm{\epsilon} \cdot \bm{\Psi} + \left( \bm{\epsilon} \cdot \bm{\Psi} \right)^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}}}
\big\}_{i \alpha \beta}
+ \frac{1}{10} \left(-2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}_i \mathbb{I}_{\alpha \beta}
+ 3 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}_{\alpha} \mathbb{I}_{\beta i}
+ 3 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}_{\beta} \mathbb{I}_{i \alpha} \right) $, $a^3 \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(4; \, 3)}
= - \frac{3}{4} \overbrace{\bm{\epsilon} \cdot \bm{\Lambda}} $ where $\overbrace{\ldots}$ denotes complete symmetrization and $\bm{\epsilon}$ is the rank-3 antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor. The force ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{F}}}$, the torque ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{T}}}$, stresslet ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}$ and the potential dipole ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}$ are familiar irreducible multipoles. The new irreducible multipoles introduced here are the second rank pseudodeviatoric torque dipole $\bm{\Psi}$ or the “vortlet”, the third rank septorial stresslet dipole $\bm{\Gamma}$ or the “septlet”, and the third rank pseudoseptorial multipole $\bm{\Lambda}$ or the “spinlet”. Using these decompositions and Eq. (\[eq:stokes\_flow\_for\_single\_sphere\]), force-free torque-free flows decaying no faster than $r^{-5}$ are expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:flows_due_to_irred_multipole_moments}
&8 \pi \eta \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{act}}}} ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
\! = \!
\left( \! 1 + \frac{a^2}{10} \nabla^2 \! \right)
\! \bm{\nabla} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}} \! \odot \! {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}
+ \frac15 \nabla^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}} \! \cdot \! {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}
\nonumber \\
&
+ \frac23 \!
\left( \! \bm{\Psi} \cdot \bm{\nabla} \! \right)
\! \cdot \!
\left( \bm{\nabla} \! \times \! {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}} \right)
-
\left( 1 + \frac{a^2}{14} \nabla^2 \right)
\bm{\nabla} \bm{\nabla} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}} \odot \bm{\Gamma}
\nonumber \\
&
- \frac34
\left( \bm{\Lambda} : \bm{\nabla} \bm{\nabla} \right)
\cdot \left( \bm{\nabla} \times {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The total number of independent coefficients is $5+3+5+7+7 = 27$. The stresslet ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}$ completely characterizes active flows decaying as $r^{-2}$. The potential dipole ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}$, the vortlet $\bm{\Psi}$ and the septlet $\bm{\Gamma}$ together completely characterize flows decaying as $r^{-3}$. The spinlet $\bm{\Lambda}$ produces a flow decaying as $r^{-4}$. The vortlet and the spinlet produce swirling flows which have not been considered before. These flows are plotted in [@SI].
\
*Active particle motion :* The active translations ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}$ and rotations $\bm{\Omega}$ of the *particle* can be obtained from the linear relation between the velocity and stress multipoles at the boundary, where ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) = {\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}} + a \bm{\Omega} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} + {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}$ is an activity induced surface velocity. Expanding the surface velocity ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ in the same irreducible basis ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$ and using Eq. (\[eq:BI\_representation\_and\_equation\]), ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in S$, the linear relationships can be expressed explicitly as [@SI]
\[eq:single\_sphere\_Laddyzhenskaya\_relations\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_Force}
&
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{F}}}
=
- 6 \pi \eta a \,
\Big(
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}} +
\big\langle {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \big\rangle
\Big)
\\
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_Torque}
&
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{T}}}
=
- 8 \pi \eta a^2 \,
\Big(
a \bm{\Omega} -
\frac32 \Big\langle {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \Big\rangle
\Big)
\\
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_Stresslet}
&{\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}
=
- 10 \pi \eta a^2 \,
\big\langle
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}
+ \left( {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \right)^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}}}
\big\rangle
\\
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_PotentialDipole}
&{\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}
=
- 30 \pi \eta a^3
\Big\langle
\, ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \cdot \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}) \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} - \frac13 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}
\Big\rangle
\\
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_TorqueDipole}
&\bm{\Psi}
=
5 \pi \eta a^3
\Big\langle
( {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} ) \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}
+ \left\{ ( {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} ) \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \right\}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{T}}}}
\Big\rangle
\\
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_StressletDipole}
&\bm{\Gamma}
=
- \frac{35}{2} \pi \eta a^3
\Big \langle
\overbrace{\, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \,}
- \frac25 ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}\cdot \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}})
\overbrace{\widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \, \mathbb{I} }
- \frac15 \overbrace{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}\, \mathbb{I} }
\Big \rangle
\\
\label{eq:single_sphere_Laddyzhenskaya_Spinlet}
& \bm{\Lambda}
=
14 \pi \eta a^4
\Big \langle
\overbrace{\, \big({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \big) \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \,}
- \frac35
\overbrace{\big({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \big) \, \mathbb{I} \, }
\Big \rangle.
\end{aligned}$$
The first two relations above show that a force-free torque-free particle acquires translation and rotational motion only if the surface averages of the ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \times {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}}$ are non-zero [@brenner1963; @*anderson1991; @*stone1996]. A uniaxial version of Eq. (\[eq:single\_sphere\_Laddyzhenskaya\_Stresslet\]), applicable only to axisymmetric flows, appears in [@ishikawa2006]. The remaining relations appear to be new. The utility of these relations is that, given the active ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}$ and $\bm{\Omega}$, they determine the minimal external flow ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{act}}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$. This ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{act}}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ is the sum of a potential dipole of strength $
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} = - 30 \pi \eta a^3 \left[
{\langle}\, ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \cdot \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}) \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} {\rangle}+ \frac13 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}
\right]
$ and a spinlet of strength $\bm{\Lambda}
=
14 \pi \eta a^4
[
\langle
\overbrace{\, \big({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \big) \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} \,}
\rangle
- \frac{2a}{5}
\overbrace{\bm{\Omega} \, \mathbb{I} \, }
].
$ The stresslet ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}$, the septlet $\bm{\Gamma}$ and the vortlet $\bm{\Psi}$ modify the external flow without affecting ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}$ and $\bm{\Omega}$. However, they contribute to long range flows and, thus, influence interparticle hydrodynamic interactions. Eq. (\[eq:single\_sphere\_Laddyzhenskaya\_relations\]) provides a manifestly rotational invariant relationship between the external flow and the rigid body motion, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}$ and $\bm{\Omega}$, and active surface velocity ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}$ of the particle. Previous work only considered the relationship between rigid body motion and surface velocity confined to purely axisymmetric flows, thus missing the crucial active swirling flow components considered here.
Using Eq. (\[eq:traction\_jump\_irred\_expansion\]) and the linear relation between the stress and velocity multipoles, the power dissipated into the fluid, $ \dot{W} = -\int {\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S \, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}S$, is obtained in terms of the multipole moments of the stress as $\dot{W}
=
-\sum_{p=0}^{\infty} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \odot \bm{\mathcal{G}}^{(p+1, \, p+1)} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)},
$ where the matrix $\bm{\mathcal{G}}$ is diagonal in rank and weight (see [@SI]). Resolving into irreducible parts gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:power_dissipated_in_terms_of_force_multipoles}
\dot W^{}
&=
\frac{3}{20 \pi \eta a^3} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}
+ \frac{3}{10 \pi \eta a^5} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}
+ \frac{32}{3 \pi \eta a^5} \bm{\Psi} \odot \bm{\Psi}
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
+ \frac{6}{7 \pi \eta a^5} \bm{\Gamma} \odot \bm{\Gamma}
+ \frac{675}{16 \pi \eta a^7} \bm{\Lambda} \odot \bm{\Lambda}.\end{aligned}$$
![ (Color) Power dissipation and swimming efficiency of Chlamydomonas computed using a simple linear combination of ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}(t)$, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}(t)$ and $\bm{\Gamma}(t)$. (a) Variation of $d_0(t)$ against $S_0(t)$, the former estimated from PIV data of a swimming Chlamydomonas [@guasto2010]. (b) Time variation of dissipated power $\dot{W}(t)$. (c) The relative efficiency is maximum near the middle and end of the cycle. (d) Variation of the power $\dot{W}$ against translational velocity $v_{CM}$. ](./figures/power_and_efficiency_e){width="45.00000%"}
*Oscillatory and swirling flows:* The flow around the microorganism *Chlamydomonas reinhardtii* has recently been measured in detail to reveal a flow field that is “complex and highly time-dependent” [@guasto2010]. We are able to capture the essential features of this flow by superposing flows due to the potential dipole, stresslet, and septlet with time-varying strengths. Assuming particle motion to occur along the $y$-axis the multipoles are parametrized uniaxially as ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}} = S_0(t)({\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} - \frac13 \mathbb{I})$, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} = d_0(t) {\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}}$ and $\bm{\Gamma} = \Gamma_0(t) ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} - \frac35 \overbrace{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} \mathbb{I}})$. The data of [@guasto2010] shows that the translation speed can be very well parametrized by the first two Fourier modes, $V(t)
= (a_0/2) \big[
1 + (2 a_1/a_0) \cos(\omega t) + (2 a_2/a_0) \cos(2\omega t) +
$ $(2 b_1/a_0) \sin(\omega t) + (2 b_2/a_0) \sin(2\omega t)
\big]$, where $a_0$ is in units of $\mu m s^{-1}$ (see [@SI]). This yields, through Eq. (\[eq:single\_sphere\_Laddyzhenskaya\_Force\]) and (\[eq:single\_sphere\_Laddyzhenskaya\_PotentialDipole\]), $d_0(t) = -10 \pi \eta a^3 V(t)$. $S_0(t)$ and $\Gamma_0(t)$ are then determined by the position of the stagnation point relative to the center of the particle. The flow fields produced by this analysis, shown at selected times of the cycle in Fig. (\[fig:gollub\_chlamy\]) and in the supplemental video [@SI], are in good agreement with the corresponding figures in [@drescher2010; @guasto2010]. The particle moves to the right when $d_0 < 0$ and to the left when $d_0 > 0$, with the stagnation point either leading it ($d_0 S_0 < 0$) or lagging behind ($d_0 S_0 > 0$). On average, a Chlamydomonas of size $3.5$ $\mu$m swimming at $134$ $\mu$m$s^{-1}$ in water at $20^{\circ}$C dissipates approximately $6$ fW of power. Both the instantaneous power variation, Fig. (2b), and the average power values are in good agreement with experimental findings [@guasto2010]. The instantaneous efficiency of translation $\epsilon(t) = 6\pi\eta a V^2/\dot W(t)$ [@lighthill1952], plotted in Fig. (2c) has a maximum value close to the theoretical maximum of $20 \%$ (see [@SI]). The power dissipation as a function of the speed, shown in Fig. (2d), shows the expected quadratic dependence.
Like most microorganisms, *Volvox carteri* rotates around its own axis as it swims. Using the minimal representation for the spinlet strength, $\Lambda_0 = - (28/5) \pi \eta a^5 \Omega$, and parametrizing uniaxially, $\bm{\Lambda} = \Lambda_0(t) ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} - \frac35 \overbrace{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{y}}}} \mathbb{I}})$, we are able to capture the short-ranged swirling flow field responsible for self-rotation, Fig. (S3) [@SI]. The vortlet produces swirling flows that spin in opposite directions on the particle surface and thus cancel each other out. Thus the vortlet does not contribute to Volvox rotation (see supplemental Fig. (S2) [@SI]). Rotation induced by spinlet swirling flows have a maximum swimming efficiency of $1.5 \%$ in the Lighthill sense [@lighthill1952]. Representing the Volvox by a uniaxial spinlet whose strength has been computed using its minimal representation, we calculate the rotational power dissipated by a Volvox of size $150 \mu m$ rotating at $1$ rad $s^{-1}$ in water at $20^{\circ} $C to be approximately $250$ fW. Swirling flows around Volvox, if experimentally measured, can shed light on the swimming mechanism that must produce the antisymmetric velocity moments on the particle surface.
*Active stress densities:* Stokes flows due to boundary stresses can be reproduced by effective volume force densities ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ that obey $
\int {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}V
= \int {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}S
$. This provides a heuristic for obtaining force densities required for continuum descriptions of active matter. The active force density that produces the flow in Eq. 4 is ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
=
\left\{ \! 1 + (a^2/10) \nabla^2 \! \right\} \! \bm{\nabla} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}
+ \frac15 \nabla^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}
+ \frac23 \bm{\nabla} \times \left( \bm{\nabla} \cdot \bm{\Psi} \right)
- \left\{ 1 + (a^2/14) \nabla^2 \right\} \bm{\nabla} \bm{\nabla} : \bm{\Gamma}
- \frac34\bm{\nabla} \times \left( \bm{\nabla} \bm{\nabla} : \bm{\Lambda} \right)
$, where each of the multipoles are now continuum densities of the form ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) = \sum_n {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}_n \delta({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} - {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}_n)$. Since the active force density conserves momentum globally, it can always be written as a divergence of an active stress [@finlayson1969], ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{f}}} = \bm{\nabla} \cdot \bm{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}$, which itself can be decomposed into irreducible symmetric traceless, antisymmetric and isotropic contributions, $\bm{\sigma}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} = \bm{\sigma}^s + \frac12 \epsilon \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}} + \phi \mathbb{I}$. Explicitly these are
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:stress_tensor_in_terms_of_stress_multipoles_symmetric}
\bm{\sigma}^s
&=
\left( \! 1 + \frac{a^2}{10} \nabla^2 \! \right) {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}
- \left( \! 1 + \frac{a^2}{14} \nabla^2 \! \right)
\bm{\nabla} \cdot \bm{\Gamma}
\\
\label{eq:stress_tensor_in_terms_of_stress_multipoles_antisymmtric}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}
&=
\frac43 \bm{\nabla} \cdot \bm{\Psi}
- \frac32 \bm{\nabla} \bm{\nabla} : \bm{\Lambda}
- \frac25 \bm{\nabla} \times {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}
\\
\label{eq:stress_tensor_in_terms_of_stress_multipoles_isotropic}
\phi &= \frac15 \bm{\nabla} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}.\end{aligned}$$
They enter the balance equation for the momentum density ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{g}}}$, $\partial_t {\ensuremath{\mathbf{g}}} + \bm{\nabla} \cdot ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{gv}}}) = -\bm{\nabla} p + \eta \nabla^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}} + \bm{\nabla} \cdot \bm{\sigma}^s + \frac12 \bm{\nabla} \times {\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}} + \bm{\nabla} \phi$, as additional active sources of momentum transport over the usual pressure and viscous terms. This heuristic, which can be extended to arbitrary multipolar order, shows that symmetric states of active stress contain contributions beyond the stresslet considered in the literature. Septlet stresses produce $r^{-3}$ flow and are thus important for collective dynamics at long wavelengths. The divergence of the potential dipole density produces an isotropic *active pressure* which has to be balanced by an active flow to ensure incompressibility.
Equation (\[eq:stress\_tensor\_in\_terms\_of\_stress\_multipoles\_antisymmtric\]) shows that active particles will generically produce antisymmetric states of stress in the fluid. Conservation of orbital angular momentum is violated in the presence of antisymmetric stresses, which must be restored by introducing an internal “spin” angular momentum $\bm{l}$ such that the total angular momentum, being the sum of orbital and spin contributions, is conserved. Exchanges between orbital and spin contributions, governed by $\partial_{t} ( \mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{g} ) + \bm{\nabla} \cdot (\mathbf{r} \times \mathbf{g}\mathbf{v} )
=
\bm{\nabla} \cdot \big( \mathbf{r} \times \bm{\sigma}^{s} \big ) - \mathbf{A}$, $\partial_t \bm{l} + \bm{\nabla} \cdot (\bm{l}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}) = \bm{\nabla} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{c}}} + {\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}$, occur whenever the antisymmetric stresses are non-zero [@dahler1959]. Here ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{c}}}$ is the couple stress. Remarkably, and in distinction to antisymmetric stresses in polyatomic liquids, the antisymmetric active stress ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}}$ has the form of a conserved current, Eq. (\[eq:stress\_tensor\_in\_terms\_of\_stress\_multipoles\_antisymmtric\]) and thus separately conserves the global amounts of orbital and spin angular momenta.
Antisymmetric stresses also couple the linear momentum ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{g}}}$ to the angular momenta through $\partial_t {\ensuremath{\mathbf{g}}} + \bm{\nabla} \cdot ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{gv}}}) = -\bm{\nabla} p + \eta \nabla^2 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}} + \bm{\nabla} \cdot \bm{\sigma}^s + \frac12 \bm{\nabla} \times {\ensuremath{\mathbf{A}}} + \bm{\nabla} \phi$ [@dahler1959]. This implies that self-rotating particles, through their hydrodynamic interaction, can set up spontaneous macroscopic flows in suspension. This is a macroscopic manifestation of the translational velocity $(1 + a^2 \nabla^2/6) \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{(\Lambda)}$ acquired by a passive particle at ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}$ due to the flow ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{(\Lambda)}$ produced by a spinlet at the origin.
*Discussion:* The minimal irreducible multipoles introduced here provide an accurate description of the flow, power dissipation and efficiency around active particles. The method, generalized to $N$ particles, allows us to calculate true many-body hydrodynamic interactions between active particles. Applications to suspension rheology beyond the dilute limit, to active flows near rigid boundaries and to the synchronized rigid body motion due to active hydrodynamic flows follow naturally. Our work shows that a second-rank nematic order parameter (corresponding to a density of stresslets) provides only a coarse description of the microstructure of an active suspension, and that a complete description requires order parameters of increasing tensorial rank (corresponding to densities of higher multipoles). We urge the experimental verification of two of our key findings, the swirling flow around a single rotating active particle and the macroscopic advective flows generated in a suspension of rotating particles due to active hydrodynamic interactions.
Financial support from PRISM II, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India is gratefully acknowledged. We thank G. Baskaran, M. E. Cates, G. Date, R. E. Goldstein, P. Chaikin, D. Pine, L. Greengard, A. J. C. Ladd, M. Polin, R. Simon, H. A. Stone and P. B. Sunil Kumar for helpful discussions. We thank R. E. Goldstein and M. Polin for kindly sharing their data of [@drescher2010] and answering our queries, and A. J. C. Ladd for generously sharing his personal notes as well as for many useful suggestions.
**Supplemental material**
\
![ FIG. S3. Estimation of the centre of mass velocity of Chlamydomonas from flow speeds measured using particle image velocimetry [@guasto2010]. Red circles are data values, while the blue line is the Fourier fit, Eq. (\[eq:chlamy\_fourier\_fit\]), with coefficients as given in the text. \[fig:chlamy\_fit\] ](./figures/chlamy_fit){width="45.00000%"}
*Solution of Stokes flow using irreducible expansions* : The Stokes equation for chemomechanically active flows is reformulated using boundary integrals [@ladyzhenskaya1969; @pozrikidis1992; @kim2005], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:boundary_integral_representation_and_equation}
\int_{S'}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} - {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \, {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S'
&=
- 8 \pi \eta \,
\begin{cases}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}), \quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in V
\\
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}), \quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in S
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ is the flow velocity in the bulk while ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ is that on the boundary, that is, the surface of the particle. The Green’s function ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) = (\mathbb{I} + {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}})/|{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}|$ propagates the single layer density ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ on the particle surface. If surface stresses $\bm{\sigma}^S$ are known, then the Neumann problem can be solved for spherical boundaries by expanding the single layer density in a spherical harmonic basis. A manifestly rotational covariant representation of such a basis is provided by irreducible Cartesian tensors ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$, which obey the orthogonality condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:irred_orthogonality}
\left{\langle}{\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(q)}}}} \right{\rangle}&=
\frac{p!}{(2p+1)!!} \, \delta_{p,q} \, \bm{\Delta}^{(p,p)}. \end{aligned}$$ The surface average ${\langle}\ldots {\rangle}= (1/4 \pi a^2) \int {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S$, while the rank $2p$ tensor $\bm{\Delta}^{(p,p)}$ projects any $p$-th rank tensor ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}$ to its irreducible form ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$ [@hess1980; @mazur1982]. Expanding ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ in this basis, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
\frac{( 2p + 1 ) !!}{4 \pi a^2}
\, {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \odot \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)}, \quad {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in S,\end{aligned}$$ where the multipole moments $\displaystyle {Q}^{(p+1)}_{i\alpha_1 \ldots \alpha_p}$, symmetric and traceless in the last $p$ indices, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)}
&=
\frac{1}{p!}
\int_S {\ensuremath{\mathbf{q}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}) {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S.\end{aligned}$$ In Eq. (\[eq:traction\_jump\_irred\_expansion\]), the symbol $\odot$ represents a $p$-fold contraction between a $p$-th rank tensor and another of higher rank, contracting the last index of the first tensor with the first index of the latter till $p$ indices are contracted, such that ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \odot \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} = \overbracket[0.7pt]{\widehat{r}_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \ldots \alpha_{p-1} \alpha_p}} {Q}^{(p+1)}_{\alpha_p \alpha_{p-1} \ldots \alpha_2 \alpha_1 \, i}$. We now insert Eq. (\[eq:traction\_jump\_irred\_expansion\]) into Eq. (\[eq:boundary\_integral\_representation\_and\_equation\]), ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} \in V$, and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
8 \pi \eta \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
\frac{( 2p + 1 ) !!}{4 \pi a^2}
\int_{S'} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}-{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}') \cdot
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \, \odot {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \,
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S'\end{aligned}$$ Writing this in terms of the Fourier transform of the Green’s function, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) = 8 \pi (\mathbb{I} - {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}} \, {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}} ) / |{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}|^2$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bulk_flow_in_fourier_before_plane_wave_expansion}
8 \pi \eta \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
\frac{( 2p + 1 ) !!}{4 \pi a^2}
\int_k
\frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \,
e^{i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}} } \,
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \,
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad
\odot
\int_{S'}
{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} S'
e^{-i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}' } {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \, \end{aligned}$$ We expand the plane wave in spherical Bessel functions, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spherical_wave_expansion}
e^{i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}
&=
\sum_{m = 0}^{\infty}
\frac{(i)^m (2m+1)!!}{m!}
j_m(kr)
{\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{k}}}}^{(m)}}}}
\odot
{\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(m)}}}},\end{aligned}$$ and thus obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bulk_flow_in_fourier_after_plane_wave_expansion}
8 \pi \eta \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}
\frac{(-i)^m (2p+1)!! (2m+1)!!}{m!}
\int \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \,
e^{i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} j_m(k a) \,
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)}
\odot
\left{\langle}{\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(m)}}}}
\right{\rangle}\odot {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{k}}}}^{(m)}}}}
\nonumber \\
&=
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
(-i)^p (2p+1)!!
\int \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \,
e^{i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}} j_p(k a) \,
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \odot
{\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}}^{(p)}.\end{aligned}$$
Here $\bm{\Delta}^{(p,p)} \odot {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{k}}}}^{(p)}}}} = {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{k}}}}^{(p)}}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \odot {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{k}}}}^{(p)}}}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \odot \, {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}}^{(p)}$ since ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)}$ is already symmetrized and detraced in its trailing $p-1$ indices. The spherical Bessel function can be expanded in polynomials of the wavenumber $k$ and truncated, $$\begin{aligned}
j_p(ka)
&=
\frac{a^p k^p}{(2p+1)!!}
\left[
1 - \frac{a^2 k^2}{4p+6} + \mathcal{O}(k^4)
\right]
\nonumber \\
&
=
\frac{a^p k^p}{(2p+1)!!}
\left( 1 - \frac{a^2 k^2}{4p+6} \right)\end{aligned}$$ since biharmonicity ensures that $\mathcal{F} \left\{ k^4 {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) \right\} = 0$, where $\mathcal{F}$ is the Fourier transform operator. Substituting this in Eq. (\[eq:bulk\_flow\_in\_fourier\_after\_plane\_wave\_expansion\]), we get the required flow equation $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \pi \eta \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
=
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
a^p \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)}
\nonumber \\
& \qquad \odot
\int \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}}^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \, e^{i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \cdot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}
\left( -i {\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}} \right)^{(p)}\cdot
\left( 1 - \frac{a^2 k^2}{4p+6} \right) {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}})
\nonumber \\
& \qquad
=
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
a^p \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \odot
(-\bm{\nabla})^{(p)} \cdot
\left( 1 + \frac{a^2}{4p+6} \nabla^2 \right) {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})\end{aligned}$$ *Resolving surface stress multipoles into irreducible parts* : The general solution in Eq. (\[eq:stokes\_flow\_for\_single\_sphere\]) can be simplified by decomposing the reducible single layer moments into irreducible tensors. Any $p$-th rank tensor ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p)}$ can be decomposed into irreducible tensors ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p \, ; \, j, r)}$ of weight $j \leq p$ with $2j+1$ independent components, subtending a $j$ dimensional irreducible representation of the rotation group $SO(3)$ [@coope1965; @jerphagnon1970; @jerphagnon1978]. The seniority index $r$ is needed when more than one weight $j$ representation occurs in the decomposition. The general decomposition is then the direct sum ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p)} = \oplus_{j,r} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p \, ; \, j, r)}$ [@coope1965; @jerphagnon1970; @jerphagnon1978]. The tensors corresponding to weights $1, 2$ and $3$ are known as vectors, deviators, and septors respectively and can be further classified by their parity as polar (true) or axial (psuedo) tensors. Here we focus on the minimal set of multipoles required to produce active translations and rotations. This requires us to enumerate all irreducible multipoles $p \leq 2$ and the pseudoseptorial multipole for $p=3$. The decompositions we require are given in tensorial form in the main text. Here we present the same in index notation,
\[eq:traction\_multipoles\_index\_form\] $$\begin{aligned}
Q_i^{(1)}
&=
F_i,
\\
Q_{i \alpha}^{(2)}
&=
\frac{1}{a} \left[ S_{i \alpha} - \frac12 \epsilon_{i \alpha \nu} T_{\nu} \right],
\\
Q_{i \alpha \beta}^{(3)}
&=
\frac{1}{a^2}
\left[
\Gamma_{i \alpha \beta}
+ \frac23 \left( \epsilon_{i \alpha \nu} \Psi_{\nu \beta} + \epsilon_{i \beta \nu} \Psi_{\nu \alpha }\right)
\right.
\nonumber \\
&
\left.
+ \frac{1}{10} \left(-2 d_i \delta_{\alpha \beta} + 3 d_{\alpha} \delta_{\beta i} + 3 d_{\beta} \delta_{i \alpha} \right)
\right]
\\
Q^{(4; \, 3)}_{i \, \alpha \beta \gamma}
&=
- \frac{1}{4 a^3} \left(\epsilon_{i \alpha \nu} \Lambda_{\nu \beta \gamma} + \epsilon_{i \beta \nu} \Lambda_{\nu \gamma \alpha} + \epsilon_{i \gamma \nu} \Lambda_{\nu \beta \alpha} \right). \end{aligned}$$
where $\bm{\epsilon}$ is the rank-3 antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor. As stated in the main text, the new irreducible multipoles introduced here are the pseudodeviatoric torque dipole $\bm{\Psi}$ or the “vortlet”, the septorial stresslet dipole $\bm{\Gamma}$ or the “septlet”, and the pseudoseptorial multipole $\bm{\Lambda}$ or the “spinlet”.
*Uniaxial parametrisations of stress multipoles* : Uniaxial parametrisations are the simplest representations of the stress multipoles. Let ${\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}}$ determine the parametrisation direction. The vectorial potential dipole of strength $d_0$ is then trivially parametrised as ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} = d_0 {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}}$. The deviatoric ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}$ is parametrised as $S_0 ({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} - \frac13 \mathbb{I})$, while the pseudodeviatoric $\bm{\Psi}$ takes a similar form $\Psi_0 ({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} - \frac13 \mathbb{I})$. The septorial $\bm{\Gamma}$ is parametrised as $\Gamma_0 ({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} - \frac35 \overbrace{{\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} \mathbb{I}})$, while the pseudoseptorial $\bm{\Lambda}$ takes a similar form $\Lambda_0({\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} - \frac35 \overbrace{{\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}}}} \mathbb{I}})$. The stresslet strength $S_0$ and the septlet strength $\Gamma_0$ are true scalars, while the vortlet strength $\Psi_0$ and the spinlet strength $\Lambda_0$ are pseudoscalars. These parametrisations preserve the symmetry and tracelessness conditions of the polar and axial deviators and septors.
*Relation between surface stress and velocity multipoles* : If the velocities on the boundaries are known, then the resulting Dirichlet problem is solved by expanding the prescribed the surface velocity ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})$ in the same irreducible basis ${\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:surface_velocity_irred_expansion}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^S ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}})
&=
\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{p!} \, {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \odot \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}^{(p+1)}\end{aligned}$$ where the multipole moments $\displaystyle {V}^{(p+1)}_{i\alpha_1 \ldots \alpha_p}$, symmetric and traceless in the last $p$ indices, are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}^{(p+1)} &=
(2p+1)!! \big{\langle}{\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{S}}}} {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(p)}}}} \, \big{\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Equating Eq. (\[eq:surface\_velocity\_irred\_expansion\]) and Eq. (\[eq:bulk\_flow\_in\_fourier\_after\_plane\_wave\_expansion\]) on $S$, and expanding the plane wave in spherical Bessel functions once again, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \pi \eta \,
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m!} {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(m)}}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}^{(m+1)}
=
\nonumber \\
& \qquad
- \sum_{p=0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!} i^{n-p} (2p+1)!! (2n+1)!!
\nonumber \\
& \times
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3}
j_n(ka) j_p(ka)
{\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{k}}}}^{(n)}}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\overbracket[0.5pt][1.5pt]{\,{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\widehat{r}}}}^{(n)}}}}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) \cdot {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}}^{(p)}
\odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \end{aligned}$$ Using the spherical Bessel function identity $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{\infty} \frac{dk}{2\pi} j_n(ka) j_p(ka)
&=
\frac{1}{4 a (2n+1) }\delta_{n,p} \end{aligned}$$ and orthogonality, Eq. (\[eq:irred\_orthogonality\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
& 8 \pi \eta \,
\frac{1}{(2p + 1)!!} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}^{(p+1)}
=
\nonumber \\
& \qquad
- \frac{(2p-1)!!}{4 \pi a}
\int \frac{k^2 {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}} \Omega_k}{4 \pi} \,
{\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}}^{(p)} \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) \cdot {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}}^{(p)}
\odot \, {\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \end{aligned}$$ Since $k^2{\ensuremath{\mathbf{G}}}({\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}) = 8 \pi (\mathbb{I} - {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}}}})$, we finally get the desired relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:single_sphere_V_F_relation}
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{V}}}^{(p+1)}
&=
\bm{\mathcal{G}}^{(p+1,\,p+1)} \odot
{\ensuremath{\mathbf{Q}}}^{(p+1)} \end{aligned}$$ where the $2(p + 1)$ rank tensor $\bm{\mathcal{G}}$ is given by [@ladd1988] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:single_sphere_connector_matrix_}
\bm{\mathcal{G}}^{(p+1, \, p+1)}
&=
-
\frac{(2p-1)!! (2p+1)!!}{ \left( 4 \pi \eta a \right) }
\int \frac{d \Omega}{4 \pi} \,
\overbracket[0.7pt]{ \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}^{(p)} }
\left( \mathbb{I} - {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\hat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}}} \right)
\overbracket[0.7pt]{ \, \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{r}}}}^{(p)} }\end{aligned}$$
*Estimation of Chlamydomonas and Volvox flows* : We estimate the flow speed data in [@guasto2010] by the first two Fourier modes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chlamy_fourier_fit}
V(t)
&=
\frac12 a_0 + a_1 \cos(\omega t) + a_2\cos(2\omega t)
\nonumber \\
& \qquad
+ b_1 \sin(\omega t) + b_2 \sin(2\omega t)\end{aligned}$$ where the values are given by $a_0 = 247.7$, $a_1 = -86.81$, $a_2 = -31.9$, $b_1 = 305.6$ and $b_2 = -21.1$, all in units of $\mu m s^{-1}$. We show the values and the corresponding fit in Fig. (S3). Since active flows are force-free, we know from Eq. (5a) of the main text that $\big{\langle}v^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}(t) \big{\rangle}= - V(t)$. Using Eq. (5d) of the main text we now extract the strength of the potential dipole using the minimal representation, $d_0(t) = -10 \pi \eta a^3 \big{\langle}v^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}}(t) \big{\rangle}$, and we estimate the stresslet and the septlet strengths from the position of the stagnation point. Using Eq. (4) of the main text, we linearly combine the flows due to ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{({\ensuremath{\mathrm{S}}})}$, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{({\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}}})}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{({\ensuremath{\mathrm{\Gamma}}})}$. The result, shown in the supplementary video and Fig. (1) of the main text, effectively captures essential features of the flow around a swimming Chlamydomonas [@guasto2010]. From Eq. (7) of the main text the power dissipated by the Chlamydomonas is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{W}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ch}}}}(t)
=
\frac{3}{20 \pi \eta a^3} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{S}}}
+ \frac{3}{10 \pi \eta a^5} {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}}
+ \frac{6}{7 \pi \eta a^5} \bm{\Gamma} \odot \bm{\Gamma}\end{aligned}$$ The instantaneous efficiency of translation, defined as ratio of power expended by an external force to maintain a rigid sphere in uniform motion with speed $V$ to that expended chemomechanically to maintain the same speed [@lighthill1952], is computed to be $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ch}}}}(t)
&=
\frac{6\pi\eta a V^2}{\dot{W}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ch}}}}(t) }\end{aligned}$$ We have, using Eq. (5d) of the main text, ${\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} \odot {\ensuremath{\mathbf{d}}} = 100 \pi^2 \eta^2 a^6 V^2$ for purely tangential surface flows. Therefore the maximum translational efficiency is $20\%$.
Near-field swirling flows around Volvox are obtained using the uniaxially parametrised spinlet multipole. Although the vortlet too generates swirling flows, it does not give rise to particle rotations since the flows spin in opposite directions above and below the equatorial plane of the particle and thus cancel out, Fig. (S2). From Eq. (7) of the main text the power dissipated by the Volvox is $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{W}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Vo}}}}(t)
=
\frac{675}{16 \pi \eta a^7} \bm{\Lambda} \odot \bm{\Lambda},\end{aligned}$$ Extending Lighthill’s definition [@lighthill1952], we define the rotational efficiency as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Vo}}}}(t)
&=
\frac{8 \pi\eta a^3 \Omega^2}{\dot{W}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Vo}}}}(t) }.\end{aligned}$$ Setting terms like $\langle ({\ensuremath{\mathbf{v}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{a}}}} \times \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}}) \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}} \widehat{{\ensuremath{\mathbf{n}}}} \rangle$ to zero, we get $\bm{\Lambda} \odot \bm{\Lambda} = \frac{1568}{125} \pi^2 \eta^2 a^{10} \Omega^2$. The maximum rotational efficiency thus comes out be approximately $1.5 \%$.
[43]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1007/s00348-007-0387-y) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909-104101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1039/c1sm90014e) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev-fluid-121108-145434) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/PT.3.1715) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.85.1143) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/38532) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ja047697z) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1039/B505092H) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/smll.200400061) [ ()](\doibase 10.1039/B414896G) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature04090) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1203963) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature11591) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.1230020) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1017/S0022112070000745) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.058101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.178103) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.168101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.168102) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.168101) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1017/S0305004100049902) @noop [**]{}, Mathematics and its applications (, ) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [**](http://books.google.co.in/books?id=%5C_8llnUUGo0wC), (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1697123) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.2.1091) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00018737800101454) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0378-4371(82)90127-3) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.454658) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [“” ]{} [**](http://books.google.co.in/books?id=OztMAAAAMAAJ) (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2647) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0009-2509(64)85084-3) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/la00050a035) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1017/S0022112006002631) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/cpa.3160050201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspa.1969.0071) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1730220)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The objective of this work is to study time-minimum and energy-minimum global optimal control for dissipative open quantum systems whose dynamics is governed by the Lindblad equation. The controls appear only in the Hamiltonian.
Using recent results regarding the decoupling of such dissipative dynamics into intra- and inter-unitary orbits, we transform the control system into a bi-linear control system on the Bloch ball (the unitary sphere together with its interior). We then design a numerical algorithm to construct an optimal path to achieve a desired point given initial states close to the origin (the singular point) of the Bloch ball. This is done both for the minimum-time and minimum -energy control problems.
author:
- 'William Clark$^{1}$, Anthony Bloch$^{1}$, Leonardo Colombo$^{1}$ and Patrick Rooney$^{2}$[^1][^2]'
title: '**Optimal Control of Quantum Purity for $n=2$ Systems** '
---
Introduction
============
Control of quantum conservative (Hamiltonian) systems has been extensively studied in the last few decades from both theoretical and interdisciplinary points of view [@BCS], [@2-3level], [@Brocket1], [@Brocket2]. Recently, there has been a growing interest in control of open (dissipative, non-Hamiltonian) quantum systems because of their applications to physics, chemistry and quantum computing. For example there has been interest in the control of the rotation of a molecule in the gaseous phase by using laser fields in dissipative media [@RS]. Here the dissipation is due to molecular collisions and the dimension of the Hilbert space describing the states of the system (infinite-dimensional) can be truncated to make the system finite-dimensional if the intensity of the laser field is sufficiently weak. Other applications include control of the spin dynamics by magnetic fields in nuclear magnetic resonance [@EB] and applications to the construction of quantum computers [@RB].
The aim of this work is to study optimal control of two-level quantum systems in a dissipative environment, where we assume that the dissipation is Markovian (the dynamics depends only on the present state and not its history) and time-independent. In this case the evolution for the density matrix of the system can by described by a quantum dynamical semi-group and the Lindblad master equation [@Altafini], [@Breuer], [@lindblad1976].
The state space for a *closed quantum system* is an $n$-dimensional projective Hilbert space, $P(\mathcal{H})$, of a complex Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Typically one drops the requirement of the space being projective, and instead, we work with unit vectors. To preserve the length of the vectors, *time evolution is unitary* $\displaystyle{U(t_1,t_2)|\psi(t_1)\rangle = |\psi(t_2)\rangle}$, and the evolution is described by the *Schrödinger equation* $$\frac{d}{dt}|\psi(t)\rangle = -iH(t)|\psi(t)\rangle,$$ where $H$ is the Hermitian Hamiltonian. Here the *ket*-bracket describes the vector associated with an observable state.
The *density operator*, $\rho$, describes a probabilistic ensemble of states. It is given by a positive semi-definite Hermitian operator $\rho$ with $\text{Tr}(\rho)=1$ and $\text{Tr}(\rho^2)\leq 1$. The *purity* of a density operator describes how close $\rho$ is to a single state. It is usually defined as $\displaystyle{P_2(\rho)={\text{Tr}(\rho^2)}\in [1/n,1]}$, where the unique operator that has a purity of $1/n$ is $\frac{1}{n}I_{n\times n}$, called the *completely mixed state.* The dynamics for the purity operator is described by the *von Neumann equation* $$\frac{d}{dt}\rho = [-iH,\rho].$$ Notice that this dynamical system preserves the purity of $\rho$ (because the system is iso-spectral). A consequence is that if the quantum system is controlled by its Hamiltonian, there is no controllability over its purity, since one cannot directly alter the probabilities or achieve a purity of one.
*Open quantum systems* are quite different. For such systems dissipation occurs when we allow the system to interact with the environment. The full picture is an integro-differential equation called the Nakajima-Zwanzig (NZ) equation. To make the dissipation purely of differential form, one usually make two assumptions: the dissipation is Markovian (i.e. the dissipation only depends upon the current state, not past history) and the dissipation is time-invariant.
Under these assumptions, the dynamics of the density operator is given by the *Lindblad master equation* [@lindblad1976] $$\frac{d}{dt}\rho = [-iH,\rho]+\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left(
L_j\rho L_j^{\dagger} - \frac{1}{2}\left\{ L_j^{\dagger}L_j,\rho\right\}\right)$$ where the $L_j$ are called the Lindblad operators, $N$ denotes the quantity of Lindblad operators, and $\{\cdot,\cdot\}$ is the anti-commutator: $\{A,B\}=AB+BA$. Along the work we assume Linblad operators are traceless.
Main contributions:
-------------------
In this paper we investigate the problem of minimum-time and minimum-energy global optimal control for dissipative open quantum systems whose dynamics is governed by the Lindblad equation. Our contributions here are two-fold. First we improve and extend the results for local optimality based on the steepest descent method studied in [@PhysRevA.93.063424] by obtaining global results on the Bloch ball, which is the physical state space of the system. Also we consider an energy-minimum optimal control problem, where the cost corresponds to the energy transfer between the control and the internal Hamiltonian. The second contribution is related to work on generalizing the results given in [@BonnardJMP], [@Bonnarcyber], [@bonnarsiam], [@Sugny] with bounded controls to a class of control system with more general Lindblad operators.
Outline:
--------
The structure of the work is as follows: In Section II we introduce the Lindblad equation and we interpret its dynamics as a control system in the Bloch ball. Section III explains why the optimal control problem is singular and how to achieve maximum purity by suitable choice of initial conditions for the boundary value problem. Sections IV and V are devoted to the study of time-minimum and energy-minimum controls for two- and three-dimensional systems. Numerical results for time-minimum and energy-minimum controls in the previous two situations are explored in Section VI. We conclude in Section VII by outlining future research.
The Lindblad equation {#section2}
=====================
An open quantum system is described by a density operator $\rho$, which is a trace-one positive semi-definite Hermitian operator on an $n$-dimensional complex Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. If the dissipation is Markovian and time independent, the density operator obeys the Lindblad equation (see [@Breuer] and [@lindblad1976] for details) $$\label{eq:master}
\frac{d\rho}{dt} = [-iH,\rho]+\mathcal{L}_D(\rho),$$ with $$\label{eq:Lindblad}
\mathcal{L}_D(\rho) := \sum_{j=1}^{N} L_j\rho L_j^{\dagger} - \frac{1}{2}\{L_j^{\dagger}L_j,\rho\}.$$ where $N$ denotes the quantity of Lindblad operators, $[\cdot,\cdot]$ denotes commutator of matrices, $H$ is the Hermitian Hamiltonian, $\dagger$ represents the Hermitian transpose and $\left\{L_j\right\}$ are the Lindblad operators. The purity of the system is defined as $P_{2}(\rho)={\text{Tr}(\rho^2)}$.
The goal is to construct controls for the purity operator under Lindblad dissipation. In most situations the controls appear in the Hamiltonian $H$, and not in the Lindblad operator $\mathcal{L}_{D}$. This is the assumption we make here.
When $n=2$, the density operator can be identified with a vector in the Bloch ball (the unitary sphere with its interior) [@5288564]. Under this special case, we can change the view from dynamics on operators to dynamics in the Bloch ball by considering $$\rho=\frac{1}{2}\left(I+\sum_{j=1}^{3}q_j\sigma_j\right)$$ where $q\in S^{2}$ (i.e., $q_1^2+q_2^2+q_3^2\leq 1$), $I$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix, and $\sigma_{j}$ are the Pauli matrices.
Using this identification, we can reformulate the Lindblad equation (\[eq:master\]) into a first-order dynamical system on the unit ball. Using the derivation given in [@PhysRevA.93.063424] (see appendix A therein), we have that is equivalent to $$\label{eq:bloch}
\frac{d\vec{q}}{dt} = \vec{b} + (A-\text{tr}(A))\vec{q} + \vec{u}\times\vec{q},$$ where $$\label{eq:Amatrix}
A :=\frac{1}{2}\sum_j \vec{l_j}\overline{\vec{l}_j}^T+\overline{\vec{l}_j}\vec{l}_j^T,\qquad
\vec{b} := i\sum_j\! \vec{l}_j \times \overline{\vec{l}_j},$$ given that the bar represents the complex conjugate of matrices. The vectors $l_j$, $u$ are the traceless parts of $L_j$ and $H$ respectively with $H = \displaystyle{h_0I+\sum_{k=1}^3 \! u_k\sigma_k}$ where $\sigma_k$ are the Pauli matrices. Notice that the matrix $A$ is positive semi-definite. From here on out, we will call the matrix $A-\text{tr}(A)$ to be $B$.
Here we would like to point out that the system reduces in special cases to those studied in [@BonnardJMP], [@Bonnarcyber], [@bonnarsiam], [@Sugny]. Setting one of the controls in our system to zero and identifying the parameters that appear in the system given in [@Bonnarcyber], [@Sugny] with the elements of the matrix A, one obtains the system discussed in those papers.
As discussed above the control variables in the open quantum systems we discuss here appear in the Hamiltonian operator as in [@5288564], [@Sugny]. The controlled Hamiltonian dynamics cannot achieve a purity one [@tannor] and in general cannot affect the purity of the state or transfer the states between unitary orbits. To control purity one must use the dissipative dynamics to move between orbits as in [@PhysRevA.93.063424] and [@Rooney2]. In this paper we consider *unbounded* controls $\left\{u_{k}\right\}$ which may take any value in $\mathbb{R}$.
As long as $q$ is not at the origin, it can be shown that equation can be written in terms of the radial component (i.e., $r=\lVert q\rVert$). In [@PhysRevA.93.063424] it is shown that the purity $P_{2}(\rho)$ is equal to $\displaystyle{\frac{(1+r^2)}{2}}$, where $r=\lVert q\rVert$. So, controlling the purity is synonymous with controlling the magnitude of the Bloch vector. It is be helpful to extract the dynamics for $r$. Knowing that $r^2=\langle q,q\rangle$, we find that $$\begin{split}
2r\dot{r} &= 2\langle \dot{q},q\rangle
= 2\langle b+u\times q + Bq,q\rangle = 2\langle b,q\rangle +2\langle Bq,q\rangle\\
&= 2r\langle b,\hat{q}\rangle + 2r^2\langle B\hat{q},\hat{q}\rangle
\end{split}$$ where $\hat{q}$ is the unit vector associated with $q$, $\hat{q} = q /||q||$.
Therefore, $$\label{eq:redial}
r\frac{dr}{dt} = \langle q, b+Bq\rangle := f(q).$$ So, we can control the purity by controlling the orientation of the corresponding unit vector. Hereafter we refer to $\displaystyle{f(q)}$ as *the purity derivative*.
Our goal is to find a control scheme that optimally transports the completely mixed state to a state of maximal purity. This raises two questions: What is the maximal achievable purity? and, what do we mean by optimal?. To answer these questions we will introduce in the next section the notion of *apogee* and *escape chimney* as in [@PhysRevA.93.063424].
The apogee and the escape chimney {#section3}
=================================
The purity derivative (\[eq:redial\]) is independent of the controls used. It is illuminating to examine the regions in the Bloch sphere where the purity derivative is positive. To do this, we examine the zeros of $f$. Define two sets, $\mathcal{U} = \{q|f(q)\geq 0\}$ and the ellipsoid $\mathcal{M} = \{q|f(q)=0\}$. To find $\mathcal{M}$, we define a new function $f_q(r) := f(rq)$ where $q\in S^2$. Finding the roots of $f_q$ will let us solve for $\mathcal{M}$ in spherical coordinates. $$\label{eq:radialzeros}
f_q(r) = \langle q,Bq\rangle r^2 + \langle q,b\rangle r.$$ So, the nonzero root is $$\label{eq:nonzeroroot}
g(q) := -\frac{\langle q,b\rangle}{\langle q,Bq\rangle}.$$ Notice that $g$ is always defined since $B$ is negative-definite, and also note that the maximum of $g$ must be bounded by $1$, so the Bloch ball is invariant under (\[eq:bloch\]).\
Define $q_{apogee}$ to be *the apogee* of the ellipsoid $\mathcal{M}$. i.e. $$\label{eq:endpoint}
q_{apogee} := \arg\max_{q\in\mathcal{M}} ~ \lVert q \rVert,$$ which can be found by maximizing on $S^2$. Therefore, the apogee of the ellipsoid $\mathcal{M}$ will be the state with the maximal achievable purity. We call the interior of the ellipsoid $\mathcal{U}$ the *escape chimney*.
In Figure 3, in Section VI-B, we show a picture of the escape chimney inside the Bloch ball where the black square is the apogee and the trajectories represents energy minimum and time minimum control for initial conditions near the origin of the Bloch ball and final conditions at the apogee.
The optimal control problem consists of finding a trajectory of the state variables, starting at the completely mixed state (i.e., $r=0$) and ending at the apogee. It is important to note, however, that the dynamics (\[eq:redial\]) has a singularity at the origin since $$\frac{dr}{dt}=\frac{f(q)}{r},$$ as well as the fact that the apogee cannot be reached in finite time since it is not possible to reach equilibrium points in finite time. Note that the purity derivative is independent of controls, so that, for a given path the purity derivative is an autonomous first order dynamical system that cannot reach its fixed point.
To circumvent these problems, we take the following boundary conditions representing initial and final states $$\label{eq:startandend}
q_0 = \varepsilon \vec{b}/\lVert b\rVert, \hspace{0.15in} q_f = (1-\delta)q_{apogee}$$ with $\varepsilon>0$ and $\delta>0$ sufficiently small.
Therefore, we can now state the optimal control problem studied in this work as follow: Let $J:S^2\times U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a cost functional dependent on the state as well as the controls. The optimal control problem consists of finding a control, $u:[0,t_f]\rightarrow U$ satisfying the dynamics (\[eq:redial\]) such that $q(0)=q_0$, $q(t_f)=q_f$ and $u = \arg\min\! \int_0^{t_f} \! J(q,u)\, dt.$ In this work we study two different optimal control problems depending on the cost functional we choose: A *time-minimal optimal control problem* ($J=1$) and an *energy-minimal optimal control problem* ($J=||u||_{2}^{2}$).
Two-dimensional Systems
=======================
In the special case when $N=1$ in (\[eq:Lindblad\]), that is, only one Lindblad term; $\vec{b}$ becomes an eigenvector of $B$. This fact lets us simultaneously diagonalize $B$ and rotate $\vec{b}$ into the first coordinate. By additionally taking $u_1=u_2=0$, the third component of $q$ in equation becomes uncontrolled and exponentially decays to zero. Dropping this coordinate, our system collapses to a two-dimensional underactuated bi-linear control system: $$\label{eq:twodimenions}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\dot{x} &=& b_1 + a_1 x -uy \\
\dot{y} &=& b_2 + a_2 y + ux
\end{array}$$ where $u=u_3$, $a_1,a_2$ are the coefficients of the matrix $A$, $q=(x,y)$ and $\vec{b}=(b_1,b_2)$.
Time-Minimal Controls
---------------------
We want to find (unbounded) controls that steer (\[eq:twodimenions\]) with end points (\[eq:startandend\]) in the minimal amount of time possible. i.e. find a minimal solution to the functional $$\label{eq:2dlagrangian}
\min \int_{0}^{t_f} \! dt = \min \int_{x_0}^{x_f} \! \frac{dt}{dr}\frac{dr}{dx} \, dx$$ where $x(0)=x_0$ and $x(t_f)=x_f$. To find $dr/dt$, see $(\ref{eq:redial})$ and $dr/dx = x+yy'$. So we wish to minimize a functional with integrand $$\label{eq:lagrangian}
I(q,q') = \int\! L(q,q') dt = \int_{x_0}^{x_f} \! \frac{x+yy'}{\langle q,b+Bq\rangle} \, dx.$$ This Lagrangian is not hyperregular, so the Euler-Lagrange equations will fail to yield meaningful results [@baillieul2008nonholonomic]. To get around this problem, we implement the Rayleigh-Ritz numerical algorithm [@hoffman2001numerical]. We assume $y(x)$ is a sum of linearly independent functions $$\label{eq:yform}
y(x) = y^0(x) + \sum_{i=1}^M c_iy^i(x),$$ where $y^0(x_0) = y_0$, $y^0(x_f)=y_f$, and $y^i(x_0)=y^i(x_f)=0$. Specifically, we will take the following functions as a basis of polynomials for our approximation. $$\label{eq:guessfunctions}
\begin{split}
&y^i(x) = (x-x_0)(x-x_f)^i,\quad i=1,\ldots,M;\\
&y^0(x) = \frac{y_f-y_0}{x_f-x_0}(x-x_0)+y_0,
\end{split}$$ with $M$ an arbitrary integer. Then, a necessary condition for our guess to minimize the functional is for the following $M$ equations to hold $$\label{eq:partials}
\frac{\partial}{\partial c_i} I = \int_{x_0}^{x_f}\! \frac{\partial}{\partial c_i} L \, dx = 0.$$ This can be done by symbolically computing $\partial L/ \partial c_i$ in MATLAB and numerically integrating using a $4^{th}$ order Runge-Kutta method. In order to find the optimal values to the $c_i$’s, we construct a new function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:norm}
\nu:\mathbb{R}^M&\longrightarrow&\mathbb{R}\nonumber\\
c&\longmapsto &\left( \sum_{i=1}^M\left(\frac{\partial I}{\partial c_i}\right)^2 \right)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ which we use MATLAB’s `fminsearch` function to find a root to $\nu$.
Energy-Minimal Controls
-----------------------
For this, we want to minimize the following functional: $$\label{eq:minenergy}
\min \int_{0}^{t_f}\! u^2 \, dt = \min \int_{x_0}^{x_f}\! u^2 \frac{dt}{dx}\, dx.$$ To make independent of $u$, we note the relation $$\label{eq:dydxtou}
\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{b_2+a_2y+ux}{b_1+a_1x-uy},$$ which, solving for $u$, gives $$\label{eq:findu}
u = \frac{-(b_2+a_2y-y'(b_1+a_1x))}{x+yy'}.$$ Substituting into gives the integrand $$\label{eq:energyLagrangian}
L (q,q')= \frac{(b_2+a_2y-y'(b_1+a_1x))^2}{(x+yy')(a_1x^2+b_1x+a_2y^2+b_2y)}.$$ This problem can be solved by the Rayleigh-Ritz method as explained in the Time-Minimal section.
Three-dimensional Systems
=========================
Next, instead of considering $N=1$ we allow an arbitrary number of Lindblad operators $N$. We want to find optimal controls for the system with boundary values given by where $q=[x;y;z]^T$ is in the Bloch ball, that is $x^2+y^2+z^2\leq 1$.
Time-Minimal Controls
---------------------
This situation is similar to the two-dimensional case. All we need to do is modify to $$\label{eq:3dtimelagrangian}
I(q,q') = \int\! L(q,q') dt = \int \frac{x+yy'+zz'}{\langle q,b+Bq\rangle}\, dx,$$which can be solved with the same algorithm to the two-dimensional case with the following form $$\label{eq:threeguessfunctions}
\begin{split}
&y^i(x) = (x-x_0)(x-x_f)^i,\hbox{ } y^0(x) = \frac{y_f-y_0}{x_f-x_0}(x-x_0)+y_0,\\
&z^i(x) = y^i(x),\quad z^0(x) = \frac{z_f-z_0}{x_f-x_0}(x-x_0)+z_0,
\end{split}$$ for $i=1,\ldots,M$, where we now have to solve for $2M$ variables.
Energy-Minimal Controls
-----------------------
We want to minimize the cost functional $$\label{eq:3dimenergy}
I = \int_{0}^{t_f} \!\left( \sum_{i=1}^3 \! u_i^2 \right)\, dt = \int_{x_0}^{x_f} \! \left(\sum_{i=1}^3 \! u_i^2 \frac{dt}{dx}\right) \, dx.$$ To solve this, we need to make independent of the $u_i$’s. This yields the following system of equations coming from equations : $$\label{eq:systemfor3energy}
\begin{split}
\frac{dy}{dx} & = \frac{b_2+a_2y-u_3x+u_1z}{b_1+a_1x+u_3y-u_2z}, \\
\frac{dz}{dx} & = \frac{b_3+a_3z+u_2x-u_1y}{b_1+a_1x+u_3y-u_2z}, \\
\frac{dz}{dy} & = \frac{b_3+a_3z+u_2x-u_1y}{b_2+a_2y-u_3x+u_1z}.
\end{split}$$ We consider $u_1=0$ and we drop the third equation in . One can alternatively choose $u_2=0$ or $u_3=0$ and the others two controls different to zero. Denoting by $\displaystyle{\Gamma(q,q')=\frac{1}{x^2 + xyy' + xzz'}}$, solving for $u_2$ and $u_3$ yields:
$$\begin{aligned}
u_2=&-\Gamma(q,q')\left(b_3x - a_1x^2z' - a_2y^2z'+ a_3xz\right.\nonumber\\
&\left.\qquad\qquad \quad- b_1xz' + b_3yy' - b_2yz' + a_3yy'z\right)\label{eq:u1iszerocontrols},\\
u_3 =&\Gamma(q,q')\left(b_2x - a_1x^2y' - a_3y'z^2 + a_2xy \right.\nonumber\\
&\left.\qquad\quad\qquad-b_1xy' - b_3y'z+b_2zz' + a_2yzz'\right)\label{eq:u1iszerocontrols1}.\end{aligned}$$
To minimize , we must use and (along with $u_1=0$), the guesses , and solve for the coefficients.
Numerical Results
=================
Two-dimensional systems
-----------------------
We will work an example with parameter values $b_1=1$, $b_2=2$, $a_1=-3$ and $a_2=-4$. Additionally, we will take $\varepsilon = \delta = 10^{-3}$.\
Solving for the apogee in polar coordinates, we get $q_{apogee} = [0.4079,0.4493]^T$. Figure $1$ shows a simulation of the trajectory for the $7^{th}$ order curve.
----- -------- -------- -------- --------
Time Energy Time Energy
$1$ 1.9371 7.5830 1.9393 0.5365
$3$ 1.9366 8.6873 2.1477 0.2410
$5$ 1.9361 1.6368 2.1789 0.2334
$7$ 1.9359 1.3765 2.1569 0.2369
----- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Numerical results from time-minimal and energy-minimal controls with solutions of various orders.[]{data-label="table:2d"}
We can also use to determine what controls are required for the desired trajectory. Since all the computations are done independent of time, we will report a plot of $u$ versus $x$ in Figure $2$.
![Controls for the $7^{th}$ order curve.[]{data-label="fig:2d"}](controls_for_7th "fig:") \[figure2\]
An expected downfall of the simulations is that multiple local minimal solutions might exist. To find the unique global minimal solution, we repeat the algorithm for various initial conditions. We then find the best solution out of all of the candidates. For this case, we ran the algorithm 25 times and the initial conditions were uniformly randomly chosen in the $l^{\infty}$-ball of radius 2.
Three-dimensional systems
-------------------------
The parameters chosen here will be $b=[1,2,3]^T$ and $B=\text{diag}(-7,-6,-5)$. Again, we will take $\varepsilon=\delta=10^{-3}$.\
Solving for the apogee in spherical coordinates, we get $q_{apogee} = [0.1140,0.2954,0.6287]^T$. Figure $3$ shows a simulation of the trajectory for the $4^{th}$ order curve. We will follow the same method to avoid local minimums as in the two dimensional case: for all simulations, we solve for the optimal trajectory off of 50 random initial conditions in the $l^{\infty}$-ball of radius 2.
----- -------- -------- -------- --------
Time Energy Time Energy
$1$ 1.3188 207.26 1.3243 36.365
$2$ 1.3188 47.519 1.3205 32.491
$3$ 1.3189 42.431 1.3212 29.356
$4$ 1.3188 49.693 1.3214 31.682
----- -------- -------- -------- --------
: Numerical results from time-minimal and energy-minimal controls with solutions of various orders.[]{data-label="table:3d"}
\[figureball\] 
As before, we can also use and to determine what controls are required for the desired trajectory. Since all the computations are done independent of time, we will report a plot of $u$ versus $x$ in Figure \[fig:3d\].
![Controls for the $4^{th}$ order curves.[]{data-label="fig:3d"}](4th_order_controls_3d_case)
An interesting feature of the 3-dimensional case is the graphical solutions are much closer than the results for the 2-dimensional case.
Another interesting observation is from Fig. \[fig:2d\] where the controls approach different values as $x\rightarrow x_f$. In the time-minimal case, $u_{time}(x_f) = -0.5000$. If this value of $u$ is held constant and plugged into , then the (stable) fixed point of the system is precisely the apogee of the escape chimney. So under these controls, not only will we approach the apogee but we will also remain there. This also adds intuition to the time-minimal case: the optimal controls make the apogee the stable fixed point.
Now, for the three dimensional case, the controls do approach the same values at the endpoint as seen in Fig. \[fig:3d\]. These final controls, however, do not make the apogee the fixed point under i.e. $u_2(x_f)=1.265$ and $u_3(x_f)=2.007$ for both energy and time-minimal trajectories and $-(B+\hat{u})^{-1}b = [0.1364,0.3789,0.5655]^T \ne q_{apogee}$. This situation will be studied in future work.
Conclusions and future research
===============================
We studied time-minimum and energy-minimum global optimal control problems for dissipative open quantum systems where the dynamics is described by the Lindblad equation and controls are unbounded. We have transformed such a control system into a bi-linear singular control system in the Bloch ball and have come up with the construction of a numerical algorithm to design optimal paths to achieve a desired point given initial states close to the origin of the Bloch ball in both optimal control problems.
All of the results presented are based on having fast control of the Hamiltonian in , i.e. unbounded controls. It would be interesting to develop both time and energy-minimal control schemes where the control $u$ is bounded (for example, $\lVert u\rVert_{\infty}\leq 1)$. We are currently working on this problem building on the work of [@5288564] and [@kirk2004optimal].
Another problem in the bounded control setting is the fact that determining whether the apogee is asymptotically reachable is not clear. We hope to extend the results from [@Brockett1975] to determine when the apogee is asymptotically reachable. Extensions of our results to higher-order dimensional systems is another task to work based in this work. Finally, it would also be interesting to determine the best basis of functions for the Rayleigh-Ritz methods as well as the best order of solutions to use.
[1]{}
C. Altafini . vol.44, p. 2357, 2002.
A. Bloch, J. Baillieul, P. Crouch, and J. Marsden. . Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics. Springer New York, 2008.
B. Bonnard, M. Chyba, and D. Sugny. Time-minimal control of dissipative two-level quantum systems: The generic case. , 54(11):2598–2610, Nov 2009.
B. Bonnard, O. Cots, N. Shcherbakova and D. Sugny. The energy minimization problem for two-level dissipative quantum systems. , 51(9) 092705, 2010.
B. Bonnard and D. Sugny. Time-minimal control of dissipative two-level quantum systems: The integrable case ,vol. 38, no. 4A, pp. 1053-1080, 2009.
B. Bonnard and D. Sugny. Geometric optimal control and two-level dissipative quantum systems ,vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 1289-1308, 2009.
U. Boscain, M. Caponigro, M. Sigalotti. Multi-input Schrödinger equation: controllability, tracking, and application to the quantum angular momentum. , **256** (5), 3524-3551, 2014.
H. Breuer and F. Pertuccione. The theory of open quantum systems. Oxford University Press, 2007.
R. W. Brockett. , pages 54–63. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1975.
G. Charlot, J.P Gauthier, U. Boscain, S. Guérin and H. Jauslin. Optimal control in laser-induced population transfer for two- and three-level quantum systems. , **43** (5), 2107-2132, 2002.
R. Ernst, G. Bodenhausen, A. Wokaun. . Clarendon, Oxford, 1987.
J.D. Hoffman and S. Frankel. . Taylor & Francis, 2001.
N. Khaneja, R. Brockett and S. Glaser. . , **63** 032308, 2001.
N. Khaneja, S. Glaser and R. Brockett. . , **65** 032301, 2002.
D.E. Kirk. . Dover Books on Electrical Engineering Series. Dover Publications, 2004.
G. Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups. , 48(2):119–130, 1976.
S. Ramakrishna, T. Seideman. Intense laser alignment in dissipative media as a route of solvent dynamics. vol 95, p.113001, 2005.
C. Rangan and P. Bucksbaum. Optimality shaped terahertz pulses for phase retrieval in a Rydberg-atom data registrer. ,89 (18): 188301, 2002.
P. Rooney, A. Bloch, and C. Rangan. Flag-based control of quantum purity for $n=2$ systems. , 93:063424, 2016.
P. Rooney, A. Bloch, and C. Rangan. Decoherence control and purification of two-dimensional quantum density matrices under Lindblad dissipation. , Preprint 2012.
D. Sugny, C. Kontz and H.R. Jauslin. Time-optimal control of two-level dissipative quantum system. Phys. Rev. A, vol. 76, 2007, 023419.
D. Tannor and A. Bartana. On the interplay of control fields and spontaneous emission in laser cooling. 103: 10359-10363, 1999.
[^1]: $^{1}$W. Clark, A. Bloch, and L. Colombo are with Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, 530 Church St. Ann Arbor, 48109, Michigan, USA. [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]{}
[^2]: $^{2}$ P. Rooney is with Department of Physics, University of Windsor, Ontario N9B 3P4, Canada. [[email protected]]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The fundamental Higgs doublet may be replaced in the Standard Model by certain non-perturbative four-quark interactions, whose effect is to induce a composite Higgs sector responsible for electroweak symmetry breaking. A simple composite two-Higgs-doublet model is presented. The four-quark interactions arise naturally if there are either extra spatial dimensions or larger gauge symmetries at a multi-TeV scale. Some theoretical and phenomenological implications of these scenarios are discussed.'
address: |
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory\
P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA [^1]
author:
- 'Bogdan A. Dobrescu'
title: Higgs Compositeness from Top Dynamics and Extra Dimensions
---
[ FERMILAB-Conf-99/051-T\
]{}
March 18, 1999
Motivation
==========
The fundamental interactions observed so far in experiments are the $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_W \times U(1)_Y$ gauge interactions acting on three generations of chiral fermions, measured at length scales larger than $10^{-16}$ cm, and the universal gravitational interactions, measured at length scales larger than about 1 mm. In addition, it is necessary that some new interactions break spontaneously the electroweak symmetry. In the Standard Model these new interactions involve a fundamental Higgs doublet, which is a convenient but rather ad-hoc assumption. It is troublesome that the Higgs mass is not controlled by gauge invariance. The same remains true for the Supersymmetric Standard Model, where the $\mu$ term is not determined by the supersymmetry breaking scale. Although this problem may be cured by the presence of a new gauge group whose breaking is linked to the transmission of supersymmetry breaking [@mu], it remains desirable to investigate other origins of the electroweak asymmetry of the vacuum.
It is remarkable that the electroweak symmetry may be spontaneously broken without the need for new fields. This is possible because the electroweak symmetry is embedded in the chiral symmetry of the quarks and leptons. Given that strongly coupled four-fermion interactions induce chiral symmetry breaking [@njl], it is possible to replace the fundamental Higgs doublet by certain four-quark operators [@condens; @bhl]. However, a computation of the $W$ and $Z$ masses in the large $N_c$ limit indicates that the electroweak breaking quark mass should be of order 0.5 TeV in the absence of excessive fine-tuning. It would be tempting then to consider a fourth generation of fermions, but this is disfavored by the current electroweak data (at the 99.8% confidence level [@lang] in the case of degenerate fermions).
There is a simple solution to this puzzle: to introduce a seventh quark, $\chi$, whose left and right components transform as the right-handed top quark, $t_R$, under the Standard Model gauge group. In this case, there is mass mixing between $\chi$ and $t$. The electroweak breaking $\bar{\chi}_R t_L$ mass induced by four-quark interactions can be of order 0.5 TeV, while the electroweak preserving masses $\bar{\chi}_R \chi_L$ and $\bar{t}_R \chi_L$ may be chosen to yield the physical top mass at 175 GeV. This is the top condensation seesaw mechanism [@dhseesaw].
A consequence of this scenario is the existence of several composite scalars. If the four-quark operators involve only the $\chi_R$ and the $(t,b)_L$ doublet, then the low energy theory is the Standard Model with a heavy Higgs boson [@eff]. On the other hand, if the $t,b$ and $\chi$ participate in the four-quark interactions, the composite Higgs sector includes three weak doublets and three singlets [@eff]. Due to the mixing between the doublets, one of the neutral Higgs bosons may be light. In fact there is a second order phase transition from the electroweak asymmetric vacuum to a non-viable vacuum, in which the lightest Higgs mass vanishes. Therefore, in this case the only lower bound on the Higgs mass is set by direct searches.
By contrast to other mechanisms for dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking, this framework reduces to the Standard Model in a decoupling limit. For example, in the three-Higgs doublet model mentioned above, one can increase the masses of all the composite states other than the lightest Higgs boson, by increasing the scale of the four quark operators and the $\chi$ mass while keeping the VEVs close to the boundary of the second order phase transition. This guarantees that the models of this type are in agreement with the electroweak precision measurements (at least as long as the Standard Model is in agreement). A simpler model, with a composite Higgs sector involving only two doublets, which reduces to the Standard Model in the decoupling limit is presented in Section II.
These arguments show that the fundamental Higgs doublet from the Standard Model may be successfully replaced by a vectorlike quark and four-quark interactions. Such a theory is non-renormalizable, so that one has to identify a suitable origin of the four-quark operators. They may be generated by the dynamics of some spontaneously broken gauge group. The prototypical group of this sort is topcolor [@topcolor], which is an embedding of $SU(3)_C$ in $SU(3) \times SU(3)$. Models of this type are discussed in [@dhseesaw; @eff]. Other embeddings have been introduced in Ref. [@family; @mirror]. A complication of this approach is that the breaking of the additional gauge groups is non-trivial because of their strong couplings.
Another possibility is that the four-quark operators are induced by some gauge dynamics in compact spatial dimensions [@compact]. There are two immediate reasons that make this possibility attractive. First, from a four-dimensional point of view, the gauge bosons that have a non-zero momentum in the extra dimensions appear as massive, so that they induce four-fermion operators in the low energy theory without the need of breaking the gauge symmetry. Second, the gauge coupling is dimensionfull in more than four-dimensions such that the strength of the gauge interactions increases with the energy, giving rise to non-perturbative effects [@tcdim].
In addition, the compact spatial dimensions may provide a special bonus. To see this note that the existence of a fundamental $\chi$ quark may be seen as artificial as the Higgs sector in the Supersymmetric Standard Model because its mass is not controlled by gauge invariance. However, if the $t_R$ propagates in the extra dimensions, the four-dimensional fundamental $\chi$ may be replaced by the Kaluza-Klein excitations of $t_R$.
The possibility of electroweak symmetry breaking due to dynamics in extra dimensions is discussed in section III.
A viable composite two-Higgs-doublet model
==========================================
Certain features of the models introduced in Ref. [@eff] may be combined to construct a minimal composite Higgs model that has the Standard Model as a decoupling limit. The only fundamental fields are the $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_W \times U(1)_Y$ gauge bosons, the three generations of chiral fermions, and a weak-singlet vectorlike quark, $\chi$, of electric charge 2/3. Since the $\chi_L, \chi_R$ and $t_R$ transform in the same representation of the Standard Model gauge group, the Lagrangian includes the following gauge invariant mass terms $${\cal L}_{\rm mass} = - \mu_{\chi\chi} \overline{\chi}_L\chi_R
- \mu_{\chi t} \overline{\chi}_L t_R + {\rm h.c.}$$
An attractive interaction between $\bar{\chi}_R$ and $\psi^3_L \equiv (t,b)_L$ gives rise to a bound state with the quantum numbers of a Higgs field. In order to keep the $\psi_L^3$ field in the low energy theory, this interaction has to be non-confining. By increasing the strength of this interaction, the Higgs field becomes more deeply bound, until it develops a VEV.
The simplest interaction of this sort is a four-quark term in the Lagrangian. For breaking electroweak symmetry it is sufficient that the four-quark operator involves the $\chi_R$ and the $\psi_L^3$ [@eff]. In this case, the mass of the composite Higgs boson is determined by the electroweak scale, and is large, close to the upper bound allowed by unitarity and triviality. On the other hand, if the $t_R$ also participates in the four-quark interaction, then the relation between the Higgs mass and the electroweak scale disappears. This is the consequence of the mixing between the two composite Higgs doublets that are present in this situation. Therefore, the Standard Model with a Higgs boson mass constrained from below only by direct searches, may be obtained in a certain decoupling limit from a theory which includes the following four-quark operators: $${\cal L}_{\rm eff} = \frac{g_{\psi\chi}^2}{M^2}
\left(\overline{\psi}_L^3 \chi_R \right)
\left(\overline{\chi}_R \psi_L^3 \right)
+ \frac{g_{\psi t}^2}{M^2} \left(\overline{\psi}_L^3 t_R \right)
\left(\overline{t}_R \psi_L^3 \right) ~.
\label{fourq}$$ These interactions give rise below the scale $M$ to two composite Higgs doublets: $H_t \equiv \overline{t}_R \psi_L^3$ and $H_\chi \equiv \overline{\chi}_R \psi_L^3$. The Lagrangian for the composite Higgs fields[^2], valid below the scale $M$, includes kinetic terms involving the usual covariant derivative, Yukawa couplings of the scalars to their constituents, and a scalar potential: $${\cal L}_H = (D^\mu H_t^\dagger)(D_\mu H_t) +
(D^\mu H_\chi^\dagger)(D_\mu H_\chi) +
\left(\xi_t \overline{\psi}_L^3 t_R H_t
+ \xi_\chi \overline{\psi}_L^3 \chi_R H_\chi + {\rm h.c.} \right)
+ V(H_t,H_\chi) ~.$$ The potential, $V$, and the Yukawa couplings, $\xi_t,\xi_\chi$, can be determined as an expansion in $1/N_c$. Although in practice the number of colors is only $N_c = 3$, there is no reason to believe that the corrections to the leading order in $1/N_c$ change the results qualitatively. Furthermore, certain important features such as the existence of a second-order phase transition are independent of the $1/N_c$ expansion [@transition]. In the large-$N_c$ limit, there are contributions (see Fig. 1) to the kinetic terms and to the following scalar terms: $$V(H_t,H_\chi) = \frac{\lambda}{2}\left[
(H_t^\dagger H_t)^2 + (H_\chi^\dagger H_\chi)^2
+ 2 |H_t^\dagger H_\chi|^2 \right] + M_{H_t}^2 H_t^\dagger H_t
+ M_{H_\chi}^2 H_\chi^\dagger H_\chi +
\mu_{\chi\chi}\mu_{\chi t}
\left(H_t^\dagger H_\chi + {\rm h.c.} \right) ~.
\label{potential}$$
(388,140)(-45,-20) (100,50) (80,50)[(-2, 0)[11]{}]{} (63,50)[(-2, 0)[11]{}]{} (46,50)[(-2, 0)[11]{}]{} (95,15)[$\psi^3_L$]{} (120,50)[(2, 0)[11]{}]{} (137,50)[(2, 0)[11]{}]{} (154,50)[(2, 0)[11]{}]{} (90,77)[$t_R, \chi_R$]{} (300,50) (286,64)[(-1,1)[10]{}]{} (272,78)[(-1,1)[10]{}]{} (258,92)[(-1,1)[10]{}]{} (290,77)[$t_R, \chi_R$]{} (290,17)[$t_R, \chi_R$]{} (265,45)[$\psi^3_L$]{} (325,45)[$\psi^3_L$]{} (286,36)[(-1,-1)[10]{}]{} (272,22)[(-1,-1)[10]{}]{} (258,8)[(-1,-1)[10]{}]{} (314,36)[(1,-1)[10]{}]{} (328,22)[(1,-1)[10]{}]{} (342,8)[(1,-1)[10]{}]{} (314,64)[(1,1)[10]{}]{} (328,78)[(1,1)[10]{}]{} (342,92)[(1,1)[10]{}]{}
The quartic coupling $\lambda$, the scalar masses, $M_{H_t}, M_{H_\chi}$, and the Yukawa couplings are scale dependent parameters. Their values at a momentum scale $\mu$ are determined by the matching conditions at the scale $M$, namely that all of them blow up because the Higgs fields are no longer degrees of freedom above $M$. Also, the exchange of the Higgs fields should give rise to the four quark interactions (\[fourq\]), so that at the scale $M$ $$\frac{g_{\psi t}^2}{M^2} = \frac{\xi_t^2}{M_{H_t}^2} \;\;\; , \;\; \;\;
\frac{g_{\psi \chi}^2}{M^2} = \frac{\xi_\chi^2}{M_{H_\chi}^2} \; ~.$$ Computing the diagrams of Fig. 1 with a momentum cut-off $M$, gives for $\mu \ll M$ the following results [@eff]: $$\xi_t = \xi_\chi = \sqrt{\frac{\lambda}{2}} =
\frac{4 \pi }{ \sqrt{N_c \ln \left(M^2/\mu^2\right)}} \; ~,
\label{yuk}$$ $$M_{H_{t,\chi}}^2 = \frac{2 M^2}{\ln \left(M^2/\mu^2\right)}
\left(\frac{8\pi^2}{N_c g^2_{\psi t, \chi}} - 1 \right)
+ 2 \mu_{\chi\chi}^2 ~.
%\frac{\mu_{\chi\chi}^2}{M^2} \ln \left( \frac{M^2}{\mu^2}\right) \right] ~.
\label{scmass}$$ From the expression for the masses it follows that as the four-quark couplings $g^2_{\psi t, \chi}$ are varied, the vacuum suffers a second order phase transition (or at least a weakly first order one). Note that in addition to the terms displayed in Eq. (\[potential\]), the potential includes higher dimensional terms and sub-leading terms in $\mu/M$, which may be neglected. The $H_t^\dagger H_\chi$ term is appropriately included in $V$ because for $g^2_{\psi t, \chi}$ close to the critical value, the $|M_{H_{t,\chi}}^2|$ squared masses may be comparable or smaller than $\mu_{\chi\chi}\mu_{\chi t}$. In the presence of this term, the two doublets acquire aligned VEVs for a range of $g^2_{\psi t, \chi}$: $$\langle H_t \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left( \begin{array}{c} v \cos\beta \\ [2mm] 0 \end{array} \right)
\;\;\; \;\; , \;\; \;\;\;\;
\langle H_\chi \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left( \begin{array}{c} v \sin\beta \\ [2mm] 0 \end{array} \right) ~.$$ where the electroweak scale, $v\approx 246 \; {\rm GeV}$, and $\tan \beta$ are determined from the minimization conditions as functions of $M_{H_{t,\chi}}^2/\lambda$ and $\mu_{\chi\chi}\mu_{\chi t}/\lambda$. The top quark mass is given by the smaller eigenvalue of the $t - \chi$ mass matrix: $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \xi_t v \cos\beta \; &
\; \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \xi_\chi v \sin\beta \\ [2mm]
\mu_{\chi t} \; & \; \mu_{\chi\chi} \end{array} \right)$$ For example, when $\tan \beta \gg 1$ the top mass is given by a seesaw relation: $$m_t \approx \frac{\xi_\chi v}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{\mu_{\chi t}}{\mu_{\chi\chi}} ~.$$ Note that $\xi_\chi v/\sqrt{2} \sim 0.5$ TeV, as mentioned in Section I. The lightest CP-even neutral Higgs boson has a squared-mass $$M_{h^0}^2 = \lambda v^2 + M_{H_{t}}^2 + M_{H_{\chi}}^2
- \left[
\left(\frac{\lambda v^2}{2} \cos 2\beta +
M_{H_{t}}^2 - M_{H_{\chi}}^2 \right)^2 +
\left(\frac{\lambda v^2}{2} \sin 2\beta +
2 \mu_{\chi t}\mu_{\chi\chi}\right)^2 \right]^{1/2} \; ~.$$
Consider the following decoupling limit $$M_{H_{t}}, M_{H_{\chi}}, \mu_{\chi\chi} \gg \mu \sim v ~.$$ This limit implies a fine-tuning of the mass parameters in the potential such that the two VEVs remain fixed when the masses increase. Eqs. (\[yuk\]) and (\[scmass\]) remain valid provided $M \gg \mu_{\chi\chi}^2/\mu$. It is clear that a tuning of $M_{H_{t,\chi}}$, $\mu_{\chi\chi}$ and $\mu_{\chi t}$ allows the $h^0$ to remain light, while the other physical scalar masses decouple. Therefore, in this decoupling limit the composite Higgs sector reduces to the Standard Model Higgs. In actuality it is not necessary to tune the parameters more finely than a few percent in order to keep the corrections to the electroweak observables in agreement with the data (the main constraint comes from the $\rho$ parameter [@dhseesaw; @eff; @isospin]).
With the electroweak symmetry broken correctly and the top quark mass accommodated as shown above, it remains to produce the masses and mixings of the other quarks and leptons. In the effective theory below the scale $M$, these are easily generated by perturbative four-fermion operators which induce Standard Model Yukawa couplings. For example, the operators $$\frac{1}{M^2} \left( \overline{\chi}_R \psi_L^3\right)
\left( \overline{l}_L^j i\sigma_2 e_R^k\right)
\label{yukmas}$$ induce Yukawa couplings between $H_\chi$ and the charged lepton fields, $l_L^j$ and $e_R^i$, ($j,k$ are generational indices). These four-fermion operators and the non-perturbative four-quark operators that produce the Higgs bound states have to originate in physics above the scale $M$. Another possibility for fermion mass generation is to extend the seesaw mechanism to all the quarks and leptons [@family].
Gauge Dynamics in Compact Spatial Dimensions
============================================
The non-perturbative four-quark operators introduced in Section II may arise naturally in the presence of compact spatial dimensions [@compact]. Although this is a rather general statement, it is instructive to discuss it from the perspective of string theory.
String (or M) theory predicts the existence of 16 or 32 conserved supercharges, and six (seven) extra spatial dimensions at the string scale $M_s$. It has been traditionally assumed that i) $M_s$ is close to the Planck scale, ii) the extra dimensions are compactified at $M_s$, and iii) $N=1$ supersymmetry is preserved all the way down to the electroweak scale. All these assumptions are consistent with a perturbative string picture. However, the recent progress in understanding non-perturbative string dynamics raises questions about these three assumptions.
First, it is natural that the string scale $M_s$ is lowered down to the GUT scale [@witten], and in fact it can be placed anywhere below the Planck scale, with a lower bound set by phenomenology in the TeV range [@lykken]. A remarkable realization of this idea [@largedim] is based on the observations that there may be compact dimensions as large as 1 mm provided they are accessible only to gravitons, and that the scale where gravity becomes strong is suppressed by the volume of the compact space. The restriction of matter and gauge fields to a surface in extra dimensions is permitted in string and M theory by the existence of branes.
Second, extra dimensions accessible to both gravitons and gauge bosons may also have compactification scales as small as a few TeV [@kkstates], and in principle could be somewhat larger than $M_s^{-1}$.
Finally, non-perturbative string effects may break supersymmetry completely at the $M_s$ scale. For example, a general manifold does not preserve any supercharge, so that if some of the spatial dimensions have the compactification scale at $M_s$, the low energy theory may be a non-supersymmetric field theory.
Of course, string theory is still plagued with phenomenological disasters, such as the cosmological constant problem, the existence of potentially massless moduli, or the inability of predicting the Standard Model at low energy. However, these problems might be solved in the future. Until the non-perturbative string effects will be better understood, it is useful to adopt a phenomenological approach, and to investigate various scenarios for physics beyond the Standard Model inspired by the above considerations regarding string theory.
A commonly used assumption for allowing chiral fermions in the four-dimensional theory obtained upon dimensional reduction, is that a quantum field theory may be defined on an orbifold, which is a space with singularities. This assumption, made a long time ago [@kkstates] and reinvigorated by the $S^1/Z_2$ compactification of M theory [@hora], has been used to study supersymmetry breaking [@peskin], gauge coupling unification [@ddg], and other phenomenological and theoretical issues [@flavor; @extrad] regarding extra dimensions. It is not clear whether the string dynamics may be treated below $M_s$ as pure quantum field theory in a higher dimensional space, especially since the separation between the compactification scale and $M_s$ is not large, but one can assume that this is the case and investigate the consequences.
The above considerations have a striking connection with the composite Higgs models: the required four-quark interactions may be induced by gauge dynamics in extra dimensions. The physical picture employed here is that the eleven-dimensional spacetime of M theory includes three flat spatial dimensions and seven compact dimensions with a sufficiently large volume to allow $M_s$ much below the Planck scale. The gauge fields are restricted to a region of this space which includes the three-dimensional flat space and has a thickness larger than $M_s^{-1} $ in $\delta$ extra dimensions. In this case, the gluons that have zero momentum in the extra dimensions correspond to the massless QCD gluons, while the ones with non-zero momentum in the extra dimensions are massive gauge bosons from a four-dimensional point of view, with a spectrum given by $$M_{n_1, ..., n_\delta}^2 = \sum_{l = 1}^{\delta}\frac{n_l^2}{R_l^2} ~,$$ where $R_l$ are the compactification radii of the $\delta$ extra dimensions, and $n_l$ are the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitation numbers. If the quarks propagate only on the three-dimensional boundary of the $3 + \delta$ space accessible to the gluons (this corresponds to the fixed point of an orbifold), then the couplings of the KK modes of the gauge bosons to the quarks and leptons are identical (up to an overall normalization) with those of the Standard Model gauge bosons. Therefore, the tree level exchange of the gluonic KK modes induces flavor universal four-quark operators in the low energy theory: $${\cal L}_{\rm eff}^c =
- \sum_{l=1}^{\delta} \sum_{n_l \ge 0}
\frac{g_s^2}{2 M_{n_1, ..., n_\delta}^2}
\left(\sum_{q} \overline{q} \gamma_\mu T^a q \right)^2 ~,
\label{ops1}$$ where $q$ are all the quark fields, $T^a$ are the $SU(3)_{\rm C}$ generators, and $g_s$ is the QCD gauge coupling. The sum over KK modes should be cut off at modes of mass $\sim M_s$. The left-right current-current part of ${\cal L}_{\rm eff}^c$ has the same form (due to a Firz transformation and the large-$N_c$ limit) as the operators that produce scalar bound states, while the other parts of ${\cal L}_{\rm eff}^c$ do not contribute in the large-$N_c$ limit to the scalar potential.
It is clear that for a sufficiently large number of extra dimensions, the number of KK modes, $N_{KK}$, grows to the point where the attractive interaction between the quarks is strong enough to trigger electroweak symmetry breaking. In practice, the sum (\[ops1\]) is super-critical for $\delta = 4$ dimensions of size $\sim 2/M_s $. This result [@compact] is derived at tree level, so that it may be modified when loops are included. However, the qualitative picture appears to be robust.
Since the gluon couplings are flavor universal, all the quarks participate as constituents in scalar bound states. The VEVs of these scalars may be controlled by additional interactions. For example, the KK modes of the hypercharge gauge boson give rise to four-quark interactions which are attractive for the up-type quarks and repulsive for the down-type ones. Therefore, the scalars made up of up-type quarks are the most strongly bound and they will be the only ones with non-zero VEVs provided the flavor universal interactions are close to criticality. Furthermore, some flavor non-universal interactions should prevent the bound states involving the up and charm quarks from developing large VEVs. Such interactions, as well as the perturbative four-fermion terms that should induce the light quark and lepton masses, could be accommodated by various flavor physics scenarios above the compactification scale [@flavor].
It is convenient to assume that $M_s$ corresponds to the scale where the perturbative expansion in $\alpha_s N_{KK}$ breaks down, which is usually larger than the compactification scale by less than one order of magnitude. Given that the compactification scale corresponds to the scale $M$ of the four-quark operators, which is most likely in the $10 - 50$ TeV range, the string scale is expected to be $M_s \sim {\cal O}(100)$ TeV. The compact space accessible to the gravitons has in this case a seven-dimensional volume of order (10 GeV)$^{-7}$.
The framework discussed here can be extended in different directions. For example, instead of using the gluonic KK modes for binding the composite scalar states, one can use some new gauge symmetries. Most economical would be an anomalous $U(1)$ which leads to the formation of only two Higgs doublets, as in Section II. Another interesting possibility is to allow the $t_R$ to propagate in extra dimensions such that its KK modes play the role of $\chi$. Some of the above arguments change in this case because the couplings of the gluonic KK modes are modified.
In conclusion, a composite Higgs sector may be provided by quark-antiquark states bound by gluons propagating in compact dimensions. If the Higgs sector will be discovered in collider experiments, then the study of the spectrum will allow to distinguish the origin of the attractive four-quark interactions: new gauge bosons, or extra dimensions.
[*Acknowledgements:*]{} I would like to thank Chris Hill and Nima Arkani-Hamed for illuminating conversations, and the organizers of DPF’99 for a stimulating environment. Fermilab is operated by the URA under DOE contract DE-AC02-76CH03000.
H. C. Cheng, B. A. Dobrescu, and K. T. Matchev, Phys. Lett. [**B439**]{}, 301 (1998), hep-ph/9807246, and hep-ph/9811316. Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**122**]{}, 345 (1961).
Y. Nambu, in the Proceedings of the [*XI Warsaw Symposium on Elementary Particle Physics, May 1988*]{}, ed. Z. Ajduk, [*et al*]{} (World Scientific, 1989); in the Proceedings of the [*1988 International Workshop on New Trends in Strong Coupling Gauge Theories*]{}, Nagoya, Japan, ed. Bando, Muta and Yamawaki (World Scientific, 1989); report EFI-89-08 (1989);\
V. A. Miransky, M. Tanabashi and K. Yamawaki, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A4**]{}, 1043 (1989); Phys. Lett. [**B221**]{}, 177 (1989);\
W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2793 (1989).
W.A. Bardeen, C.T. Hill and M. Lindner, Phys. Rev. [ **D41**]{}, 1647 (1990). J. Erler and P. Langacker, hep-ph/9809352. B. A. Dobrescu and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 2634 (1998), hep-ph/9712319. R. S. Chivukula, B. A. Dobrescu, H. Georgi, and C. T. Hill, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{}, 075003 (1999), hep-ph/9809470.
C. T. Hill, Phys. Lett. [**B266**]{}, 419 (1991). G. Burdman and N. Evans, hep-ph/9811357. M. Lindner and G. Triantaphyllou, Phys. Lett. [**B430**]{}, 303 (1998), hep-ph/9803383;\
G. Triantaphyllou, hep-ph/9811250.
B. A. Dobrescu, hep-ph/9812349. N. Arkani-Hamed and S. Dimopoulos, hep-ph/9811353.
R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 075004 (1998), hep-ph/9805478. R. S. Chivukula, B. A. Dobrescu and J. Terning, Phys. Lett. [**B353**]{}, 289 (1995), hep-ph/9503203.
M. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. [**D41**]{}, 3457 (1990);\
M. A. Luty, Phys. Rev. [**D41**]{}, 2893 (1990).
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B471**]{}, 135 (1996), hep-th/9602070. J. Lykken, Phys. Rev. [**D54**]{}, 3693 (1996), hep-th/9603133. N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. [**B429**]{}, 263 (1998), hep-ph/9803315.
I. Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. [**B246**]{}, 377 (1990);\
V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Lett. [**B270**]{}, 21 (1991);\
I. Antoniadis and K. Benakli, Phys. Lett. [**B326**]{}, 69 (1994), hep-th/9310151;\
I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli and M. Quiros, Phys. Lett. [**B331**]{}, 313 (1994), hep-ph/9403290.
P. Horava and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. [**B475**]{}, 94 (1996), hep-th/9603142; Nucl. Phys. [**B460**]{}, 506 (1996), hep-th/9510209.
E. A. Mirabelli and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 065002 (1998), hep-th/9712214;\
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, hep-th/9810155. K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas, and T. Ghergheta, Phys. Lett. [**B436**]{}, 55 (1998), hep-ph/9803466;\
D. Ghilencea and G. G. Ross, hep-ph/9809217;\
S. A. Abel and S. F. King, hep-ph/9809467;\
C. D. Carone, hep-ph/9902407.
K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas, T. Ghergheta, Nucl. Phys. [**B537**]{}, 47 (1999), hep-ph/9806292, and hep-ph/9811428;\
Z. Berezhiani and G. Dvali, hep-ph/9811378;\
N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali and J. March-Russell, hep-ph/9811448;\
Z. Kakushadze, hep-th/9812163 and hep-th/9902080;\
A. E. Faraggi and M. Pospelov, hep-ph/9901299.
I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. [**B436**]{}, 257 (1998), hep-ph/9804398;\
H. Hatanaka, T. Inami and C. S. Lim, hep-th/9805067;\
G. Shiu and S.-H. H. Tye, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{}, 106007 (1998), hep-th/9805157;\
A. Pomarol and M. Quiros, hep-ph/9806263;\
Z. Kakushadze and S.-H. H. Tye, hep-th/9809147;\
K. Benakli, hep-ph/9809582;\
I. Antoniadis, S. Dimopoulos, A. Pomarol, and M. Quiros, hep-ph/9810410;\
Z. Kakushadze, hep-th/9811193;\
T. Kobayashi, J. kubo, M. Mondragon and G. Zoupanos, hep-ph/9812221;\
A. Delgado, A. Pomarol, and M. Quiros, hep-ph/9812489;\
A. Donini and S. Rigolin, hep-ph/9901443;\
Y. Kawamura, hep-ph/9902423;\
M. Masip and A. Pomarol, hep-ph/9902467;\
P. Nath and M. Yamaguchi, hep-ph/9902323 and hep-ph/9903298.
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
[^2]: Some related composite two-Higgs-doublet models have been studied in [@twoh].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We have analysed the distribution of galaxies in groups identified in the largest redshift surveys at the present: the final release of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the first release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Our work comprises the study of the galaxy density profiles and the fraction of galaxies per spectral type as a function of the group-centric distance. We have calculated the projected galaxy density profiles of galaxy groups using composite samples in order to increase the statistical significance of the results. Special cares have been taken in order to avoid possible biases in the group identification and the construction of the projected galaxy density profile estimator. The results show that the projected galaxy density profiles obtained for both redshift surveys are in agreement with a projected Navarro, Frenk & White predictions in the range $0.15< r/r_{200}
< 1$, whereas a good fit for the measured profiles in the whole range of $r/r_{200}$ is given by a projected King profile. We have adopted a generalized King profile to fit the measured projected density profiles per spectral type. In order to infer the 3-D galaxy density profiles, we deproject the 2-D density profiles using a deprojection method similar to the developed by Allen & Fabian. From 2-D and 3-D galaxy density profiles we have estimated the corresponding galaxy fractions per spectral type. The 2-D fraction of galaxies computed using the projected profiles show a similar segregation of galaxy spectral types as the obtained by Domínguez et al. for groups in the early data release of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. As expected, the trends obtained for the 3-D galaxy fractions show steeper slopes than the observed in the 2-D fractions.
author:
- 'Eugenia Díaz, Ariel Zandivarez, Manuel E. Merchán and Hernán Muriel'
title: 2dFGRS and SDSS Galaxy Group Density Profiles
---
Introduction
============
Several models have been proposed to characterize the projected galaxy density in clusters of galaxies. Most of these models assume spherical symmetry and that the matter distribution is traced by galaxies. The first assumption can be true for a sub-sample of clusters, while the second is more difficult to quantify and is close related with different processes like galaxy formation, galaxy evolution, dynamical friction, etc. Assuming that the galaxy velocity dispersion is well represented by an isothermal sphere, King (1962) proposed a model to describe the galaxy projected density profile. More recently, Navarro, Frenk and White (1995, hereafter NFW95) analysing high-resolution N-body simulations propose an universal profile for dark matter halos. These authors found that their model can appropriately describe the mass density profiles for a large range of masses. The observational evidence coming from the giant arcs in clusters can be used to introduce constrains to the mass distribution in the core of clusters (Navarro, Frenk and White 1997). Strong lensing effects require a very small core radii, that in principle can be consistent with the NFW mass profile. Nevertheless, very high resolution cosmological simulations produce density profiles with inner slopes $\sim -1.5$ that are steeper than the obtained from NFW (slope of $\sim -1$ near the center) (Moore et al. 1998). It is not clear whether the galaxy density profile will follow the mass, in particular in the very core of clusters where the scales of galaxies impose the resolution limit. The controversy among different models to describe both, the mass and galaxy profile is still open and more observational evidences are needed.
Adami et al. (1998) studied the galaxy density profiles for an important sample of rich clusters of galaxies. One of the main clue of this work was to investigate whether the galaxy distributions have cores (like King profile) or cups (NFW profile). Based on redshift information taken from ENACS (ESO Nearby Abell Cluster Survey, Katgert et al. 1998) and projected galaxy distribution coming from COSMOS (MacGillivray & Yentis, 1994) Adami et al. 1998 conclude that in general the King profile provides a better representation of the data than the NFW profile.
Bartelman (1996) derived the analytic expression for the surface mass density of the NFW profile while Lokas & Mamon (2001) provide the tools for modeling the NFW profile and give predictions for different observational quantities. Independently of any analytical model the 3D profile can be derived applying a deprojection method similar to those implemented for the X-ray analysis of the hot intra-cluster gas (Allen & Fabian 1997).
Most of the previous analysis on galaxy density profiles consider galaxies regardless their properties. The effect of morphological segregation (MS), (Dressler 1980, Whitmore & Gilmore 1991, Dominguez, Muriel & Lambas 2001) implies that different galaxy populations will have different galaxy density profiles. MS works were carried out analysing the bidimensional (2-D) galaxy fractions of different morphological types. In order to recover the 3D MS, the spatial (3-D) galaxy density profiles for each morphological type should be previously known. Salvador-Sole and Sanromà (1989) have analysed the observed correlation between morphological fractions and the projected density of galaxies. They found that this correlation is a consequence of an intrinsic 3D effect that is dependent on cluster concentration.
Using the Merchán & Zandivarez (2002) group catalog constructed from the early data release of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, Dominguez et al. (2002) derive the relative fraction of galaxies with different spectral types as a function of local galaxy density and group-centric distance. These authors found that for high mass groups ($M_V {\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}10^{13.5} M_\odot$) a strong dependence of the relative fraction of spectral types on both, galaxy density and group-centric radius is observed.
The aim of this paper is to determine the projected and the 3-D galaxy group density profiles for different spectral types. We also derive the intrinsic 3-D MS that results from the observed 2-D MS. The observational results are compared with those obtained from different analytical models. This paper is outlined as follows: the deprojection method to apply on projected density profiles is described in section 2. The galaxy and group data in the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey is quoted in section 3. The mock catalog tests made for the projected density profile estimator and the subsequent application to observational data are carried out in section 4. The derivation of the 3-D density profiles and the estimation of 3-D galaxy fractions are described in section 5. Finally, in section 6 we summarize our conclusions.
Density profiles in numerical simulations
=========================================
Density profiles estimator
--------------------------
We use collisionless cosmological numerical simulations of flat, low density, cold dark matter universes performed using the Hydra N-body code developed by Couchman et al. (1995). Simulations are constructed with $128^3$ particles in a cubic comoving volume of $180 \ h^{-1} \ Mpc$ per side starting at $z=50$. The adopted cosmological model corresponds to an universe with a present day matter density $\Omega_m=0.3$, vacuum energy density $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, initial spectral slope $n=1$, $\Gamma=0.21$, Hubble constant $H_0=100 \ h \ km \ s^{-1} \ Mpc^{-1}$ with $h=0.7$ and an amplitude of mass fluctuations of $\sigma_8=0.9$.
Groups used in this section were, initially, identified using a standard friend of friend finder algorithm with density contrast of $\delta \rho /
\bar{\rho} =300$ corresponding to a linking length of $d_0=0.15\times n^{-1/3}$,where $n$ is the mean density number of particles; after that we select high mass groups, spanning a mass range from $3.5\times10^{13} $ to $5.8\times10^{14} \ M_\odot \
h^{-1}$. The final sample consists of $690$ groups.
In an attempt to increase the statistical significance, we combine all groups to produce a composite set of dark matter (DM) particles, properly scaled to take into account the different group sizes and masses. The composite sample was made assuming that all groups obey the same type of density profile but with different scales. Hence, it is necessary to introduce two parameters: one of them to normalize the group-centric distances and the other to normalize the masses. For convenience, we adopt the radius at which the mean interior density is 200 times the mean density of the universe ($r_{200}$) as the normalization scale and the mass contained in $r_{200}$ ($M_{200}$) as the mass normalization.
We measure the projected density profile for the composite sample as a function of the normalized radii $r/r_{200}$. The binning scheme used through all this work is the equal number binning. The measured density profile will be compared with the analytical function obtained by NFW97. The 3-D NFW97 density profile is described by the following equation:
$$\frac{\rho (r)}{\rho_c}=\frac{\delta_c}{c\frac{r}{r_{200}}(c\frac{r}{r_{200}}+1)^2}
\label{NFW}$$
where $\rho_c=3 H^2 / 8 \pi G$ is the critical density for closure, $c$ is the concentration of the halo, and $\delta_c$ is the characteristic density (see eq. 2 of NFW97). Through all this work we use a projection of the equation \[NFW\] obtained by numerical integration along the line of sight.
Upper panel of Figure \[fig1\] shows the projected density profile normalized to the number of groups involved in each bin (long dashed line) measured for the composite sample. The dot-dashed lines are the projected NFW profiles corresponding to different values of the $c$ parameter ($4.45$ and $12.05$). These $c$ values are associated with a wide range of masses ($ 10^{11}<M/M_\odot<10^{15}$). In the lower panel it can be seen, in long dashed line, the comparison between the measured profile and the analytical NFW profiles, plotted as the ratio $\Sigma/\Sigma_{NFW}$. Left to the vertical line in Figure \[fig1\] the densities are underestimated due to the uncertainty in the location of the group geometric center. An improvement of the group geometric center estimation can be obtained increasing $\delta \rho/\bar{\rho}$ in the group identification, which produces groups with geometric centers closer to the overdensity peaks. The measured projected density profile for groups identified with $\delta \rho/\bar{\rho}=2000$ is plotted in the upper panel of Figure \[fig1\] (short-dashed line). This profile has a very good agreement with the NFW predictions. We also show in dots the density profiles for each group. This procedure for improving the group geometric center is not feasible in observational surveys, since the number of groups identified is strongly decreased for high overdensities and this affects the reliability of the results. Hence, it is important to find another method to correct the group center positions and keeping constant the number of groups. The procedure adopted for the estimation of the new group centers takes into account the projected local number densities at the position of each particle (galaxy, when dealing with observational data). A first estimation of the center is obtained by the following equation: $$r_c^{(1)}=\frac{\sum_{j=1}^N \rho_j^{PL}r_j}{N \bar{\rho}^{PL}}
\label{rcentro}$$ where $N$ is the number of particle members of each group, $\rho_j^{PL}$ is the projected local density in the position of the $j^{th}$ particle and $\bar{\rho}^{PL}$ is the mean projected local density. The projected local density for the $j^{th}$ particle is computed using the projected circular area which contains the $n$ nearest particles. We use the values of $n=75$ in the simulation and $n=5$ in the catalogs (Domínguez et al. 2002). This procedure improves the center location, but in some cases it is not enough to match the identified group centers with the corresponding overdensity peaks. Consequently, we adopt an iterative procedure as follow:
1. Using the geometric center position ($r_b$) we determine the distance $d_0$ to the farthest particle/galaxy.
2. After the computation of $r_c^{(1)}$ we reject all the particles/galaxies with distances to $r_c^{(1)}$ greater than $d_0$. Then we estimate $d_1$ for the remaining particles/galaxies.
3. We calculate $r_c^{(2)}$ for the new group using the equation \[rcentro\] and applying the same procedures as described in item 2.
The iteration must go on until $d_{M-1}=d_{M}$. Finally, after $M$ iterations, the group center obtained is $r_c=r_c^{(M)}$. Besides the improvement in the determination of the center position, the proposed method also correct the group merging problem produced by the process of identification, in other words, groups with two or more overdensity peaks are cleaned, preserving the highest peak.
We use this method to determine the centers for the groups identified with $\delta \rho/\bar{\rho}=300$. The density profile obtained for the corrected sample is shown in solid line in the upper panel of Figure \[fig1\]. It can be seen that our center estimator allows us to reproduce the density profile obtained using $\delta \rho/\bar{\rho}=2000$, with the advantage of keeping constant the number of groups identified with $\delta \rho/\bar{\rho}=300$. The agreement with the NFW predictions can also be observed in the lower panel of this Figure (solid line curves).
Deprojection method of density profiles
---------------------------------------
From the projected density profile we calculate the 3-dimensional profile applying a deprojection method similar to that developed by Allen & Fabian (1997). The deprojection analysis assumes spherical symmetry. The method is a matter of dividing the spatial distribution into a series of $n$ concentric spherical shells. The projected number of galaxies $N(j)$ in the $jth$ cylindrical bin can be considered as the contribution of different spherical shells, which can be calculated as the 3-D numerical density of each shell, $\eta(j)$, multiplied by the corresponding volume $V_{j,i}$: $$\begin{aligned}
N(j)=\sum^{n}_{i=j}\eta(i)V_{j,i} &; \ 1<j<n \ , & j<i<n
\label{denreal}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{j,i}$ is the volume corresponding to the intersection of a spherical shell with inner radius $r_{i-1}$ and outer radius $r_{i}$ and a cylindrical shell with radii $r_{j-1}$ (inner) , $r_{j}$ (outer). Since the projected density in the last cylindrical shell is only dependent on the 3-D density of the outer spherical shell, equation \[denreal\] can be used to obtain the 3-D density profile $\eta (j)$ from outer to inner shells: $$\eta(j)=(N(j)-\sum^{n}_{i=j+1}\eta(i)V_{j,i})/V_{j,j}
\label{denreal3d}$$ In order to test the method reliability we apply it to the composite sample made with DM groups identified in N-body simulations. The derived 3-D density profile is shown in Figure \[fig2\] (solid line) and it is compared with the 3-D profile directly measured in simulations. From this comparison we can observe a perfect recover of the 3-D density profile.
The data
========
The galaxy sample
-----------------
At present, the largest samples of galaxies with spectroscopic redshift determinations are the 2dFGRS (2 degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey) and the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey). In this work we use both catalogs in order to obtain the largest samples of groups and increase the reliability of our results.
The 2dF survey covers 1500 $deg^2$ with a median depth of $\bar{z}=0.11$. The complete 2dFGRS consists of $221414$ galaxies in two declination strips and 2-degree random fields scattered around the southern galactic pole (SGP) strip. The galaxies were taken from an improved version of the APM galaxy survey (Maddox et al., 1990a,b; Maddox, Efstathiou & Sutherland, 1996). The sky coverage of the 2dFGRS is not uniform (a detailed completeness description is given by Colless et al., 2001; see also http://www.mso.anu.edu. au/2dFGRS/). Galaxies in this survey also have a spectral classification given by the parameter $\eta$ based on a principal component analysis as described by Madgwick et al. (2002).
Recently, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has validated and made publicly available the First Data Release (Abazajian et al. 2003) which is a photometric and spectroscopic survey constructed with a dedicated $2.5 \ m$ telescope at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. The First Data Release consist of $2099 \ deg^2$ of five-band ($u \ g \ r \ i \ z$) imaging data and 186240 spectra of galaxies, quasars and stars. In this work we mainly use the spectroscopic sample. The SDSS Team has found that the survey redshift accuracy is better than $30 \ km \ s^{-1}$. Our sample comprises 100118 galaxies with radial velocities spanning the range $420 \ km \ s^{-1} \leq V \leq 90000 \ km \ s^{-1}$ and an upper apparent magnitude limit of 17.77 in the r-band. In order to work with different kinds of galaxy population, we compute a galaxy spectral type based on a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), using a cross-correlation with eigentemplates constructed from SDSS spectroscopic data. These spectral types are computed with the first two eigencoefficients as recommended by de SDSS Team.
The group samples
-----------------
The group samples obtained from the 2dFGRS and SDSS were constructed using an algorithm similar to that developed by Huchra & Geller (1982). Particularly, we have introduced some modifications in the group finder in order to take into account the sky coverage of the 2dFGRS. The adopted procedure is the same as described by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002) who consider the redshift completeness, magnitude limit and $\mu$ masks of the 2dFGRS. The identifications were carried out using a density contrast of $(\delta \rho /\bar{\rho})_z=80$ and a line of sight linking length of $V_0=200 km \ s^{-1}$.
As was detailed in section 2, the group center location has an important influence on the density profiles estimations. It is known that working on observational redshift surveys means that group identification must be performed in redshift space. This sort of procedure could induce missidentifications of groups respecting to those that would be identified in real space. For instance, the group finder algorithm in redshift space can not completely eliminate the interloper effect on the identification. This effect is likely to produce an artificial increment in the projected size of groups or the detection of fictitious systems with multiple overdensities. In order to understand the relation between groups identified in real and redshift space we perform a comparative study using mock catalogs (see section 4 for a detailed description of mock catalogs construction). The groups identification in real space was performed using a similar algorithm as the adopted for redshift space, but using the same linking length in both, transverse and radial directions. Right upper panel in Figure \[fig3\] shows a comparison among the groups identified in both, real space (open circles) and redshift space (crosses) using $\delta \rho/\bar{\rho}=80$, for a given patch in the sky. Points represent the galaxies/particles in this region identified as group members in redshift space. As can be seen, several groups in real space were joined in a single group in redshift space. Our purpose is to reproduce the groups identified in real space with $(\delta \rho/\bar{\rho})_r=80$. In order to do this, we have carried out a second identification on the previous group sample identified in redshift space, varying the density contrast, $(\delta \rho /\bar{ \rho})_z$, until we observe a similar identification as the obtained in real space. Lower panel in Figure \[fig3\] shows the same comparison as the one plotted in the right upper panel, but here crosses are the groups obtained after a second identification in redshift space with a density contrast of $(\delta \rho /\bar{\rho})_z\sim315$. Even though the second identification does not perfectly reproduce the one obtained in real space, our study indicates that the $(\delta \rho /\bar{\rho})_z$ adopted for the second identification is the best choice to produce a sample of groups quite similar to the observed in real space. Consequently, we have performed a second identification, using the best density contrast value previously obtained, over the group samples of the 2dFGRS and SDSS described before. Finally, the group centers were computed using the iterative method detailed in section 2. The group samples used through this work include systems with masses greater than $6 \times 10^{13} h^{-1} M_{\odot}$ and having more than 10 galaxy members. The adopted mass threshold, only selects the more massive groups that are the most interesting when spectral type properties are studied (Domínguez et al., 2002). The final samples comprise $132$ groups for the 2dF and $86$ for the SDSS. The group physical properties were computed using the same formulas adopted by Merchán & Zandivarez (2002). The median group properties and the widths of the distributions (semi-interquartile range) are quoted in Table \[proptab\]. Analysing the information shown in this table it can be seen that the average properties are very similar for both catalogs. This is an expected result taking into account the similarities of both catalogs.
Projected galaxy density profiles
=================================
In order to measure projected galaxy density profiles we use a similar procedure to that employed in the simulations taking into account the surveys limitations. We construct the composite samples for both group catalogs adopting $r_{200}$ as the normalization scale and $M_{200}$ as masses normalization. The computation of $r_{200}$ was made following Carlberg et al.(1997): $$r_{200}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{10}\frac{\sigma}{H(z)}$$ while $M_{200}$ was obtained using (see appendix of NFW97): $$M_{200}=\left(\frac{r_{200}}{K}\left( \frac{\Omega_0}{\Omega(z)}\right)^3 (1+z)\right)^3 \ h^{-1} \ M_\odot$$ where $K=1.63\times 10^{-5}{h^{-1}Mpc}$. These scaling relations are in very good agreement with the properties directly measured from the individual DM groups.
Working with observational samples require to have particular considerations when constructing density profiles, specially when seeking for the largest statistical sample. As was noticed by Whitmore, Gilmore & Jones (1993, hereafter WGJ93), a magnitude cutoff decreases the number of galaxies while affects the mix of spectral types since the luminosity functions are different for each type. Distant systems will only include the brightest galaxies , which tend to be the earlier, resulting in an incomplete source of information. A magnitude cutoff correction is made following WGJ93 where a weight is given to each galaxy. This weight is a function of the redshift, the spectral type and the catalog apparent magnitude limit, and it is given by the following equation: $$w(z,m_l)=\left[\frac{\int ^{M_l(z)}_{-\infty}\Phi(M)dM}{\int^{M_l(z_c)}_{-\infty}\Phi(M)dM}\right]^{-1}
\label{w(z)}$$ where $\Phi(M)$ is the luminosity function per spectral type of galaxies in groups, $M_l(z)=m_l-25-5log(d_L)-(k+e)+5log(h)$ the absolute magnitude, $d_L$ is the luminosity distance, $m_l$ the catalog apparent magnitude limit and $z_c$ is chosen as a typical redshift for groups in the sample.
Mock catalogs
-------------
### Angular Masks
Since the sky coverage of the 2dF group sample is not uniform, we need to make extra-corrections before measuring the projected density profiles. With the aim of determining and testing the corresponding corrections to the observed sample, we use four types of mock catalogs. Each of these mocks corresponds to different sky coverage as in Merchán $\&$ Zandivarez (2002). So, we study the influence on the density profiles of each distinctive feature present in the catalog. To increase the statistical strength we construct a set of ten mock catalogs for each type from ten cosmological simulations with different initial conditions (section 2). Given the periodicity of the simulation box we locate the observer at an arbitrary position and repeat the box until the survey extent is completed. These catalogs are constructed using a bias scheme $b=1$ between DM particles and galaxies which is quite accurate to reproduce the clustering of the data mainly on large scales. Adopting the galaxy luminosity function given by Norberg et al. (2002) we assign absolute magnitudes to particles obtaining mock catalogs with the same selection function than the observed for the 2dFGRS.
The first set of mock catalogs (mock-m) introduces a fixed faint survey magnitude limit, $m_l=19.2$. We identify groups in this mock in the same way as in the 2dF sample (groups with masses greater than $6 \times 10^{13}M_\odot$ , and having more than $10$ members). After constructing the composite sample (as explained in section 2) we measure the projected density profile counting galaxies weighted by the equation \[w(z)\]. The projected density profiles measured for each mock catalog were averaged and the corresponding mean profile is shown in the left upper panel in Figure \[fig4\] (points). This profile is compared with the projected density profile computed from the DM groups identified in the N-body simulations (solid line).
The second set of mock catalogs (mock-m-c) has also a fixed faint survey magnitude limit but adding the effect of redshift completeness as in the real survey. The procedure to make the composite sample of groups is the same in all cases. At this time, we put another weight to the galaxies in order to measure the projected density profile. This weight is the result of multiplying $w(z,m_l)$ by the redshift completeness $c(\alpha,\delta)$ available from the 2dF mask. In Figure \[fig4\], right upper panel shows the averaged profile corresponding to this set of mock catalogs (mock-m-c).
The third set of mock catalogs (mock-$m_v$) has a faint survey magnitude limit depending on the angular position of a particle consistent with the apparent magnitude limit derived from the 2dF mask. To measure the projected density profile we introduce a weight $w(z,m_v)$ that take into account the variable magnitude limit in the calculation of $M_l(z)$. The averaged density profile is shown in Figure \[fig4\] (left lower panel).
Finally we use a last set of mock catalogs (mock-c-$m_v$) which has both effects, the variable magnitude limit and the redshift completeness masks. In this case, the weight assigned to each galaxy consists in the multiplication by both weights, $w(z,m_v)$ and $c(\alpha,\delta)$. The mean profile is shown in the right lower panel in Figure \[fig4\]. Error bars in Figure \[fig4\] are computed measuring the 1-$\sigma$ dispersion over each set of ten mock catalogs used to obtain the average density profiles. The inset panels show the ratio between the averaged projected density profiles for each set of mock catalogs and the projected density profile measured for the DM groups identified in the N-body simulation. From these panels we observe that we are able to recover the profiles obtained for the simulation making the appropriated corrections on each mock catalog.
### Missing Pairs
In the observational process of the SDSS sample, there is a restriction in the targeted objects since the fiber centers can not be placed closer than $55''$ on a given plate. This limitation produces the missing-pair problem, so that, one of the pair components can not be observed. The loss of galaxies was quantified by Strauss et al. (2002), showing that about the $6\%$ of the galaxies are not observed owing to the missing-pair problem. This percentage represents roughly the $70 \%$ of the total number of galaxy pairs, while the remaining $30\%$ was measured due to the overlapping of plates in some regions. In order to analyze the possible effect of this loss of galaxies on the resulting projected density profile we work with mock catalogs. We construct two SDSS mock catalogs from N-body simulations (section 2.1) following a similar prescription as the adopted for the 2dF mocks, but using the luminosity function computed by Blanton et al. (2003). In one of these catalogs (mock-sp) we reproduce the missing-pair problem of the SDSS sample. This was achieved selecting the $70\%$ of the galaxy pairs and subsequently we remove one component of each pair in this subsample. We measure the projected density profiles for both mock catalogs following the procedure used for the mock-m of the previous section. Figure \[figpares\] shows the comparison among these density profiles. Circles are the projected density profile measured in the SDSS mock catalog with the full sample of pairs, while the squares correspond to the profile obtained from the mock catalog affected by the missing-pair problem. This figure shows that this problem produces a significant variation on the projected density profile mainly in the inner regions of groups, biasing the sample towards profiles with a core. We develop a method to correct this effect adding random galaxies to the sample of group galaxies. The outline of the method is as follows:
1. We seek for the $30\%$ of existing pairs in the galaxy catalog for which both members were observed: $N_1$ (number of galaxies in pairs with distances less than $D_{m_{SDSS}}^{\ast}=55''$).
2. We identify which of the $N_1$ galaxies belong to groups: $N_2$
3. We calculate the percentage of galaxies in pairs that are group members: $P_1=N_2/N_1$. Here we have assumed that the probability of measuring both members of a galaxy pair does not depend on whether it is in a group or not.
4. Using that $N_1$ is the $30\%$ of the full sample of pairs, we estimate the number of galaxies in pairs that belongs to the remaining $70\%$: $N_3=7/3 \times N_1$
5. We calculate how many of the $N_3$ galaxies would be found in groups: $N_4=N_3 \times P_1$
6. Finally, the number of galaxies to introduce in the sample is $N_5=N_4/2$ since we already have one of the pair component in the sample.
7. Using the galaxies in pairs that belongs to groups ($N_2$), we measure its redshifts and $r/r_{200}$ distributions relative to the center of the group to which each of the galaxies belong.
8. For the computation of the projected density profiles, we randomly add $N_5$ galaxies reproducing the previous distributions.
We apply this procedure to the mock-sp, and measure the corresponding density profile, which is also shown in Figure \[figpares\] (triangles). It can be observed that our method is capable to correct the missing-pair effect on density profiles. We will use this method in the SDSS group sample in the following sections in order to obtain a fair estimate of the projected density profiles.
For correcting the missing-pair problem in the 2dF sample we apply the 8-step procedure described above where the values used for the SDSS must be changed: in items 1 and 4 $(30\%)_{SDSS} \rightarrow (85\%)_{2dF}$; item 4 $(70\%)_{SDSS} \rightarrow (15\%)_{2dF}$ and in item 1 $(55'')_{SDSS} \rightarrow (50'')_{2dF}$. The rest of this subsection describes how we find the percentage of lost galaxies in pairs ($15\%$) and the maximum distance to define the missing-pair problem ($50''$) for the 2dF sample. We first measure two distance distributions: the first is the distribution of distances from each galaxy to its closest neighbor ($D_m$) among galaxies that belong to the input catalog of the 2dFGRS (Colless et al., 2003); the second distribution was built from a subsample of the previous one. This subsample (2dFI-2dF) comprises all the galaxy pairs in the input catalog that were not completely surveyed by the 2dFGRS. Their cumulative distributions are shown in the upper panel of Figure \[figpares2\]. The solid line corresponds to the input catalog while the dotted line is the histogram for the subsample 2dFI-2dF. The ratio among these cumulative distributions is the fraction of lost galaxies in the 2dF until a given angular distance. This loss is due to two issues in the observational process: the sky coverage of the sample and the missing-pair problem. There is a scale beyond which the ratio of missed pairs has to be constant as function of $D_m$, as there is for both input catalog and redshift catalog a maximal $D_m$ value. Indeed, by definition $D_m$ is the minimal distance to a neighbor, which has to reach a maximal value in a finite sample. Therefore beyond $D_m^{max}$ the ratio is constant. That constant value correspond to the incompleteness due to the sky coverage and it has to be subtracted from the ratio in order to obtain an estimate of the close pair incompleteness.
The resulting fraction as a function of $D_m$ is shown in the lower panel of Figure \[figpares2\]. From this plot we should be able to determine the fraction of lost galaxies but, firstly, it is necessary to know the angular distance $D_{m_{2dF}}^{\ast}$ so it is representative of the largest number of the galaxies that were missed due to the missing-pair problem. In order to determine $D_{m_{2dF}}^{\ast}$ we calculate the number of galaxies that must be added until a given angular distance $D_m$. These numbers are calculated for each $D_m$ following the steps 1 to 6, previously described for the correction of the missing-pair problem. The fraction of lost galaxies involved in this procedure are obtained from the lower panel of Figure \[figpares2\]. Then, the resulting numbers of galaxies that must be added until a given angular distance $D_m$ are shown in the inset panel of the lower panel of Figure \[figpares2\]. From this distribution we determine $D_{m_{2dF}}^{\ast}=50''$ that corresponds to the $D_m$ where the distribution is maximum. This is the optimal way to determine the $D_{m_{2dF}}^{\ast}$ since this value allows us to compute the appropriate correction to the projected density profiles. This was tested constructing a mock catalog with a similar sky coverage to that observed in the 2dFGRS and an enhanced pair incompleteness. The later characteristic is necessary to obtain a large enough effect so it can be measured in the projected density profile. As in the case of the SDSS, we observe that the missing-pair underestimates the amplitude of the density profile in the inner region. After performing a similar analysis to that shown in Figure \[figpares2\] but using the mock catalog, we observe that introducing the maximum number of galaxies (ie., the peak of the distribution in the lower inset panel) allow us to recover the true density profile. This result confirms that the procedure adopted to obtain the value of $D_{m_{2dF}}^{\ast}$ is the optimal. To conclude, we observe that using $D_{m_{2dF}}^{\ast}=50''$ means that the 2dFGRS losses approximately $15\%$ of the galaxies (it implies that 2dF has lost $N_5=87$ pair-members from the sample of galaxies in groups used in this work).
The missing-pair correction is an important issue to be considered when working on the SDSS (it looses the $70\%$ of the galaxy pairs). The density profiles with and without this correction are different mainly in the inner regions. On the other hand, the correction applied to the 2dFGRS ($15\%$ of the galaxy pairs) will not introduce a significant change in the resulting density profile (see Fig. \[fig6\] and references in the next section).
2dF and SDSS projected density profile
--------------------------------------
Once we have corrected the samples by the missing-pair problem, we construct the composite samples and split galaxies in 3 spectral types. For the 2dF sample we use the classification made by Madgwick et al.(2002) to spectral types. This classification is determined by the shape of the $\eta$-distribution:
- Type 1: $~~~~~~~~~~~\eta < -1.4$,
- Type 2: $-1.4\leq \eta < ~~1.1$,
- Type 3+4: $~~~~~~~\eta\ge ~~1.1$.
The first type is dominated by elliptical and early-type spiral galaxies, getting later toward type 3+4.
In an attempt to obtain a similar spectral type classification for the SDSS group sample, we seek for a correlation between the spectral parameters $\eta$ of the 2dF and $\tau$ of the SDSS comparing $3300$ galaxies that both have in common. We find a roughly linear behavior among both parameters (Figure \[recta\]). The fit obtained for this relation is: $$\tau=(0.065\pm0.002)\ \times \eta+(0.056\pm0.003)$$
Using this relation we divide the SDSS sample into 3 spectral types according to the classification made for the 2dF. Hence the resulting classification for the SDSS sample is:
- Type 1: $~~~~~~~~~~~~\tau < -0.035$,
- Type 2: $-0.035\leq \tau < ~~0.128$,
- Type 3+4: $~~~~~~~~\tau\ge ~~0.128$.
We measure the projected density profiles for the composite samples (the whole sample and the samples selected per spectral type). The procedures to introduce weights in the estimation are the same as the used in mock-c-$m_v$ for the 2dF and using the equation \[w(z)\] for the SDSS. For the 2dF sample we adopt the luminosity functions per spectral type of galaxies in groups given by Martínez et al. (2002) and $k+e$ corrections given by Norberg et al. (2002). For the SDSS we use the luminosity functions per spectral type of galaxies in groups estimated following the same procedure as described by Martínez et al. (2002). The $k+e$ corrections as a function of redshift were estimated following a method similar to that described by Norberg et al. (2002), using the code of stellar population synthesis developed by Bruzual & Charlot (1993).
Figures \[fig6\] and \[fig7\] show projected density profiles for the 2dF and the SDSS composite samples, respectively. The left upper panels show the profiles for the whole sample (points). The open circles are the projected density profile measured without correcting by the missing-pair problem. As we mentioned in the previous section, the effect is not significant for this sample. Error bars in these panels were calculated computing the mean dispersion obtained using sets of 10 mock catalogs. The remaining three panels correspond to projected density profiles per spectral types (points) where error bars are computed performing a bootstrap resampling of the data.
In the left upper panels of both Figures we confront the measured projected density profiles for the complete samples against two analytical NFW projected density profiles (dot-dashed lines). Any profile corresponding to groups with masses between $10^{11} M_\odot$ and $10^{15} M_\odot$ should lie in the region determined by these two NFW profiles. From the comparison, we can notice that the dark matter NFW profile does not show the same behavior as the obtained from galaxy samples in the inner regions of the galaxy groups. We also compare our results with the analytical prediction for galaxy density profiles given by King (1962). We fit the data points using a generalized King profile given by the formula: $$\Sigma_m (r)\propto \frac{1}{(1+(c(\frac{r}{r_{200}}-x_0))^2)^\beta}
\label{king}$$ where $c$ is the concentration parameter defined as $r_{200}/r_{core}$, $\beta$ is the slope in the outer region and $x_0$ is the radius where the profile reaches its maximum value. These parameters are determined using the Levenberg-Marquardt method (Press et al., 1986). This method takes into account data errors and applies a minimum non-linear least squares procedure. The number of parameters to fit is chosen to be as low as possible. Notice that the King (1962) projected profile is obtained by setting $\beta=1$ and $x_0=0$. Using a mean value of $r_{200}$, and a range for $r_{core}$ from $100$ to $300$ $kpc \ h^{-1}$ then the allowed values of $c$ parameter are in the range $4-13$. The best-fitting parameters obtained for the full sample and for each spectral type are listed in Table \[2Dtab\]. These fits are shown with solid lines in Figures \[fig6\] and \[fig7\]. The dotted lines show the King-fit obtained for the whole sample.\
In order to quantify the goodness of the fits we compute the probability $Q$ which is a function of the $\chi^2$ and the degree of freedom of the distribution $\nu$ (Press et al., 1986). The chi-square probability $Q(\chi^2,\nu)$ is an incomplete gamma function and gives the probability that the chi-square should exceed a particular value $\chi^2$ by chance. For a fit with $M$ free parameters (${\bf{a}}$) the $\chi^2$ is calculated using $$\chi^2=\sum^{N_{bin}}_{i=1}\left(\frac{\Sigma_i-\Sigma_{m}(\frac{r}{r_{200}};\bf{a})}{\sigma_i}\right)^2; \ \ \ {\bf{a}}=(a_1,a_2,...,a_M)$$ while the number of degrees of freedom of the distribution is computed as $\nu=N_{bin}-M$. Using the $Q(\chi^2,\nu)$ value, the goodness of a fit is quantified in the following way: a value of $Q > 0.1$ says that the fit is a very good reproduction of the data distribution; if the value is in the range $0.001<Q<0.1$ then the fit is acceptable and finally, if $Q<0.001$ the model poorly fit the data. It should be remarked that this kind of test is also valid even when the models are not strictly linear in the $a's$ coefficients. In the last column of Table \[2Dtab\] we quoted the $Q$ values of all fits in both samples. From these values we conclude that almost all the fits obtained are a very good approximation to the measured projected density profiles and only one of them is in the range of acceptable. As an important result we can observe, in left upper panel of Figures \[fig6\] and \[fig7\], that the King profile is a good descriptor of the observational data in the whole range of $r/r_{200}$ and the $c$ values are within the allowed range. This result is consistent with the obtained by Adami et al. (1998) who found that the King profile provides a better fit to the galaxy density profile than the NFW profile. This result can be more clearly observed in the inset box in the upper left panel of these figures. In these panels we show the ratio between the observational projected density profile and the King profile (solid line). In dotted lines are also shown the ratio between the observational density profile and the NFW predictions. These figures show that NFW predictions differ from unity in the inner regions whereas King fits are roughly constant in the whole range.
Based on the projected density profiles for each spectral type, we calculate the relative fraction of galaxies with different spectral types as a function of the projected group-centric distance. This fraction is computed as the ratio between the projected density profile for a particular spectral type and the total projected density profile. In order to measure these ratios, we have rebinned the data, using a linear interpolation. Figure \[fig8\] shows the galaxy fractions for the 2dF composite sample (upper panel) and for the SDSS composite sample (lower panel). Using error propagation method, the error in the relative fraction of the type $j$ for each bin is defined by the following equation: $$\sigma_{frac_j}=\sqrt{(\sigma_{\Sigma_j}/\Sigma_T)^2+(\sigma_T \Sigma_j/\Sigma_T^2)^2}
\label{error}$$ where $\Sigma$ represents the projected density profile, and $\sigma_\Sigma$ represents the error in these profiles. Thick lines in these Figures correspond to galaxy fractions calculated using the fits (Table \[2Dtab\]) obtained for the projected density profiles per spectral type. The results are similar to that found by other authors when considering spectral types (Domínguez et al. 2002) or morphological classifications (Whitmore & Gilmore 1991, WGJ93). We observe in both, the 2dF and the SDSS group sample, that for small $r/r_{200}$ radii the fraction of early type galaxies (Type 1) rises rapidly whilst the fraction of late type galaxies tends to be more important in the outerskirt of the galaxy systems. By comparing these panels we observe that the behavior of each type for both samples is quite similar and the main difference is only in the amplitudes. This difference is expectable because the samples are selected in different band magnitudes: $r-$band for the SDSS and $b_j-$band for the 2dFGRS. Therefore the percentage of low star forming galaxies (type 1) is going to be higher in the SDSS than in the 2dF whilst the opposite is found for the star forming galaxies (type 3+4).
3-D galaxy fractions
====================
One of the aims of this work is to derive information about the 3-D galaxy distributions from observational data. To achieve this aim we use the deprojection method described in section 2 to obtain the 3-D galaxy density profiles from the projected ones. The deprojection method produces very good estimates when we are dealing with projected profiles without bin to bin fluctuations, as it was the case in section 2 for N-body simulations. Nevertheless, if the profiles show bin to bin fluctuations, this method tends to enhance the noise in the resulting profiles, from outer to inner radii of galaxy systems. For instance, Figure \[fig5\] shows the averaged deprojected density profiles corresponding to the deprojection of the 2-D profiles of ten mock catalogs of each kind (the averages of these 2-D profiles are shown in Figure \[fig4\]). It can be seen that 3-D profiles present an important dispersion. Therefore, it must be expected that the intrinsic noise observed for the projected density profiles in the 2dF and SDSS catalogs will be amplified by the deprojection method. We carry out the deprojection of all the observed 2-D profiles measured in the previous section, obtaining noisy 3-D profiles. In order to estimate errors to these profiles, we perform bootstrap resampling of the 2-D data and then we deproject each bootstrap density profile. By calculating the 1-$\sigma$ dispersion of the 3-D bootstrap profiles, the errors for the 3-D profile of the data are obtained. From the deprojected profiles we calculate the 3-D galaxy fraction per spectral type. These fractions can be seen in Figure \[fig12\] for the 2dF (upper panel) and SDSS (lower panel) samples, where the error bars are calculated by error propagation as in the 2-D case (equation \[error\]). We decide to join the types 2 and (3+4) because the resulting noise of the deprojection does not allow to observe differences among them. It should be noticed that the importance of this result resides in the fact that these 3-D fractions are obtained by directly inverting the 2-D profiles, it means, without assuming a particular shape for the density profile.
Finally, we also show in Figure \[fig12\] the 3-D fractions per spectral type calculated analytically (thick lines). The analytical profiles that are needed for the computation of these fractions come from integrating the analytical fits of the 2-D density profiles assuming spherical symmetry. The result of the integration shows that the 3-D profiles keep the same functional form that the adopted for the 2-D case (generalized King), with values of $c_{3D}=c_{2D}$ and $\beta_{3D}=\beta_{2D}+0.5$. In this Figure it can be observed that the analytical curves present the same behavior that those obtained from the direct deprojection, indicating that the generalized King density profiles are also a good fit for the observational result in the 3-D case.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
Using the two largest galaxy redshift surveys presently available, the final release of the 2dFGRS and the first release of the SDSS, we carry out an analysis of the galaxy populations and their distribution in massive groups of galaxies. Group identification on these surveys is made using an algorithm similar to that developed by Huchra & Geller (1982). Particularly, for the 2dFGRS sample, we introduce modifications, in order to take into account the non-uniform sky coverage of this survey (Merchán & Zandivarez, 2002). From a careful study of groups identified in mock catalogs we realized that this method could produce false identifications in redshift space, producing an artificial enhancement of the group sizes or merging small systems in larges artificial groups. To solve these problems we identify groups upon the previous group sample, varying the density contrast until the redshift space identification is capable to reproduce the identification obtained in real space using $\delta \rho / \bar{\rho} =80$. The new density contrast found in mock catalogs is used to perform a second identification in the 2dF and SDSS group samples. The group centers are estimated using an iterative method, which is capable to locate the group centers upon the overdensity peaks. We also correct the group samples for the missing-pair problem.
Once we have reliable group samples, we proceed with the analysis of the galaxy distribution in galaxy groups. This analysis comprise the study of density profiles for high mass groups. These profiles are derived using composite samples which are a combination of all groups in each catalogs. The normalization scale used to conform the composite sample is $r_{200}$, the radius at which the interior density is 200 times the mean density of the universe, and the mass normalization is $M_{200}$. The results found in this work do not depend on the normalization scale. Since the group samples used in this work are magnitude limited, our estimator of the projected galaxy density profiles is developed introducing weights in the galaxy counts which take into account a fixed or variable apparent magnitude limit and variations in the redshift completeness. The way of introducing these corrections was tested in mock catalogs, obtaining a good agreement with the density profiles derived from DM groups identified in the N-body simulations. The galaxy projected density profiles obtained for the 2dF and SDSS show a similar behavior. From the comparison of our results with the analytical projected NFW, we observe that the last fails to describe the behavior of the observational results in the inner region of groups. This seems to indicate that the dark matter profile (NFW) is not appropriated to describe the density profile traced by the luminous matter in the very core of galaxy groups. We observe that the King profile is a better fit for the observational data in the whole range of group-centric distances where the profiles can be measured, in agreement with the results of Adami et al. (1998). This result is also found when the normalization scale is modified, for instance, using any intrinsic projected group size as a normalization scale. We tested this point using the virial radii and the rms projected physical separation of galaxies from the group center. The use of these new normalization scales ($r_{new}$) produces the same $\beta_{new}$ parameters that we obtain using $r_{200}$ as a normalization scale. The $c_{new}$ parameters are just a re-scaling of the previous and they are given by: $c_{new}=c_{200} \times \frac{r_{new}}{r_{200}}$.
We obtain that the resulting density profiles are reliable for $r/r_{200} > 0.03$, it was calculated taking into account the minimum distance between pairs of galaxies or the mean galaxy size, both at the mean distance of the galaxy systems. This constrain does not change our results since the fits are made from $r/r_{200}=0.03$ to higher values. Then, we can claim that the presence of a core in the projected density profiles is an intrinsic property of these galaxy systems and not a result of a biased measurement.
We also measure the projected density profiles per spectral type in both samples. In order to obtain analytical functions to describe the observational results, we adopt a generalized King profile to fit them. These results could be used as a tool to constrain semi-analytical models. The general galaxy density profile and the dependence of the density profiles on the spectral types must be correctly reproduced by the models.
Based on the available spectral type information, we compute the galaxy fractions per spectral type as a function of the normalized group-centric distance $r/r_{200}$. Our results are in good agreement with the previously obtained by other authors (Whitmore & Gilmore, 1991, WGJ93, Domínguez et al., 2002): the fraction of early type galaxies decreases when $r/r_{200}$ increases whereas the opposite behavior is observed for the fraction of later types.
Using the obtained 2-D density profiles, we calculate the 3-D galaxy density profiles from their projected counterpart using a deprojection method similar to the one developed by Allen & Fabian (1997). The 3-D galaxy fractions are computed from the deprojected density profiles per spectral type. By comparing the 2-D and 3-D galaxy fractions it can be seen that the MS effect is more pronounced when 3-D fractions are analysed. Finally, the analytical 3-D fractions are calculated from the fits obtained for the 2-D density profiles. It is found a good agreement with the 3-D fractions directly calculated without assuming an analytical 2-D density profile.
Special thanks to the anonymous referee, for helping us to improve the original version of this work. We thanks to Julián Martínez for help us in the calculation of the $k+e$ correction for the SDSS and Cinthia Ragone for reading the manuscript. We also thank to Peder Norberg and Shaun Cole for kindly providing the software describing the mask of the 2dFGRS and to the 2dFGRS and SDSS Team for having made available the actual data sets of the sample. This work has been partially supported by Consejo de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina (CONICET), the Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica, the Secretaría de Ciencia y Técnica de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (SeCyT), the Agencia Córdoba Ciencia and Fundación Antorchas, Argentina.
Abazajian , et al, 2003, , 126, 2081 Adami, C., Mazure, A., Katgert, P., Biviano, A. 1998, A&A, 336, 63 Allen, S. W., Fabian, A. C. 1997, , 286, 583 Bartelmann, M. 1996, A&A, 313, 697 Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003, , 592, 819 Bruzual, A. G., Charlot, S. 1993, , 405, 538 Carlberg, R. G., et al. 1997, , 478, 462 Couchman, H. M. P., Thomas, P. A., Pearce, F. R. 1995, , 452, 797 Dressler, A. 1980, , 236, 351 Domínguez, M., Muriel, H., Lambas, D. G. 2001, , 121, 1266 Domínguez, M., Zandivarez, A., Martínez, H. J., Merchán, M. E., Muriel, H., Lambas, D. G. 2002, , 335, 825 Huchra, J. P., Geller, M. J. 1982, , 257, 423 Katgert, P., Mazure, A., den Hartog, R., Adami, C., Biviano, A., Perea, J. 1998, A&AS, 129, 399 King, I. 1962, , 67, 471 Lokas, E., Mamon, G. 2001, , 321, 155 MacGillivray, H. T., Yentis, D. J. 1994, IAUS, 161, 632 Maddox, S. J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J., Loveday, J. 1990a, , 242, 43P Maddox, S. J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J., Loveday, J. 1990b, , 243, 692 Maddox, S. J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J. 1996, , 283, 1227 Madgwick, D. S., et al (2dFGRS Team), 2002, , 333, 133 Martínez, H. J., Zandivarez, A., Merchán, M. E., Domínguez, M. 2002, , 337, 1441 Merchán, M. E., Zandivarez, A. 2002, , 335, 216 Miller, G. E., Scalo, J. M. 1979, , 263, 259 Moore, B., Governato, F., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 1998, , 499L, 5 Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M. 1995, , 275, 720 Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M. 1997, , 490, 493 Norberg, P., et al (2dFGRS Team), 2002, , 336, 907 Press, W. H., Flannery, B. P., Teukolsky, S. S. and Vettrling, W. T., Numerical Recipes, Cambridge University Press, 1986 Salvador-Solé, E., Sanromà, M. 1989, , 337, 636 Strauss, M. A., et al, 2002, , 124, 1810 Whitmore, B., Gilmore, D. 1991, , 367, 64 Whitmore, B., Gilmore, D. Jones C., 1993, , 407, 489
[ccccccccc]{} median & $0.09$ & 442 & $8.7\times 10^{13}$ & 0.9 &$ 0.08$ & 427 & $9.3\times 10^{13}$ & 0.9\
width & $0.03$ & $133$ & $1.2\times 10^{14}$ & 0.3 &$ 0.03$ & 159& $1.6\times 10^{14}$ & 0.4\
[clccccccc]{} Catalog & sample &Ngal& $c$ & $\beta$ & $x_0$ & $\nu$&$\chi^2$ & $Q$\
& total &2277& $6.0\pm0.2$ & $1.0$ & $0.0$ &17& 13.73 & 0.68\
2dF & type 1 &1710& $8.3\pm0.3$ & $0.90\pm 0.05$ & $0.0$ &16& 9.55 & 0.89\
(132) & type 2 &339& $4.2\pm0.5$ & $1.2\pm0.1$ & $0.0$ &6& 7.13 & 0.31\
& type 3+4 &228& $4.0\pm0.4$ & $1.2\pm0.1$ & $0.0$ &7& 4.46 & 0.72\
& total &2031& $6.1\pm0.3$ & $1.0$ & $0.0$ &10 & 10.50 & 0.40\
SDSS & type 1 &1543& $9.8\pm0.2$ & $0.8\pm0.1$ & $0.0$ &9& 10.54 & 0.31\
(86) & type 2 &364& $6.6\pm0.5$ & $0.9\pm0.1$ & $0.0$ &7& 8.54 & 0.29\
& type 3+4 &124& $5.8\pm0.8$ & $0.7\pm0.2$ & $0.15\pm0.06$&2&6.02& 0.05\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have studied the phase diagram and evolution of a strangelet in equilibrium with a finite hadronic gas. Significant finite size modifications of the phase diagram are found and their parameter dependences are studied. With the inclusion of finite size effects we have also been able to obtain the detailed properties of the cold strangelet emerging in the final stage of the isentropic expansion of a finite strange fireball in high energy heavy-ion collisions.'
address: |
1. China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (World Laboratory),\
P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080, China\
2. Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China\
3. Institute of High Energy Physics, Academia Sinica, P.O. Box 918(4), Beijing 100039, China\
4. Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica, P.O. Box 2735, Beijing 100080, China\
5. Department of Physics, Nankai University, Tianjin 300071, China
author:
- 'Y.B. He$^{1,2}$[^1], W.Q. Chao$^{1,3,4}$, C.S. Gao$^{1,2,4}$, and X.Q. Li$^{1,4,5}$'
title: |
Cold Strangelets Formation with Finite Size Effects\
in High Energy Heavy-Ion Collisions [^2]
---
Introduction
============
It was speculated by Witten [@wit84] that some of the dark matter in the universe might possibly exist in the form of strange quark matter (SQM), which consists approximately of the same amount of up, down and strange quarks, and might be formed after the big bang when the universe underwent the quark to hadron phase transition. Another place that people can expect to find SQM is in the “little bang”, [*i.e.*]{} high energy heavy-ion collisions. It was supposed [@liu84; @gre87] that if a hot quark-gluon plasma (QGP) is formed after the collisions, the cooling process of the QGP might result in droplets of SQM, so called strangelets, which could serve as an unambiguous signature for the QGP formation. In fact, some heavy-ion experiments [@bar90] are searching or planning to search for strangelets, hence reliable theoretical calculations of strangelets formation in heavy-ion collisions are in urgent need.
Recently Lee and Heinz [@lee93] has presented a comprehensive study of the phase structure of a bulk strange quark matter in equilibrium with a bulk hadronic gas. Assuming Gibbs phase equilibrium and an isentropic expansion of the hot fireball, they found under some conditions strange quark matter can actually survive the hadronization and cooling process, giving rise to strangelet formation. On the other hand, taking into account the particle evaporation from the surface of the fireball, some rate calculations [@gre87; @barz90] have been carried out to study the distillation and survival of strangelets in heavy-ion collisions. In this work we study finite size effects on strangelet formation, an important aspect which has been neglected in the above mentioned calculations.
It has been shown that finite size effects may strongly destabilize small strangelets at zero temperature [@mad93], and significantly modify the properties of strangelets at finite temperature [@he96]. Finite size should be important as well in the study of the possible formation of strangelets, which are expected to be produced small in heavy-ion collisions [@liu84; @gre87]. The present paper follows the work of Lee and Heinz [@lee93] to study the phase diagram and evolution of strangelets in heavy-ion collisions, while extending it to include the essential finite size effects. We find that there are indeed significant finite size modifications of the phase diagram and evolution of strangelets. A realistic calculation that attempts to provide reliable information for the strangelets searches should therefore take finite size effects into account.
To study SQM in the context of the MIT bag model we have generally two ways to account for finite size effects. One employs the shell model, namely solving the Dirac equation with the bag boundary conditions and populating the energy levels of the bag [@far84; @gre87; @gil93]. However, shell model calculations are very tedious even at zero temperature, and become extremely difficult when one tries to study the phase diagram and evolution. Another way to introduce finite size effects of strangelets is to explore a continuous density of states within the framework of multiple reflection expansion [@bal70], which leads to the liquid drop model [@mad93; @jen95]. As shown by Madsen [@mad93], the liquid drop model reproduces the overall structure of shell model results for strangelets, and allows much easier calculations than shell model. In this work we shall use the liquid drop model to incorporate finite size effects into the studies of phase diagram and evolution of strangelets.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[eos\] we give a description of equations of state for the QGP and hadronic phase, with an emphasis on the inclusion of finite size effects in the QGP phase. In Sect. \[pd\] we study the phase diagram of a strangelet in equilibrium with a finite hadronic phase, assuming the conservation of total baryon number and strangeness in the system. It is shown that the inclusion of finite size effects can modify the phase diagram in a significant way. The isentropic expansion of the system and possible formation of cold strangelets are explored in Sect. \[fcs\]. We find that in contrast with bulk case the inclusion of finite size effects will give even more restrictive conditions under which dynamical formation of a cold strangelet is possible. We summarize our work in Sect. \[summary\].
Equation of State {#eos}
=================
The QGP Phase
-------------
We consider the QGP phase as a gas of free massless up and down quarks ($m_u=m_d=0$), massive strange quarks ($m_s=150$ MeV), their antiquarks and gluons confined in an MIT bag. In the multiple reflection expansion of Balian and Bloch [@bal70] the density of states for particle species $i$ present in the bag is given by, $$\begin{aligned}
{dN_i \over dk}=g_i\left\{ {1 \over 2\pi^2} k^2 V^Q + f_S^{(i)}
\left({m_i \over k}\right)kS^Q
+f_C^{(i)}\left({m_i \over k}\right)C^Q+...\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ For spherical QGP droplets $V^Q=4\pi (R^Q)^3/3$ is the volume of the bag, $S^Q=4\pi (R^Q)^2$ is the surface area, and $C^Q=8\pi R^Q$ is the extrinsic curvature of the bag surface. The factor $g_i$ is the statistical weight (6 for quarks and antiquarks, and 16 for gluons).
The functions $f_S^{(i)}$ and $f_C^{(i)}$ are surface and curvature terms for particle species $i$. The surface term for quarks was given by Berger and Jaffe [@ber87] as $$\begin{aligned}
f_S^{(q)}\left({m_q \over k}\right)=-{1 \over 8\pi}\left\{1-{2 \over \pi}
\arctan {k \over m_q}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the surface term for massless quarks and gluons is zero. The curvature term for gluons is $f_C^{(g)}=-1/6 \pi^2$ [@bal70a], while for massless quarks $f_C^{(q)}(0)=-1/24 \pi^2$ [@elz86]. It has been shown by Madsen [@mad93] that the following ansatz works for the curvature term for massive quarks: $$\begin{aligned}
f_C^{(q)}\left({m_q \over k}\right)={1 \over 12\pi^2}\left\{1-{3k \over 2m_q}
\left({\pi \over 2}-\arctan{k \over m_q}\right)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
The thermodynamic potential of the QGP phase can be derived from, $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega = \sum_i \Omega_i + BV^Q,\end{aligned}$$ where $B$ is the bag constant, and the thermodynamic potential of particle species $i$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_i & = & \mp T \int_0^{\infty} dk {dN_i \over dk} \ln[1 \pm
\exp(-(E_i (k)-\mu_i)/T)]
\nonumber\\
& = & \Omega_{i,V}V^Q+\Omega_{i,S}S^Q+\Omega_{i,C}C^Q,\end{aligned}$$ with the upper sign for fermions and the lower for bosons. Here $\mu_i$ is the chemical potential. We have assumed isospin symmetry so that $\mu_u=\mu_d=\mu_q$, and there are two independent chemical potentials in the QGP phase, namely $\mu_q$ and $\mu_s$. To get an impression of the finite size effects introduced here, we have plotted in Fig. 1 the temperature dependence of individual surface and curvature contributions of particle species to the thermodynamic potential. One sees from Fig. 1 that they are all increasing functions of the temperature. For a baryon and strangeness free QGP droplet ([*i.e.*]{} $\mu_q=\mu_s=0$) the surface and curvature contributions vanish at zero temperature (Fig. 1(a) and (b)), while for nonvanishing chemical potentials there are finite contributions even at zero temperature. We see that significant finite size effects can be given by an approach of multiple reflection expansion, which can be relevant in the study of QGP phase structure.
After the construction of the thermodynamic potential, we can readily obtain the thermodynamic quantities of the system as follows. The number of quarks can be derived from $$\begin{aligned}
N_i^Q=-\left({\partial \Omega_i \over \partial \mu_i}\right)_{T,V^Q},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
N_b^Q={1 \over 3} \sum_i N_i\end{aligned}$$ gives the total baryon number of the QGP droplet. The total entropy of the QGP phase is $$\begin{aligned}
S^Q=-\left({\partial \Omega \over \partial T}\right)_{V^Q,\mu_i}.\end{aligned}$$
The Hadronic Phase
------------------
Now we consider the equation of state for the hadronic phase. We model the hadronic phase as a mixture of Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac gases of mesons $\pi$, $K$, $\eta$, baryons $N$, $\Lambda$, $\Sigma$, $\Xi$, $\Omega$, $\Delta$ and their anti-particles [@hei86; @jen95]. We will show below that using this limited particle spectrum gives practically identical results compared with the case in which a spectrum of all hadrons up to $M\sim$ 2 GeV is used, thus sufficient for the study of the phase diagram. We can write down the pressure, particle number, and energy density expressions for pointlike hadron species $i$ as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
P_i^{pt} & = & {g_i \over 6\pi^2}\int_0^\infty dk{k^4 \over E_i(k)}
{1 \over e^{(E_i(k)-\mu_i)/T}\pm 1},
\\
N_i^{pt} & = & {g_i V^H \over 2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty dk {k^2 \over
e^{(E_i(k)-\mu_i)/T}\pm 1},
\\
\varepsilon_i^{pt} &=& {g_i \over 2\pi^2}\int_0^\infty dk {k^2\varepsilon_i(k)
\over e^{(E_i(k)-\mu_i)/T}\pm 1},\end{aligned}$$ where $g_i=$(spin)$\times$(isospin) is the degeneracy factor for each hadron, the $\pm$ signs correspond to Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Eistein statistics, $\mu_i$ is the chemical potential of hadron species $i$ and given by the net numbers of light quark and strange quark, $\Delta N_q^i$, $\Delta N_s^i$, as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_i=\Delta N_q^i ~ \mu_q^H+\Delta N_s^i ~ \mu_s^H,\end{aligned}$$ if chemical equilibriums are assumed.
The thermodynamic quantities for the hadronic gas are corrected by a Hagedorn eigenvolume factor, $(1+\varepsilon^{pt}/4B)^{-1}$, to take into account the repulsive interactions between the hadrons [@hag80; @hei86], which is essential for the existence of phase transition in the considered model, $$\begin{aligned}
P^H &=& {1\over 1+\varepsilon^{pt}/4B}\sum_i P_i^{pt},
\\
N_b^H &=& {1\over 1+\varepsilon^{pt}/4B}\sum_i b_i N_i^{pt},
\\
N_s^H &=& {1\over 1+\varepsilon^{pt}/4B}\sum_i s_i N_i^{pt},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon^{pt}=\sum_i \varepsilon_i^{pt}$, and $b_i$, $s_i$ are the baryon number, strange valence quark number of hadron species $i$ respectively.
We want to emphasize that a finite hadronic phase, instead of a bulk one [@jen95], is considered in this work. In the case of a bulk QGP phase in equilibrium with a bulk hadronic phase, the conservation of total net baryon number and strangeness in the system is expressed in terms of a fixed strangeness fraction, namely the net number of strange quarks per baryon. In our work, however, to include the finite size effects we have considered a finite QGP phase, whose volume, baryon number and strangeness have been specified. Therefore, if the system consisting of a QGP phase and a hadronic phase is assumed to conserve total net baryon number and strangeness as a whole (the conservation of total net baryon number and strangeness will be discussed furthermore below), the volume of the hadronic phase has to be specified as well in order to conserve the total net baryon number and strangeness in a consistent way. On the other hand, we have not included surface and curvature contributions from hadrons in our calculations since we have not found appropriate expressions for them [@surface]. Nevertheless, there were expections that these contributions from hadrons may be less important compared with those from quarks and gluons [@mac75; @mar91].
Phase Diagram with Finite Size Effects {#pd}
======================================
We start this section with a description of our scenario. If a baryon-rich QGP is formed in high energy heavy-ion collisions with an equal number of $s$ and $\bar s$ quarks, the system will suffer a strangeness enrichment due to the early black-body radiation of more kaons ($q\bar s$) than anti-kaons ($\bar q s$) off the fireball, and then the system reaches the phase coexistence region [@gre87]. We shall study the phase diagram (this section) and further phase evolution (next section) of the resulting system with finite net strangeness.
Following the work of Lee and Heinz [@lee93] we consider a quasistationary phase transition between the QGP and hadronic gas, which assumes that the thermodynamic equilibrium time as well as the hadronization time are small compared to the lifetime of the mixed phase so that a complete thermodynamic equilibrium can be held during the whole phase transition. In this work we have not taken into account the effects of particle evaporation off the system which may change the total net baryon number, strangeness content of the system [@gre87; @barz90]. As a result, the total net baryon number in the system is kept a constant. Furthermore, since we expect that the typical time scales in heavy-ion collisions are too short to establish a flavor equilibrium due to the weak interactions which can convert strange quarks to nonstrange quarks and vice versa, it is assumed that the total net strangeness in the system is conserved. Note that the total net baryon number and strangeness can be simultaneously conserved in a consistent way only when a finite hadronic phase is considered in connection with a finite QGP phase, as we discussed in Sect. \[eos\].
The Gibbs equilibrium between the QGP and hadronic phase is given by $P^Q=P^H$ (mechanical equilibrium), $T^Q=T^H$ (thermal equilibrium), $\mu_q^Q=\mu_q^H$, $\mu_s^Q=\mu_s^H$ (chemical equilibrium). Taking generally the temperatures and chemical potentials in the two phases equal, we are left with the pressure balance between the two phases, $$\begin{aligned}
P^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q)=P^H(T,\mu_q,\mu_s).
\label{pp}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the pressure generated by the QGP phase is a function of the QGP droplet radius $R^Q$, since we have included finite size effects into the equation of state for the QGP phase.
The conservation of total net baryon number and strangeness in the system gives two constraints, $$\begin{aligned}
N_b^{tot}=N_b^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q)+N_b^H(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;V^H),
\label{nb}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
N_s^{tot}=N_s^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q)+N_s^H(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;V^H),
\label{ns}\end{aligned}$$ where the volume of the hadronic phase is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V^H=V^{tot}-V^Q.
\label{vh}\end{aligned}$$
The phase diagram of the system is determined by Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[vh\]), and shown in Fig. 2(a) for parameters $B^{1/4}=180$ MeV, $m_s=150$ MeV, and a fixed strangeness fraction (namely net number of strange quarks per baryon) $f_s=0.5$. Full lines in Fig. 2(a) illustrate our results for a finite system with total net baryon number $N_b^{tot}=100$ and strange quark number $N_s^{tot}=50$. To be more specific, the full line separating the pure QGP phase and mixed phase (MP) is obtained by setting $V^H=0$ in Eqs. (\[nb\]) and (\[ns\]), and solving Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[ns\]) for ($\mu_q$, $\mu_s$, $R^Q$) at a given $T$, $N_b^{tot}$ and $N_s^{tot}$. On the other hand, drawing the boundary between the mixed phase (MP) and hadronic gas (HG) is a little more delicate. For a given value of $V^{tot}$, we solve Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[vh\]) for ($\mu_q$, $\mu_s$, $R^Q$, $V^H$) at fixed $T$, $N_b^{tot}$ and $N_s^{tot}$. We then increase the value of $V^{tot}$ until $V^{tot}$ is so large that Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[vh\]) have no solutions for ($\mu_q$, $\mu_s$, $R^Q$, $V^H$), which implies that the QGP and hadronic phase can no longer coexist in equilibrium, and thus we have reached the boundary between the mixed phase (MP) and hadronic gas (HG). We observe that at the MP$-$HG boundary the QGP droplet may have non-vanishing baryon number and strangeness, which is of course a consequence of the inclusion of finite size effects. To check the consistency of this solution procedure, we have also tried to decrease the value of $V^{tot}$ while solving Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[vh\]) until no solutions exist, and found that we exactly arrived at the QGP$-$MP boundary, which we have obtained above.
In comparison with the above case of a finite system, the dashed curves in Fig. 2(a) show the phase diagram of a bulk QGP in equilibrium with a bulk hadronic phase, [*i.e.*]{} without finite size effects, which is identical to the results of Lee and Heinz in Fig. 6(c) of Ref. [@lee93]. One sees from Fig. 2(a) that the hadronic phase grows significantly with the inclusion of finite size effects, while the QGP$-$MP boundary is little affected by the finite size corrections. We shall show in next section that this growth of the hadronic phase will greatly reduce the survival probabilities of cold strangelets which we wish to find in heavy-ion collisions.
The dotted lines in Fig. 2(a) is plotted for $N_b^{tot}=50$, $N_s^{tot}=25$, to show how the finite size modifications of phase diagram vary with the given $N_b^{tot}$ and $N_s^{tot}$, in comparison with the bulk case (dashed lines) and the case of $N_b^{tot}=100$ and $N_s^{tot}=50$ (full lines). It is of no surprise that with smaller $N_b^{tot}$ and $N_s^{tot}$ the smaller system has its phase diagram modified more prominently by the finite size effects.
To see how the modifications of phase diagram due to the inclusion of finite size effects are affected by the bag constant $B$, we have plotted in Fig. 2(b) and 2(c) the phase diagrams for $B^{1/4}=145$ MeV and 235 MeV, $f_s=0.5$, with all dashed lines for a bulk system, and all full lines for a finite system with total net baryon number $N_b^{tot}=100$, strange quark number $N_s^{tot}=50$. We see that finite size modifications are more significant for larger bag constants. This can be understood roughly that for given $N_b^{tot}$, $N_s^{tot}$, and $T$, larger bag constants generally correspond to more compact and smaller QGP droplets in equilibrium with a hadronic gas, and thus more important finite size effects. However, we want to point out that the full line in Fig. 2(c) separating the mixed phase (MP) and hadronic gas (HG) is somehow out of control at regions of high baryon number density $\rho_b$. This difficulty may come form two origins. First, at regions of high baryon number density the chemical potentials may become very large and lead to some numerical uncertainty in the relevant Bose-Einstein integrations, which can be solved by further careful examinations. Another possibility is that at these regions the radius $R^Q$ of QGP droplet in equilibrium with a finite hadronic gas tends to become so small ($\alt 1$ fm) that the multiple reflection expansion in powers of $1/R^Q$, which we have adopted to introduce finite size effects, could be somewhat dangerous, as previously warned by Madsen [@mad93]. Fortunately, in our calculations this kind of disease sets in generally for very large bag constants. As it is expected that for sufficiently large bag constant strangelets can neither be stable nor metastable even at zero temperature and the formation of cold strangelets in heavy-ion collisions is very unlikely [@gre87; @barz90], therefore this problem will not become serious if we are only interested in the cases in which the formation of a cold strangelet can be possible.
Formation of Cold Strangelets {#fcs}
=============================
In this section we turn to study the evolution of the system to see how a cold strangelet could be formed in the final stage of evolution and what its characteristics look like. While a full dynamical investigation of the fireball evolution is beyond the scope of this work, we assume that the system expands adiabatically, conserving its total entropy during the whole evolution [@hei86; @sto80]. Note again that we have not included the process of surface evaporation which may change the entropy, net baryon number and strangeness of the system. Therefore what we are exploring is a system that experiences a smooth hydrodynamic expansion, conserving the total entropy $S^{tot}$, net baryon number $N_b^{tot}$, and strangeness $N_s^{tot}$ [@gre87]. As we have already described in Sect. \[pd\], the system considered here may have nonvanishing net strangeness due to the early surface radiation of hadrons after the collisions.
We first look at a QGP fireball which is expanding isentropically and cooling down until it reaches the boundary of mixed phase. The isentropic expansion trajectories in the pure QGP phase are determined by solving $$\begin{aligned}
N_b^{tot}=N_b^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q),
\\
N_s^{tot}=N_s^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
S^{tot}=S^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q)\end{aligned}$$ for $(T,\mu_q,\mu_s)$ at fixed $N_b^{tot}$, $N_s^{tot}$, $S^{tot}$ and various $R^Q$. Increasing the value of $R^Q$ until the pressure balance Eq. (\[pp\]) is possible, we will arrive at the boundary between the QGP and mixed phase, which we have obtained in the phase diagram given in last section.
Afterwards the isentropic expansion trajectories go into the mixed phase and are given by Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[vh\]), together with $$\begin{aligned}
S^{tot}=S^Q(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;R^Q)+S^H(T,\mu_q,\mu_s;V^H),
\label{stot}\end{aligned}$$ which are solved for $(T,\mu_q,\mu_s,R^Q,V^H)$ at fixed $N_b^{tot}$, $N_s^{tot}$, $S^{tot}$ and various $V^{tot}$. When we increase the value of $V^{tot}$ while solving these equations, two phenomena may be observed. One is that these equations have no solutions for $(T,\mu_q,\mu_s,R^Q,V^H)$ when $V^{tot}$ is large enough, which is found to be the very case in which the expansion trajectory hits the MP$-$HG boundary at some point. This observation further confirms the consistency of our treatment of finite size effects. In this case the expansion trajectory will then enter the hadronic phase, corresponding to a complete hadronization, and no cold strangelet could be formed. Another important phenomenon is that for $V^{tot}\rightarrow \infty$ Eqs. (\[pp\])$-$(\[vh\]) and (\[stot\]) can always be solved at fixed $N_b^{tot}$, $N_s^{tot}$ and $S^{tot}$, giving $T\rightarrow 0$. This implies that a cold strangelet could appear in the final stage of the evolution, which is of great interest in heavy-ion experiments.
As manifestations of the above discussions, we show in Fig. 3 isentropic expansion trajectories of the system through the phase diagrams for $B^{1/4}=180$ MeV, $N_b^{tot}=100$, and $N_s^{tot}=$ 0, 50, 100, 200, or strangeness fractions $f_s=$ 0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0. Our Fig. 3 can be compared with the results of Lee and Heinz for bulk phases given in Fig. 6 of Ref. [@lee93] to see how the inclusion of finite size effects can modify the isentropic expansion trajectories of the system. It can be seen in Fig. 3 that for most cases the expanding system will hadronize completely. In particular, for $f_s=0.5$ and $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}=5$ (Fig. 3(b)), in contrast with the bulk case (Fig. 6(c) in Ref. [@lee93]) in which the system will always stay inside the mixed phase and give rise to cold strangelet formation, one finds that the inclusion of finite size effects tends to make the formation of cold strangelets even more difficult. In fact, with an impressive observation from Fig. 2(a) on how the phase diagram can be drastically modified by the finite size of the system, we can expect that currently existing calculations of possible formation of cold strangelets in heavy-ion collisions without finite size effects may have to become somehow less optimistic with the inclusion of finite size effects.
The inclusion of finite size effects may also affect in some way the strangeness separation process during the phase transition which is an essential ingredient for the possible formation of cold strangelets in heavy-ion collisions [@gre87]. Fig. 4 shows the evolution details of the QGP droplet corresponding to the isentropic expansion trajectory for a system with zero net strangeness and $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}=5$ in Fig. 3(a). In Fig. 4(a) the system experiences a cooling in the pure QGP phase, and reheating in the mixed phase which is mainly due to the energy surplus when quarks in the QGP are converted into hadrons in the hadronic gas. Fig. 4(b) shows a smooth variation of chemical potentials $\mu_q$ and $\mu_s$ during the phase transition. In particular, $\mu_s$ remains zero in the pure QGP phase whose net strangeness is zero, but increase continuously in the mixed phase even though the net strangeness of the system remains zero, indicating the occurrence of strangeness separation which can be seen also in Fig. 4(c) from a continuous increase of the strangeness fraction $f_s^Q$ of the QGP droplet. During the evolution in the mixed phase the net baryon number $N_b^Q$ (Fig. 4(d)) and radius $R^Q$ (Fig. 4(e)) of the QGP droplet decrease monotonously. However, at the boundary between the mixed phase and hadronic gas $N_b^Q$ and $R^Q$ do not vanish, and only a rather moderate value of $f_s^Q$ can be reached. This is quite different from the corresponding cases for bulk phases studied previously [@gre87; @hei87], in which the QGP phase diminishes at the MP$-$HG phase boundary and the strangeness separation mechanism works in a much more effective way, leading to a much larger value of $f_s^Q$. In fact, as we have already known in the studies of phase diagrams that the hadronic phase grows on account of the mixed phase with the inclusion of the finite size effects, we can expect that the inclusion of the finite size effects tends to make the strangeness separation proceed to a less extent. Since the strangeness separation mechanism appears so important in calculations of the possible formation of cold strangelets in heavy-ion collisions, we hereby feel it a substantial task to include finite size effects in the future relevant investigations.
Now we study the formation of cold strangelets in heavy-ion collisions. The isentropic expansion trajectories in Fig. 3(c) and (d) indicate that for $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}=5$ the system will always stay in the mixed phase and expand infinitely to zero temperature and zero baryon number density, resulting in the formation of a cold strangelet. As an essential consequence of the inclusion of finite size effects, we can now obtain the properties of the surviving strangelet. For example, we list in Table. \[slet\] the properties of the resulting cold strangelet corresponding to the expansion trajectories for $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}$=5 and $f_s^{tot}=1.0$ (Fig. 3(c)), 2.0 (Fig. 3(d)) respectively. Note in the case of $f_s^{tot}=1.0$ all net strangeness is in the droplet ($N_s^Q=100$), which is due to the fact that at $T\rightarrow 0$ chemical potentials $\mu_q$, $\mu_s$ in the phase equilibrium configuration acquire values such that only nucleons but no strange baryons are present in the hadronic gas.
However, the properties of cold strangelets given in Table. \[slet\] should not be taken too seriously for two reasons. First, an isentropic and equilibrium expansion of the fireball all the way to zero temperature assumed in this work is not a realistic scenario. Effects of particle evaporations off the surface of the fireball can be very important for the strangelet formation [@gre87; @barz90]. At sufficiently low temperature and density the QGP droplet may decouple from the surrounding hadronic gas and the thermodynamic equilibriums between them may be broken. On the other hand, the listed properties of the strangelets rely heavily on the parameters such as bag constant $B$, strange quark mass $m_s$, and on the given initial conditions of the system in terms of $N_b^{tot}$, $N_s^{tot}$ and $S^{tot}$. Nevertheless, Table. \[slet\] can give us a first impression of the characteristics of cold strangelets resulted from a simple dynamical evolution, and may provide clues for future construction of realistic dynamical evolution models.
The isentropic expansion trajectories in Fig. 3 imply that only for sufficiently low $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}$ or large $f_s$ does the system allow the formation of cold strangelets. Following Lee and Heinz [@lee93] we have plotted in Fig. 5 the maximum total entropy per baryon $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}$ permitted by the formation of cold strangelets versus the strangeness fraction $f_s$, for two bag constants $B^{1/4}=145$ and 180 MeV, and a finite system with net baryon number $N_b^{tot}=100$. In comparison with the results for bulk phases in Fig. 8 of Ref. [@lee93], we see that the inclusion of finite size effects give much more restrictive conditions under which cold strangelets could be formed. Even for bag constant as small as $B^{1/4}=145$ MeV, which is expected to be the minimum value compatible with the usual nuclear matter phenomenology, and for strangeness fraction $f_s=3.0$, an upper limit $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}\alt 52$ is required to make the formation of cold strangelets possible. However, these results may depend on the net baryon number $N_b^{tot}$, or the size of the system, and are to be made more convincing by further detailed investigations.
Summary
=======
In the framework of multiple reflection expansion we have studied finite size effects on the phase diagram and evolution of a strangelet in equilibrium with a finite hadronic gas. Our aim is to check how important the finite size effects can be in the studies of possible formation of cold strangelets in high energy heavy-ion collisions. We have shown that there are indeed significant finite size modifications of the phase diagram, which are found to become more important for a system with larger bag constant $B$ or smaller total net baryon number $N_b^{tot}$.
Assuming an isentropic expansion of the system we have studied the finite size effects on the evolution of a strangelet. It is observed that the inclusion of finite size effects tends to make the strangeness separation mechanism less effective, and will give very restrictive conditions for the cold strangelet formation in heavy-ion collisions, expressed in terms of windows of the bag constant $B$, the total entropy per baryon $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}$, and the strangeness fraction $f_s^{tot}$. With the inclusion of finite size effects we have been able to obtain quantitatively the properties of cold strangelets emerging in the final stage of the isentropic expansion of the system.
Even though the treatment of finite size effects within the framework of multiple reflection expansion may fail for very small strangelets as we have uncovered in the studies of the phase diagrams, and the isentropic and equilibrium evolution scenario studied in this work is not a realistic one, yet we can still conclude after this work that finite size effects do play an essential role and should be included in future realistic investigations of the possible formation of cold strangelets in high energy heavy-ion collisions. The authors would like to thank Prof. R. K. Su and Dr. S. Gao for helpful discussions.
E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 272 (1984).
H.-C. Liu and G. L. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 1137 (1984).
C. Greiner, P. Koch and H. Stöcker, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 1825 (1987); C. Greiner, D. H. Rischke, H. Stöcker and P. Koch, Phys. Rev. D [**38**]{}, 2797 (1988); C. Greiner, P. Koch and H. Stöcker, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 3517 (1991).
See, e.g., J. Barrette [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**252**]{}, 550 (1990); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1763 (1993); A. Aoki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2345 (1992); K. Borer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1415 (1994). For a recent review see B. S. Kumar, Nucl. Phys. [**A590**]{}, 29c (1995).
K. S. Lee and U. Heinz, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 2068 (1993).
H. W. Barz, B. L. Friman, J. Knoll and H. Schulz, Phys. Lett. B [**242**]{}, 328 (1990).
J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 391 (1993); Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 5156 (1993); [*ibid.*]{} [**50**]{}, 3328 (1994).
Y. B. He, C. S. Gao, X. Q. Li and W. Q. Chao, Phys. Rev. C [**53**]{}, 1903 (1996).
E. Farhi and R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 2379 (1984).
E. P. Gilson and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 332 (1993).
R. Balian and C. Bloch, Ann. Phys. [**60**]{}, 401 (1970); T.H. Hansson and R.L. Jaffe, Ann. Phys. [**151**]{}, 204 (1983).
D. M. Jensen and J. Madsen, Proc. Strangeness and Quark Matter, Ed. G. Vassiliadis, A.D. Panagiotou, S. Kumar, and J. Madsen, World Scientific (1995), p.220.
M. S. Berger and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. C [**35**]{}, 213 (1987); [**44**]{}, 566 (E) (1991).
R. Balian and C. Bloch, Ann. Phys. [**64**]{}, 271 (1970).
H.-T. Elze and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B [**179**]{}, 385 (1986).
U. Heinz, P. R. Subramanian, H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, J. Phys. G [**12**]{}, 1237 (1986).
R. Hagedorn and J. Rafelski, Phys. Lett. B [**97**]{}, 180 (1980).
For calculations of surface tension see, [*e.g.*]{}, Z. Frei and A. Patkós, Phys. Lett. B [**222**]{}, 469 (1989); [*ibid.*]{} [**247**]{}, 381 (1990); B. Grossmann and M. L. Laursen, Nucl. Phys. [**B408**]{}, 637 (1993); A. A. Coley and T. Trappenberg, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 4881 (1994); Y. Aoki and K. Kanaya, Phys. Rev. D [**50**]{}, 6921 (1994).
F. D. Mackie, Nucl. Phys. [**A245**]{}, 61 (1975).
I. Mardor and B. Svetitsky, Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 878 (1991).
H. Stöcker, G. Graebner, J. A. Maruhn and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. B [**95**]{}, 192 (1980); H. Stöcker and W. Greiner, Phys. Rep. [**137**]{}, 277 (1986).
U. Heinz, K. S. Lee and M. J. Rhoades-Brown, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**2**]{}, 153 (1987).
---------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
$f_s^{tot}=1.0$ $f_s^{tot}=2.0$
$R^Q$ (fm) 3.07 3.43
$N_b^Q$ 62.7 84.2
$\rho_b^Q=N_b^Q/V^Q$ (fm$^{-3}$) 0.52 0.50
$N_s^Q$ 100. 170.
$f_s^Q=N_s^Q/N_b^Q$ 1.59 2.02
$Z/N_b^Q=(1-f_s^Q)/2$ $-0.30$ $-0.51$
$E^Q/N_b^Q$ (MeV) 1184 1250
---------------------------------- ----------------- -----------------
: Properties of surviving strangelets for a system with $B^{1/4}=180$ MeV, $m_s=150$ MeV, $N_b^{tot}=100$, and $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}=5$. The second column describes a cold strangelet resulting from the isentropic expansion trajectory $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}=5$ in Fig. 3(c) with $N_s^{tot}=100$ or equivalently $f_s^{tot}=1.0$, and the third column corresponds to the isentropic expansion trajectory $S^{tot}/N_b^{tot}=5$ in Fig. 3(d) with $N_s^{tot}=200$ or $f_s^{tot}=2.0$.
\[slet\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: *Partly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China*
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
It is well known that the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern $V^{}_0$ can be derived from a class of flavor models with the non-Abelian $A^{}_4$ symmetry. We point out that small corrections to $V^{}_0$, which are inherent in the $A^{}_4$ models and arise from both the charged-lepton and neutrino sectors, have been omitted in the previous works. We show that such corrections may lead the $3\times 3$ neutrino mixing matrix $V$ to a non-unitary deviation from $V^{}_0$, but they cannot result in a nonzero value of $\theta^{}_{13}$ or any new CP-violating phases. Current experimental constraints on the unitarity of $V$ allow us to constrain the model parameters to some extent.
PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt
---
[**Intrinsic Deviation from the Tri-bimaximal Neutrino Mixing\
in a Class of $A^{}_4$ Flavor Models**]{}
[**Takeshi Araki**]{}$^{\ a)}$ [^1], [**Jianwei Mei**]{}$^{\ b)}$, [**Zhi-zhong Xing**]{}$^{\ a)}$ [^2]
[$^{a)}$Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China\
$^{b)}$Max-Planck-Institut f$\rm\ddot{u}$r Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut), Golm, Germany]{}
Introduction
============
Thanks to a number of convincing neutrino oscillation experiments [@PDG10], we have known two neutrino mass-squared differences ($\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $|\Delta m^2_{31}|$) and two neutrino mixing angles ($\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$) to a good degree of accuracy [@GG]. The smallest neutrino mixing angle $\theta^{}_{13}$ remains unknown, but there are some preliminary hints that it might not be very small (e.g., $\theta^{}_{13} \sim
7^\circ$ [@GG; @Fogli; @KM]). Nevertheless, current experimental data are consistent very well with a constant neutrino mixing matrix — the so-called tri-bimaximal mixing pattern [@TB] $$\begin{aligned}
V^{}_0 = U^T_\omega U^*_\nu = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \ Q^{}_l
\left( \matrix{2 & \sqrt{2} & 0 \cr -1 & \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3} \cr
1 & -\sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3} \cr} \right) Q^{}_\nu \; ,
$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
U^{}_{\omega} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & \omega & \omega^2 \\
1 & ~\omega^2~ & \omega
\end{array}\right) \; ,
\nonumber \\
U^{}_\nu & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & -1 \\
0 & \sqrt{2} & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right) \; ,
$$ $\omega = e^{i 2\pi/3}$, $Q^{}_l = {\rm Diag}\{ 1, \omega, -\omega^2
\}$ and $Q^{}_\nu = {\rm Diag}\{1, 1, i\}$ [@Xing08]. The diagonal phase matrix $Q^{}_l$ can be rotated away by redefining the phases of three charged-lepton fields, but $Q^{}_\nu$ may affect the neutrinoless double-beta decay if neutrinos are the Majorana particles. Given the standard parametrization of the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata-Pontecorvo (MNSP) neutrino mixing matrix [@MNSP], $V^{}_0$ corresponds to $\theta^{}_{12} =
\arctan(1/\sqrt{2}) \approx 35.3^\circ$, $\theta^{}_{13} = 0^\circ$ and $\theta^{}_{23} = 45^\circ$. A more realistic form of the MNSP matrix $V$ is expected to slightly deviate from $V^{}_0$ due to some nontrivial perturbations[^3], such that both nonzero $\theta^{}_{13}$ and CP violation can emerge.
It is possible to derive the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern $V^{}_0$ from some neutrino mass models with certain flavor symmetries [@Symmetry]. In this connection the earliest and most popular application is the non-Abelian discrete $A^{}_4$ symmetry (see, e.g., Refs. [@Ma; @Altarelli; @Babu]). But the neutrino mixing matrix derived from a specific $A^{}_4$ model is in general not equal to $V^{}_0$ unless some approximations are made. In other words, small corrections to $V^{}_0$ are generally inherent in the $A^{}_4$ models and can arise both from the charged-lepton sector and from the neutrino sector. This observation is particularly interesting for an $A^{}_4$ model built in the vicinity of the TeV scale, because the resultant corrections to $V^{}_0$ may not be strongly suppressed. We show that such corrections can lead the $3\times 3$ neutrino mixing matrix $V$ to a non-unitary deviation from $V^{}_0$, although they cannot give rise to a nonzero value of $\theta^{}_{13}$ or any new CP-violating phases. We find that current experimental constraints on the unitarity of $V$ allow us to constrain the parameters of an $A^{}_4$ model to some extent.
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows. In section II we first outline the salient features of a typical $A^{}_4$ model and then diagonalize the $6\times 6$ mass matrices of charged leptons and neutrinos. We show that both $U^{}_\omega$ and $U^{}_\nu$ in Eq. (2) get modified in this framework. In section III we work out the non-unitary departure of the resultant $3\times 3$ MNSP matrix $V$ from the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern $V^{}_0 =
U^T_\omega U^*_\nu$. We also constrain the model parameters to some extent by taking account of current experimental constraints on the unitarity of $V$. Section IV is devoted to a summary and some concluding remarks.
Corrections to $U^{}_\omega$ and $U^{}_\nu$ in a typical $A^{}_4$ model
=======================================================================
Let us consider a simple but typical $A^{}_4$ model proposed by Babu and He in Ref. [@Babu]. The model is an extension of the standard electroweak $SU(2)^{}_{\rm L} \times U(1)^{}_{\rm Y}$ model with some additional particles, and it is supersymmetric and $A^{}_4
\times Z^{}_4 \times Z^{}_3$-invariant. The particle content and charge assignments are summarized in Table I. The discrete symmetries force the superpotentials of quarks and leptons to have the following forms: $$\begin{aligned}
W^{}_q & = & y^d_{ij} Q^{}_i d^c_j H^{}_d +
y^u_{ij} Q^{}_i u^c_j H^{}_u \; ,
\nonumber \\
W^{}_\ell & = & M^{}_E E^{}_i E^c_i + f^{}_\ell L^{}_i E^c_i H^{}_d
+ h^{}_e \left(E^{}_1 \chi^{}_1 + E^{}_2 \chi^{}_2 +
E^{}_3 \chi^{}_3 \right) e^c_1
\nonumber \\
&& + h^{}_\mu \left(E^{}_1 \chi^{}_1 + \omega E^{}_2 \chi^{}_2
+ \omega^2 E^{}_3 \chi^{}_3 \right) e^c_2
+ h^{}_\tau \left(E^{}_1 \chi^{}_1 + \omega^2 E^{}_2 \chi^{}_2
+ \omega E^{}_3 \chi^{}_3 \right) e^c_3 \; ,
\nonumber \\
W^{}_\nu & = & f^{}_\nu L^{}_i \nu^c_i H^{}_u
+ \frac{1}{2} f^{}_{S^{}_a} \nu^c_i \nu^c_i S^{}_a
+ \frac{1}{2}f^{}_{S^{}_b} \nu^c_i \nu^c_i S^{}_b
\nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{2}f^{}_{\chi^\prime} \left[
\left(\nu^c_2 \nu^c_3 + \nu^c_3 \nu^c_2 \right)
\chi^\prime_1
+ \left(\nu^c_1 \nu^c_3 + \nu^c_3 \nu^c_1 \right)
\chi^\prime_2
+ \left(\nu^c_2 \nu^c_1 + \nu^c_1 \nu^c_2 \right)
\chi^\prime_3
\right] \; ,
$$ where the notations are self-explanatory [@Babu]. Note that the quark sector is completely the same as that in the minimal supersymmetric standard model, and the $Z^{}_4$ symmetry works as an R-parity such that the superpotentials possess two units of charge. Thanks to the supersymmetry and new scalars in Eq. (3), it is possible to obtain the vacuum expectation values [@Babu] $$\begin{aligned}
&& \langle S^{}_a \rangle = 0 \; , ~~~
\langle S^{}_b \rangle = v^{}_s \; , ~~~
\langle H^{}_u \rangle = v^{}_u \; , ~~~
\langle H^{}_d \rangle = v^{}_d \; , ~~~
\nonumber \\
&& \langle \chi \rangle = \left(v^{}_\chi , \ v^{}_\chi ,
\ v^{}_\chi \right) \; , ~~~
\langle \chi^\prime \rangle =
\left(0 , \ v^{}_{\chi^\prime} , \ 0 \right) \; ,
$$ where $v^2_u + v^2_d = v^2$ with $v \simeq 174$ GeV. Thus the $A^{}_4$ symmetry is broken after $\chi$ and $\chi^\prime$ develop their vacuum expectation values.
$Q^{}_i$ $d^c_i$ $u^c_i$ $L^{}_i$ $e^c_1,\ e^c_2,\ e^c_3$ $\nu^c_i$ $E^{}_i$ $E^c_i$ $H^{}_u$ $H^{}_d$ $\chi^{}_i$ $\chi^\prime_i$ $S^{}_{a,b}$
-------------------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- ------------------------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------------- --------------
$SU(2)^{}_{\rm L}$ $2$ $1$ $1$ $2$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $2$ $2$ $1$ $1$ $1$
$U(1)^{}_{\rm Y}$ $1/3$ $2/3$ $-4/3$ $-1$ $2$ $0$ $-2$ $2$ $1$ $-1$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$A^{}_4$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $3$ $1,1^{'},1^{''}$ $3$ $3$ $3$ $1$ $1$ $3$ $3$ $1$
$Z^{}_4$ $1$ $1$ $0$ $1$ $3$ $0$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $0$ $2$ $2$ $2$
$Z^{}_3$ $1$ $2$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $1$ $0$ $0$ $2$ $0$ $0$ $1$ $1$
: The particle content and charge assignments of the model [@Babu], where the subscript $i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) stands for the family index.
In the basis of $(e,E)$ versus $(e^c, E^c)^T$, we obtain the $6\times 6$ mass matrix of charged leptons from Eqs. (3) and (4): $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}^{}_{\ell E} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf 0} & ~f^{}_\ell v^{}_d {\bf 1} \\
H & ~M^{}_E {\bf 1}
\end{array}\right) \; ,
$$ where ${\bf 1}$ denotes the $3\times 3$ identity matrix, and $$\begin{aligned}
H = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
h^{}_e & h^{}_\mu & h^{}_\tau \\
h^{}_e & \omega h^{}_\mu & \omega^2 h^{}_\tau \\
h^{}_e & \omega^2 h^{}_\mu & \omega h^{}_\tau
\end{array}\right) v^{}_\chi
= \sqrt{3} \ U^{}_{\omega}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
h^{}_e & 0 & 0 \\
0 & h^{}_\mu & 0 \\
0 & 0 & h^{}_\tau
\end{array}\right) v^{}_\chi \; .
$$ Note that $f^{}_\ell$, $M^{}_E$ and $h^{}_{\alpha}$ (for $\alpha =
e, \mu, \tau$) can all be arranged to be real in a suitable phase convention, and the mass scale $M^{}_E$ is assumed to be extremely large in comparison with the magnitudes of $f^{}_\ell v^{}_d$ and $h^{}_\alpha v^{}_\chi$. The $6\times 6$ Hermitian matrix ${\cal
M}^{}_{\ell E} {\cal M}_{\ell E}^\dagger$ can be diagonalized via the unitary transformation $V_l^\dagger {\cal M}^{}_{\ell E} {\cal
M}_{\ell E}^\dagger V^{}_l$, where $V^{}_l$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V^{}_l \simeq \left(\begin{array}{cc} {\bf 1} +
\displaystyle\frac{HH^\dagger}{M_E^2} &
\displaystyle\frac{f^{}_\ell v^{}_d}{M_E} {\bf 1} \\
-\displaystyle\frac{f^{}_\ell v^{}_d}{M_E} {\bf 1} &
{\bf 1} + \displaystyle\frac{HH^\dagger}{M_E^2}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U^{}_\omega & {\bf 0} \\
{\bf 0} & {\bf 1}
\end{array}\right) \;
$$ as a good approximation. The masses of three standard charged leptons turn out to be $$\begin{aligned}
m^{}_\alpha \simeq \sqrt{3}\ \frac{f^{}_\ell v^{}_d}{M^{}_E} \
v^{}_\chi h^{}_\alpha \; ,
$$ where $\alpha$ runs over $e$, $\mu$ and $\tau$. Eq. (7) shows that $U^{}_\omega$ receives a small correction: $$\begin{aligned}
U^{}_\omega \longrightarrow U^\prime_\omega = \left( {\bf 1} +
\displaystyle\frac{HH^\dagger}{M_E^2} \right) U^{}_\omega \; .
$$ It is actually $U^\prime_\omega$ that characterizes the contribution of charged leptons to the lepton flavor mixing in this $A^{}_4$ model.
Now we turn to the neutrino sector. The type-I seesaw mechanism [@seesaw] is implemented in the $A^{}_4$ model under consideration, and thus the overall neutrino mass matrix is a symmetric $6\times 6$ matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal M}^{}_{\nu\nu^c} = \left(\begin{array}{cc}
{\bf 0} & f^{}_\nu v^{}_u {\bf 1} \\
f^{}_\nu v^{}_u {\bf 1} & M^{}_R
\end{array}\right) \; ,
$$ where $M^{}_R$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
M^{}_R = \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
f^{}_{S^{}_b} v^{}_s & 0 & f^{}_{\chi^\prime} v^{}_{\chi^\prime} \\
0 & f^{}_{S^{}_b} v^{}_s & 0 \\
f^{}_{\chi^\prime} v^{}_{\chi^\prime} & 0 & f^{}_{S^{}_b} v^{}_s
\end{array}\right) \; .
$$ The symmetric neutrino mass matrix in Eq. (10) can be diagonalized via the orthogonal transformation $V_\nu^T {\cal
M}^{}_{\nu\nu^c}V^{}_\nu$, where the unitary matrix $V^{}_\nu$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V^{}_\nu \simeq \left(\begin{array}{cc} {\bf 1} - \displaystyle
\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{|f^{}_\nu|^2 v_u^2}{M_R^* M_R^T} &
\displaystyle\frac{f^{*}_\nu v^{}_u}{M_R^*} \\
-\displaystyle\frac{f^{}_\nu v^{}_u}{M^{}_R} & {\bf 1} -
\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{|f^{}_\nu|^2 v_u^2}{M_R^T M_R^*}
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U^{}_\nu P^{}_\nu & 0 \\
0 & U^{}_R
\end{array}\right) \;
$$ to a good degree of accuracy. In this expression $U^{}_\nu$ has been given in Eq. (2), $P^{}_\nu$ denotes a diagonal phase matrix [@Babu], and $U^{}_R$ is a unitary matrix responsible for the diagonalization of $M^{}_R$. The masses of three light (active) neutrinos turn out to be $m^{}_1 \simeq \left|m^{}_0 \left(1 + x \right)\right|$, $m^{}_2 \simeq \left|m^{}_0 \left(1 + x \right)
\left( 1 - x \right)\right|$ and $m^{}_3 \simeq \left|m^{}_0 \left(1 - x\right)\right|$, where $$\begin{aligned}
m^{}_0 = \frac{f_\nu^2 v_u^2 f^{}_{S^{}_b} v^{}_s}
{f_{S^{}_b}^2 v_s^2 - f_{\chi^\prime}^2 v_{\chi^\prime}^2} \; , ~~~
x = -\frac{f^{}_{\chi^\prime} v^{}_{\chi^\prime}}
{f^{}_{S^{}_b} v^{}_s} \; .
$$ Because both $m^{}_0$ and $x$ are complex, it is possible to adjust their magnitudes and phases such that the resultant values of $m^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) satisfy current experimental data on the neutrino mass spectrum [@Babu]. Eq. (12) shows that $U^{}_\nu
P^{}_\nu$, which signifies the contribution of neutrinos to the lepton flavor mixing, receives a small correction: $$\begin{aligned}
U^{}_\nu P^{}_\nu \longrightarrow U^\prime_\nu P^{}_\nu =
\left( {\bf 1} - \displaystyle
\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{|f^{}_\nu|^2 v_u^2}{M_R^* M_R^T} \right)
U^{}_\nu P^{}_\nu \; .
$$ In other words, $U^\prime_\nu$ is not exactly unitary and its departure from $U^{}_\nu$ is in general an unavoidable consequence in the type-I seesaw mechanism [@Xing09].
Non-unitary corrections to $V^{}_0$
===================================
With the help of the results obtained in Eqs. (9) and (14), we are able to calculate the MNSP matrix $V = {U^\prime_\omega}^T
\left(U^\prime_\nu P^{}_\nu\right)^*$ and demonstrate its non-unitary deviation from the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern $V^{}_0$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
V &=& U_\omega^T \left({\bf 1} + \frac{H^{*}H^T}{M_E^2}\right)
\left( {\bf 1} - \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{|f^{}_\nu|^2 v_u^2}
{M^{}_R M_R^\dagger} \right) U_\nu^{*} P^*_\nu
\nonumber \\
&\simeq & V^{}_0 P^*_\nu
+ \frac{1}{f^2_\ell v^2_d}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
m_e^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m_\mu^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m_\tau^2
\end{array}\right) V^{}_0 P^*_\nu
- \frac{1}{2}\cdot \frac{1}{|f^{}_\nu|^2 v_u^2} \ V^{}_0
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
m_1^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m_2^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m_3^2
\end{array}\right) P^*_\nu
\nonumber \\
& \simeq & Q^{}_l \left[ {\bf 1} + \frac{1}{f^2_\ell v^2_d}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
m_e^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & m_\mu^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & m_\tau^2
\end{array}\right)
\right. \nonumber \\
&&
\left.
- \frac{1}{12}\cdot \frac{1}{|f^{}_\nu|^2 v_u^2}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
2\left(2 m_1^2 + m_2^2\right) & 2\left(m_2^2 - m_1^2\right)
& 2\left(m_1^2 - m_2^2\right) \\
2\left(m_2^2 - m_1^2\right) & m_1^2 + 2m_2^2 + 3m_3^2 &
3m^2_3 -m_1^2 - 2m_2^2 \\
2\left(m_1^2 - m_2^2\right) & ~ 3m^2_3 -m_1^2 - 2m_2^2 ~ &
m_1^2 + 2m_2^2 + 3m_3^2
\end{array}\right)
\right] V^\prime_0 P^*_\nu \; , ~~~~~
$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V^\prime_0 = Q^*_l V^{}_0 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}} \
\left( \matrix{2 & \sqrt{2} & 0 \cr -1 & \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3} \cr
1 & -\sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3} \cr} \right) Q^{}_\nu \; ,
$$ and $Q^{}_l$ and $Q^{}_\nu$ have been given below Eq. (2). In obtaining Eq. (15) we have omitted the higher-order and much smaller corrections. Because of $v^{}_u = v \sin\beta$ and $v^{}_d = v
\cos\beta$ in the supersymmetric $A^{}_4$ model under consideration, $v^{}_d \ll v^{}_u$ might hold for a very large value of $\tan\beta$. Depending on the magnitudes of $f^2_\ell$ and $|f^{}_\nu|^2$, the term proportional to $1/(f^2_\ell v^2_d)$ or $1/(|f^{}_\nu|^2 v^2_u)$ in Eq. (15) might not be negligibly small. These two terms, which are inherent in the model itself, measure the non-unitary contribution to $V$ or the departure of $V$ from $V^\prime_0 P^*_\nu$. This observation makes sense since it indicates that the exact tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern $V^{}_0$ is not an exact consequence of a class of $A^{}_4$ flavor models.
One may parametrize the analytical result obtained in Eq. (15) as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
V = Q^{}_l \left({\bf 1} -\eta\right)V^\prime_0 P^*_\nu = V^{}_0
P^*_\nu - Q^{}_l \eta V^\prime_0 P^*_\nu \; ,
$$ where the Hermitian matrix $\eta$ signifies the non-unitary deviation of $V$ from $V^{}_0 P^*_\nu$. Note that the diagonal phase matrix $Q^{}_l$ in $V$ can always be rotated away through a redefinition of the phases of three charged leptons, and the diagonal phase matrices $Q^{}_\nu$ and $P^*_\nu$ in $V$ only provide us with the Majorana phases which have nothing to do with leptonic CP violation in neutrino oscillations. Note also that $\eta$ itself is real in this $A^{}_4$ model, as one can easily see from Eq. (15), and thus the unitarity violation of $V$ does not give rise to any new CP-violating phases. Moreover, it is impossible to obtain nonzero $V^{}_{e3}$ or $\theta^{}_{13}$ from this typical $A^{}_4$ model, simply because $\eta^{}_{e\mu} = -\eta^{}_{e\tau}$ holds. Such a disappointing observation implies that the residual flavor symmetry remains powerful to keep $V^{}_{e3}$ or $\theta^{}_{13}$ vanishing and forbid CP violation, even though the MNSP matrix $V$ is not exactly unitary.
Current experimental data allow us to constrain the matrix elements of $\eta$ and then constrain the model parameters to some extent. A recent analysis yields [@non-uni] $$\begin{aligned}
|\eta | <
\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
2.0\times 10^{-3} & & 6.0\times 10^{-5} & & 1.6\times 10^{-3} \\
6.0\times 10^{-5} & & 8.0\times 10^{-4} & & 1.1\times 10^{-3} \\
1.6\times 10^{-3} & & 1.1\times 10^{-3} & & 2.7\times 10^{-3}
\end{array}\right) \; .
$$ In view of Eqs. (15) and (16), we immediately obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{}_{e \mu} & = & -\eta^{}_{e \tau} = \frac{\Delta m^2_{21}} {6
|f^{}_\nu|^2 v^2_u} = \frac{\Delta m^2_{21}} {6 |f^{}_\nu|^2 v^2
\sin^2\beta} \; ,
\nonumber \\
\eta^{}_{\mu \tau} & = & \frac{\Delta m_{31}^2 + 2 \Delta m_{32}^2}
{12|f^{}_\nu|^2 v^2_u} \simeq \frac{\Delta m_{31}^2} {4|f^{}_\nu|^2
v^2 \sin^2\beta} \; ,
$$ where $\Delta m^2_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1 \simeq 7.6 \times
10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta m^2_{31} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_1
\simeq m^2_3 - m^2_2 \equiv \Delta m^2_{32} \simeq \pm 2.4 \times
10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2$ [@GG]. Eq. (19) leads us to a simple but instructive relation for three off-diagonal matrix elements of $\eta$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\eta^{}_{e\mu}}{\eta^{}_{\mu \tau}} =
-\frac{\eta^{}_{e\tau}}{\eta^{}_{\mu \tau}} \simeq \frac{2}{3}
\cdot \frac{\Delta m^2_{21}}{\Delta m^2_{31}} \; .
$$ Therefore, $|\eta^{}_{e\mu}|/|\eta^{}_{\mu\tau}| =
|\eta^{}_{e\tau}|/|\eta^{}_{\mu\tau}| \simeq 2.1 \times 10^{-2}$. Comparing this prediction with Eq. (18), one may self-consistently get $|\eta^{}_{e\mu}| = |\eta^{}_{e\tau}| < 2.3 \times 10^{-5}$ by taking $|\eta^{}_{\mu\tau}| < 1.1 \times 10^{-3}$. So it is more appropriate to use the upper bound of $|\eta^{}_{\mu\tau}|$ to constrain the lower bound of $|f^{}_\nu|$ by means of Eq. (19). We arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
|f^{}_\nu| = \frac{1}{2 v \sin\beta} \cdot\frac{\sqrt{|\Delta
m^2_{31}|}} {\sqrt{|\eta^{}_{\mu \tau}|}} \ > \
\frac{4.2}{\sin\beta} \times 10^{-12} \; .
$$ This result, which depends on the value of $\tan\beta$ in the supersymmetric $A^{}_4$ model, implies that the Yukawa coupling of neutrinos should not be too small in order to preserve the unitarity of $V$ at an experimentally-allowed level. It clearly indicates that an arbitrary choice of $f^{}_\nu$ in the neglect of small unitarity violation of $V$ is inappropriate for model building, because the correlation between $f^{}_\nu$ and the deviation of $V$ from the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern is an intrinsic property of a class of $A^{}_4$ models.
The diagonal matrix elements of $\eta$ consist of the contributions from both the charged-lepton sector and the neutrino sector, as shown in Eq. (15). Their competition depends on the sizes of $f^{}_\ell$, $f^{}_\nu$ and $\tan\beta$. For simplicity, here we assume that the charged-lepton contribution to $\eta^{}_{\alpha\alpha}$ (for $\alpha
=e, \mu, \tau$) is dominant. Then it is straightforward to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{}_{\alpha \alpha} \simeq -\frac{m^2_\alpha}{f^2_\ell v^2_d} =
-\frac{m^2_\alpha}{f^2_\ell v^2 \cos^2\beta} \; .
$$ As a result, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{}_{ee} : \eta^{}_{\mu\mu} : \eta^{}_{\tau\tau} \simeq
m^2_e : m^2_\mu : m^2_\tau \simeq 1: 44566: 12880040 \; ,
$$ where we have input the central values of three charged-lepton masses at the electroweak scale [@XZZ]. Comparing this prediction with Eq. (18), one may self-consistently arrive at $|\eta^{}_{ee}| < 2.1 \times 10^{-10}$ and $|\eta^{}_{\mu\mu}| < 9.3 \times 10^{-6}$ by taking $|\eta^{}_{\tau\tau}| < 2.7 \times 10^{-3}$. It is therefore more appropriate to use the upper bound of $|\eta^{}_{\tau\tau}|$ to constrain the lower bound of $|f^{}_\ell|$ with the help of Eq. (22). We find $$\begin{aligned}
|f^{}_\ell| \simeq \frac{m^{}_\tau}{v \cos\beta
\sqrt{|\eta^{}_{\tau\tau}|}} > \frac{0.19}{\cos\beta} \; ,
$$ where $m^{}_\tau \simeq 1746.24$ MeV has been input at the electroweak scale [@XZZ]. This result, which also depends on the value of $\tan\beta$ in the supersymmetric $A^{}_4$ model, shows that the Yukawa coupling of charged leptons should be relatively large in order to preserve the unitarity of $V$ as constrained by current measurements. We stress that an arbitrary choice of either $f^{}_\ell$ or $f^{}_\nu$ in the neglect of small unitarity violation of $V$ might be problematic for model building, simply because they receive constraints both from the model itself and from the experimental data. In this sense one must be cautious to claim that an $A^{}_4$ flavor model can predict the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern whose matrix elements are constant and thus have nothing to do with the model parameters [@lam]. In fact, the slight (non-unitary) deviation of $V$ from the tri-bimaximal mixing pattern is likely to impose a strong restriction on some model parameters like $f^{}_\ell$, $f^{}_\nu$ and $\tan\beta$.
Summary
=======
We have examined a class of $A^{}_4$ flavor models to see whether the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern $V^{}_0$ is an exact consequence of such models. We find that small corrections to $V^{}_0$ are actually inherent in the $A^{}_4$ models and may arise from both the charged-lepton and neutrino sectors. We have demonstrated that such corrections may lead the MNSP matrix $V$ to a non-unitary deviation from $V^{}_0$, but they cannot result in a nonzero $V^{}_{e3}$ (or $\theta^{}_{13}$) or any new CP-violating phases. In particular, the slight unitarity violation of $V$ is sensitive to several model parameters, including the Yukawa couplings of charged leptons and neutrinos. We have shown that current experimental constraints on the unitarity of $V$ allow us to constrain the model parameters to some extent.
We stress that the departure of $V$ from $V^{}_0$ explored in this work is an intrinsic property of a class of flavor models with the non-Abelian $A^{}_4$ symmetry. Different departures may result either from the vacuum-expectation-value misalignments in a certain $A^{}_4$ model or from some purely phenomenological perturbations [@Barry]. The non-unitary deviation of $V$ from $V^{}_0$ is in some sense more interesting because it might give rise to new CP-violating effects in a variety of long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments [@Yasuda]. Since a lot of attention has been paid to how to derive the tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern $V^{}_0$, the points revealed in our paper should be taken into account when one attempts to build specific flavor models with discrete family symmetries.
One of us (J.M.) is grateful to the TPCSF for financial support during his visiting stay at the IHEP. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 10425522 and No. 10875131.
[3]{}
Particle Data Group, K. Nakamura [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. G [**37**]{}, 075021 (2010).
M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, and J. Salvado, JHEP [**1004**]{}, 056 (2010).
G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Palazzo, and A.M. Rotunno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 141801 (2008).
The KamLAND Collaboration, A. Gando [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1009.4771.
P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins, and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B [**530**]{}, 167 (2002); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B [**533**]{}, 85 (2002); P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B [**535**]{} (2002); X.G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B [**560**]{}, 87 (2003).
Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 011301 (2008).
Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**28**]{}, 870 (1962); B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP [**26**]{}, 984 (1968).
Y. Shimizu and R. Takahashi, arXiv:1009.5504 \[hep-ph\].
For recent reviews, see: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, arXiv:1002.0211; H. Ishimori, T. Kobayashi, H. Ohki, H. Okada, Y. Shimizu, and M. Tanimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**183**]{}, 1 (2010); L. Merlo, arXiv:1004.2211.
E. Ma and G. Rajasekaran, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 113012 (2001); K.S. Babu, E. Ma, and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B [**552**]{}, 207 (2003); E. Ma, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 031001 (2004); Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 037301 (2005).
G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Nucl. Phys. B [**720**]{}, 64 (2005); Nucl. Phys. B [**741**]{}, 215 (2006); G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, and Y. Lin, Nucl. Phys. B [**775**]{}, 31 (2007); G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, and C. Hagedorn, JHEP [**0803**]{}, 052 (2008).
K.S. Babu and X.G. He, arXiv:hep-ph/0507217; A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B 630, 58 (2006); X.G. He, Y.Y. Keum, and R.R. Volkas, JHEP [**0604**]{}, 039 (2006); E M. Hirsch, A.S. Joshipura, S. Kaneko, and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 151802 (2007).
P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B [**67**]{}, 421 (1977); T. Yanagida, in [*Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory and the Baryon Number of the Universe*]{}, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95; M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky, in [*Supergravity*]{}, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315; S.L. Glashow, in [*Quarks and Leptons*]{}, edited by M. L$\acute{\rm e}$vy [*et al.*]{} (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 707; R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 912 (1980).
For a very recent review, see: Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**180**]{}, 112 (2009); arXiv:0905.3903.
S. Antusch, C. Biggio, E. Fernandez-Martinez, M. B. Gavela, and J. Lopez-Pavon, JHEP [**0610**]{}, 084 (2006); S. Antusch, J.P. Baumann, and E. Fernandez-Martinez, Nucl. Phys. B [**810**]{}, 369 (2009); M. Malinsky, T. Ohlsson, Z.Z. Xing, and H. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B [**679**]{}, 242 (2009).
Z.Z. Xing, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 113016 (2008).
See, e.g., C.S. Lam, Phys. Lett. B [**656**]{}, 193 (2007); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 121602 (2008); Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 073015 (2008); W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, and P.O. Ludl, J. Phys. G [**36**]{}, 115007 (2009).
See, e.g., W. Rodejohann, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**188**]{}, 336 (2009); J. Barry and W. Rodejohann, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 093002 (2010).
E. Fernandez-Martinez, M.B. Gavela, J. L$\rm\acute{o}$pez-Pav$\rm\acute{o}$n, and O. Yasuda, Phys. Lett. B [**649**]{}, 427 (2007); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B [**660**]{}, 515 (2008); S. Luo, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 016006 (2008); S. Goswami and T. Ota, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 033012 (2008); Z.Z. Xing and S. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{}, 166 (2008); G. Altarelli and D. Meloni, Nucl. Phys. B [**809**]{}, 158 (2009); S. Antusch, M. Blennow, E. Fernandez-Martinez, and J. L$\rm\acute{o}$pez-Pav$\rm\acute{o}$n, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 033002 (2009); M. Malinsky, T. Ohlsson, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 073009 (2009); W. Rodejohann, Phys. Lett. B [**684**]{}, 40 (2010).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: For instance, a possible interrelation with the quark-lepton complementarity is discussed in Ref. [@ryo].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The superconducting ground state of the newly discovered superconductor Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ with a quasi-one-dimensional crystal structure ($T_{\bf c}\sim$ 2.1(1) K) has been investigated using magnetization and muon-spin relaxation or rotation ($\mu$SR), both zero-field (ZF) and transverse-field (TF), measurements. Our ZF $\mu$SR measurements reveal the presence of spin fluctuations below 4 K and the ZF relaxation rate ($\lambda$) shows enhancement below $T_{\bf c}\sim$ 2.1 K, which might indicate that the superconducting state is unconventional. This observation suggests that the electrons are paired via unconventional channels such as spin fluctuations, as proposed on the basis of theoretical models. Our analysis of the TF $\mu$SR results shows that the temperature dependence of the superfluid density is fitted better with a nodal gap structure than an isotropic $s$-wave model for the superconducting gap. The observation of a nodal gap in Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ is consistent with that observed in the isostructural K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ compound through TF $\mu$SR measurements. Furthermore, from our TF $\mu$SR study we have estimated the magnetic penetration depth $\lambda_{\mathrm{L}}$$(0)$ = 954 nm, superconducting carrier density $n_s = 4.98 \times 10^{26}~ $m$^{-3}$, and carrier’s effective-mass enhancement $m^*$ = 1.61*m*$_{e}$.'
author:
- 'D. T. Adroja'
- 'A. Bhattacharyya'
- 'M. Smidman'
- 'A. D. Hillier'
- 'Yu. Feng'
- 'B. Pan'
- 'J. Zhao'
- 'M. R. Lees'
- 'A. M. Strydom'
- 'P. K. Biswas'
title: 'Nodal superconducting gap structure in the quasi-one-dimensional Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ investigated using $\mu$µSR measurements'
---
In a conventional superconductor, the binding of electrons into the paired states, known as the Cooper pairs, that collectively carry the supercurrent is mediated by lattice vibrations or phonons, which is the fundamental principle of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory [@B.C.S.]. The BCS theory often fails to describe the SC observed in strongly correlated materials. Several strongly correlated superconducting materials, having magnetic *f*$-$ or *d*$-$ electron elements, exhibit unconventional SC and various theoretical models based on magnetic interactions (magnetic glue) and spin fluctuations have been proposed to understand these superconductors [@U.C.S.]. The superconducting gap structure of strongly correlated *f*$-$ and *d*$-$ electron superconductors is very important in understanding the physics of unconventional pairing mechanism in this class of materials.
Unconventional superconductivity has been observed in high-temperature cuprates [@H.T.S.C.], iron pnictides [@FeAs] and heavy fermion materials [@H.F.S.C.], which have strong electronic correlations and quasi two dimensionality. It is of great interest to explore possible unconventional SC in a quasi-one-dimensional Q1D material with significant electron correlations. The recently discovered superconductors with a Q1D crystal structure, K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ *T*$_{\bf c}\sim$ 6.1 K, Rb$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ *T*$_{\bf c}\sim$ 4.8 K and Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ *T*$_{\bf c}\sim$ 2.2 K have been intensively investigated both experimentally and theoretically [@J.; @Bao; @T.; @Kong; @Z.; @Tang; @Z.; @Tang1; @G.; @M.; @Pang; @DTA; @X.; @Wu; @H.; @Z.; @G.M.; @Pang-2; @Li-Da; @Zhang; @Chao; @Cao] as they are strong candidates for a multiband triplet pairing state as well as spin fluctuation mediated superconductivity from the *d*-electrons of the Cr ions. In recent years the search for triplet superconductivity has been one of the major research efforts partly due to its intrinsic connection to topologically related physics and quantum computation. These new superconductors are conjectured to possess an unconventional pairing mechanism [@J.; @Bao; @Z.; @Tang1; @G.; @M.; @Pang; @DTA; @X.; @Wu; @H.; @Z.]. There are several pieces of experimental evidence for this. Firstly, the upper critical field $H_{c2}$ perpendicular to Cr-chain is significantly larger than the Pauli limit, but parallel to the Cr-chain it exhibits a paramagnetically limited behavior, indicating that the BCS-type pairing is unfavorable [@T.; @Kong; @CAM; @Balakirev; @X.F.; @Wang]. Secondly, strong electronic correlations which are a common feature of unconventional superconductivity were revealed by a large electronic specific heat coefficient and non-Fermi liquid transport behavior [@J.; @Bao; @X.F.; @Wang]. This is consistent with the the Q1D crystalline structure of $A_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ ($A$ = K, Rb and Cs) and represents a possible realization of a Luttinger liquid state . Thirdly, line nodal gap symmetry was revealed by London penetration depth and superfluid density measurements of K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ [@G.; @M.; @Pang; @DTA]. Fourthly, the effect of nonmagnetic impurities reveals that the $\textit{T}_{\bf c}$ decreases significantly for K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ [@Y.Liu], in accordance with the generalized Abrikosov-Gor’kov pair-breaking theory, which supports a non-*s*-wave superconductivity.
Theoretically, by using density functional theory (DFT) calculations, X. Wu [*et al.*]{} predicted K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ to be near a novel in-out co-planar magnetically ordered state and possess strong spin fluctuations [@X.; @Wu; @H.; @Z.]. Furthermore, it has been shown that a minimum three-band model based on the $d_{z^2}$ , $d_{xy}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ orbitals of one Cr sublattice can capture the band structure near the Fermi surfaces. First principle calculations for K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ reveal that one three-dimensional Fermi surface and two quasi-one-dimensional Fermi sheets cross the Fermi energy [@H.Jiang; @P.Alemany; @A.Subedi]. In both the weak and strong coupling limits, the standard random phase approximation (RPA) and mean-field solutions consistently yield a triplet $p_z-$wave pairing as the leading pairing symmetry for physically realistic parameters . The triplet pairing is driven by ferromagnetic fluctuations within the sublattice [@X.; @Wu; @H.; @Z.; @H.Jiang]. The gap function of the pairing state possesses line gap nodes on the $k_z$ = 0 plane of the Fermi surface. So it is highly likely that electrons are paired via unconventional channels such as spin fluctuations in A$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$. Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) measurements indeed reveal the enhancement of spin fluctuations approaching $\it{T}_{\bf c}$ in K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ and Rb$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ [@J.; @Yang]. Furthermore Y. Zhou [*et al.*]{} [@Y.; @Zhou] have shown theoretically that at small Hubbard U and moderate Hund’s coupling, the pairing arises from the 3-dimensional (3D) $\gamma$ band and has $f_{y(3x^2 -y^2)}$ symmetry, which gives line nodes in the gap function. At large U, a fully gapped $p$-wave state dominates on the quasi-1D $\alpha$-band. There are large numbers of experimental results as well as theoretical calculations reported on $A_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ ($A$ = K and Rb), however, not much experimental work has been reported on Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$. This is due to the difficulties in synthesizing samples of this material, because of its high air sensitivity [@Z.; @Tang]. We have been able to synthesize good quality powder sample of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ and have investigated this material using magnetization and $\mu$SR measurements.
A polycrystalline sample of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ was prepared as described by Tang [*et al.*]{} [@Z.; @Tang]. This sample was characterized using x-ray diffraction and magnetic susceptibility. The magnetization data were measured using a Quantum Design Superconducting Quantum Interference Device magnetometer equipped with an iQuantum He-3 insert between 0.4 and 4.5 K. Muon spin relaxation/rotation ($\mu$SR) experiments were carried out on the MUSR spectrometer at the ISIS pulsed muon source of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK [@sll]. The $\mu$SR measurements were performed in zero$-$field (ZF), and transverse$-$field (TF) mode. A polycrystalline sample of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ was mounted in a sealed titanium (99.99%) sample holder under He-exchange gas, which was placed in a dilution refrigerator operating in the temperature range of 50 mK$-$5 K. It should be noted that we used small pieces of the sample, (not fine powder), to minimize the decomposition of the sample, as the sample is very air sensitive. Using an active compensation system the stray magnetic fields at the sample position were canceled to a level of 1 mG. TF$-\mu$SR experiments were performed in the superconducting mixed state in an applied field of 400 G, well above the lower critical field of $H_{c1}$= 10 G of this material. Data were collected in the (a) field$-$cooled (FC) mode, where the magnetic field was applied above the superconducting transition and the sample was then cooled down to base temperature and (b) zero field cooled (ZFC) mode, where first the sample was cooled down to 0.05 K in ZF and then the magnetic field was applied. Muon spin relaxation is a dynamic method that allows one to resolve the nature of the pairing symmetry in superconductors [@js]. The mixed or vortex state in the case of type-II superconductors gives rise to a spatial distribution of local magnetic fields; which demonstrates itself in the $\mu$SR signal through a relaxation of the muon polarization. The asymmetry of the muon decay in ZF is calculated by, $G_z(t) =[ {N_F(t) -\alpha N_B(t)}]/[{N_F(t)+\alpha N_B(t)}]$, where $N_F(t)$ and $N_B(t)$ are the number of counts at the detectors in the forward and backward positions respectively and $\alpha$ is a constant determined from calibration measurements made in the paramagnetic state with a small (20 G) applied transverse magnetic field. The data were analyzed using the free software package WiMDA [@FPW].
-0.0 cm
The analysis of the x-ray powder diffraction at 300 K reveals that the sample is single phase and crystallizes with space group $P\bar{6}m2$ (No. 187). The hexagonal crystal structure of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ is shown in Figs. 1(a-b). The Q1D feature of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ is manifested by the chains of \[Cr$_3$As$_3$\]$_{ \infty}$ octahedra (or double-walled subnanotubes) running along the $c$ direction (Fig.1b). which are separated by columns of Cs$^{+}$ ions, in contrast to the layered iron-pnictide and copper-oxide high $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ superconductors. Magnetic susceptibility measurements in an applied field of 10 G show superconductivity occurs at 2.1(1) K and the superconducting volume fraction is close to 10% at 0.5 K (Fig. 1(c)), indicating the bulk nature of superconductivity in Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$. The small volume fraction of the superconductivity observed in our sample through the magnetic susceptibility measurements is in agreement with only 6% superconducting volume fraction reported in the first report by Tang [*et al.*]{} [@Z.; @Tang]. Another possible reason for a small SC volume fraction observed in our magnetic susceptibility measurements is that these measurements were carried out three months after our $\mu$SR study and it is likely that the sample partially decomposed during this time. The magnetization isotherm $M\left(H\right)$ curve at 0.5 K (inset of Fig.1(c)) shows a typical behaviour for type-II superconductivity. We have estimated the lower critical field ($H_{c1}$) of 10 G from the initial deviation from the linear behavior. The reported value of the upper critical field $H_{c2}$=64.5 kG [@Z.; @Tang] is higher than the Pauli limit, $\mu_{0}H_{P} = 18.4T_{\mathrm{c}} = 38.64$ kG [@CAM], indicating unconventional superconductivity. In zero field, the temperature-dependent resistivity of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ is metallic [@Z.; @Tang] and exhibits linear temperature dependence between 50 K and just above $T_{\mathrm{c}}$, indicating non-Fermi-liquid behavior and suggesting the importance of spin fluctuations [@Z.; @Tang]. At the superconducting transition, the dimensionless specific heat jump is $\Delta$C/$\gamma$ $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ =0.4, which is smaller than the simple $\it {s}-$wave BCS prediction 1.43 [@Z.; @Tang]. The smaller value of the observed jump in the heat capacity was attributed to degradation of the sample [@Z.; @Tang].
Figures 2 (a) and (b) show the TF$-\mu$SR precession signals above and below $T_{\bf c}$ obtained in ZFC mode with an applied field of 400 G (well above $H_{c1}\sim$ 10 G but below $H_{c2}\sim$ 64.5 kG). The observed decay of the $\mu$SR signal with time below $T_{\bf c}$ is due to the inhomogeneous field distribution of the flux-line lattice. We have used an oscillatory decaying Gaussian function to fit the TF$-\mu$SR asymmetry spectra, which is given below,
$$\begin{split}
G_{z1}(t) = A_1\rm{cos}(2\pi \nu_1 t+\phi_1)\rm{exp}\left({\frac{-\sigma^2t^2}{2}}\right)\\ + A_2\rm{cos}(2\pi \nu_2 t+\phi_2),
\end{split}$$
where $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ are the frequencies of the muon precession signal from the sample and from the background signal from the Ti-sample holder, respectively, $\phi_i$ ($i$ = 1, 2) are the initial phase offsets. $A_1$ and $A_2$ are the muon initial asymmetries associated with the sample and background (from the Ti-sample holder), respectively. The fits reveal the relative values of $A_1=35\%$ and $A_2=65\%$. It is noted that the value of $A_2$ is higher than $A_1$. The reason for this is that the muons have to first pass through the titanium foil (30 $\mu$m thick) and then stop in the sample. Another reason for the large background asymmetry is due to the fact that we have used small pieces of the sample rather than fine powder to minimize the decomposition of the sample and hence it is possible that pieces might have settled down at the bottom of the sample holder when mounted vertically on the instrument. This also results in a higher fraction of the muons stopping directly in the titanium sample holder. Furthermore, the sample is very air sensitive and some parts of the sample may have decomposed. In Eq. 1 the first term contains the total sample relaxation rate $\sigma$; there are contributions from both the vortex lattice ($\sigma_{sc}$) and nuclear dipole moments ($\sigma_{nm}$), which is assumed to be constant over the entire temperature range below $T_{\bf c}$ \[ where $\sigma$ = $\sqrt{(\sigma_{sc}^2+\sigma_{nm}^2)}$\]. The contribution from the vortex lattice, $\sigma_{sc}$, was determined by quadratically subtracting the background nuclear dipolar relaxation rate obtained from the spectra measured above $\it {T}_{\bf c}$. As $\sigma_{sc}$ is directly related to the superfluid density, it can be modeled by [@Prozorov]
$$\frac{\sigma_{sc}(T)}{\sigma_{sc}(0)} = 1 + 2 \left\langle\int_{\Delta_k}^{\infty}\frac{\partial f}{\partial E}\frac{E{\rm d}E}{\sqrt{E^2-\Delta_k^2}}\right\rangle_{\rm FS},
\label{RhoS}$$
where $f=\left[1+\exp\left(-E/k_{\mathrm{B}}T\right)\right]^{-1}$ is the Fermi function and the brackets correspond to an average over the Fermi surface. The gap is given by $\Delta(T, \varphi)$=$\Delta_0 \delta(T/\it {T}_c)g(\varphi)$, where $\varphi$ is the azimuthal angle along the Fermi surface. At present, no reliable experimental value of the $\Delta C/\gamma \it {T}_c$ is available for Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$, we therefore have used the BCS formula for the temperature dependence of the gap, which is given by $\delta(T/T_c)$ =tanh$[(1.82){(1.018(\it {T}_c/T-1))}^{0.51}]$ [@Prozorov; @UBe13], with g($\varphi$) = 1 for the $s$-wave model and g($\varphi$)=$|\cos(2\varphi)|$ for the $d$-wave model with line nodes [@Prozorov; @UBe13].
-0 cm
Fig. 3 (a) shows the $T$ dependence of $\sigma_{sc}$, measured in an applied field of 400 G collected in two different modes: zero-field-cooled (ZFC) and field cooled (FC). The temperature dependence of $\sigma_{sc}$ increases with decreasing temperature confirming the presence of a flux-line lattice and indicates a decrease of the magnetic penetration depth with decreasing temperature. Comparing the ZFC and FC data reveals a substantial difference. In the ZFC mode, $\sigma_{sc}$ increases with decreasing temperature faster than for the FC data and thus points to differences in the number of the pinning sites, and trapping energies which are altered by magnetic field history of the sample. From the analysis of observed temperature dependence of $\sigma_{sc}$, using different models, the nature of the superconducting gap can be determined. We have analyzed the temperature dependence of $\sigma_{sc}$ based on two models: an isotropic s-wave gap model and a line nodes model. The fit to $\sigma_{sc}(T)$ data of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ by a single isotropic $\it{s}$-wave gap using Eq.(2) gives $\Delta_0/k_{\mathrm{B}}/T_{\mathrm{c}} = 1.94\pm0.01$ and $\sigma_{sc}(0)=0.106\pm0.001~\mu$s$^{-1}$ with the goodness of the fit $\chi^2=1.94$ (see Fig. 3b, red short-dashed line). The fit to the nodal model (blue solid line Fig. 3b) shows better agreement than that of $\it{s}$-wave model and gives a larger value of $\Delta_0$/$k_B$$\it{T}_{\bf c}$ = 3.0$\pm$0.2 and $\sigma_{sc}(0)=0.118\pm0.002~\mu$s$^{-1}$ with $\chi^2=0.75$. We also tried $\it{s}$-wave and nodal $\it{d}$-wave fits with various fixed values of $\Delta_0$/$k_B$$T_{\bf c}$ and allowing only $\sigma_{sc}(0)$ to vary, to compare the ($\chi^2$) values between these two models (see the inset in Fig. 3b). These plots of $\chi^2$ confirms that our data fit better to the nodal gap model than the isotropic gap $s$-wave model. Therefore our $\mu$SR analysis is more consistent with Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ having line nodes than being fully gapped. This is in agreement with the $\mu$SR results of K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ [@DTA], which also support the presence of line nodes in the superconducting gap.
Furthermore, the large value of $\Delta_0/k_{\mathrm{B}}/T_{\mathrm{c}} = 3.0\pm0.2$ obtained from the line nodes $\it{d}$-wave fit is larger than the 1.764 expected for BCS superconductors, indicates the presence of strong coupling and unconventional superconductivity, which is in line with that observed in K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ $\Delta_0/k_{\mathrm{B}}/T_{\mathrm{c}} = 3.2\pm0.1$ [@DTA]. In addition, a $^{75}$As NMR study on K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ and Rb$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ reveals the absence of a Hebel-Slichter coherence peak of $1/T_1$ just below $T_{\bf c}$, which is followed by a steep decrease, in analogy with unconventional superconductors in higher dimensions with point or line nodes in the energy gap . Furthermore, the $T^5$ variation of the spin-lattice relaxation rate $1/T_1$ at low temperatures in Rb$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ suggests unconventional superconductivity with point nodes in the gap function [@J.; @Yang]. Both the NMR Knight Shift and $1/T_1$T increase upon cooling below 100 K, which are consistent with ferromagnetic spin fluctuations in both K and Rb samples
The Hebel-Slichter coherence peak of $1/T_1$ is a crucial test for the validity of the description of the superconducting state based on the conventional isotropic BCS s-wave model. The absence of the coherence peak in $1/T_1$ of $A_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ ($A$ = K and Rb) suggests that an isotropic s-wave model is not an appropriate model to explain the gap symmetry. These results along with our $\mu$SR analysis of Rb$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ and Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ suggest that a nodal gap in all three compounds.
The muon spin depolarization rate ($\sigma_{sc}$) below $T_{\bf c}$ is related to the magnetic penetration depth ($\lambda$). For a triangular lattice, [@jes; @amato; @chia] $\frac{\sigma_{sc}(T)^2}{\gamma_\mu^2}= \frac{0.00371\phi_0^2}{\lambda^4(T)}$, where $\gamma_\mu/2\pi$ = 135.5 MHz/T is the muon gyromagnetic ratio and $\phi_0$ = 2.07$\times$10$^{-15}$ T m$^2$ is the flux quantum. As with other phenomenological parameters characterizing a superconducting state, the penetration depth can also be related to microscopic quantities. Using London theory [@jes], $\lambda_L^2= m^{*}c^2/4\pi n_s e^2$, where $m^* = (1+\lambda_{e-ph})m_e$ is the effective mass and $n_s$ is the density of superconducting carriers. Within this simple picture, $\lambda_L$ is independent of magnetic field. $\lambda_{e-ph}$ is the electron-phonon coupling constant, which can be estimated from $\Theta_D$ and $T_{\mathrm{c}}$ using McMillan’s relation [@mcm] $\lambda_{e-ph}=\frac{1.04+\mu^*\ln(\Theta_D/1.45T_{\bf c})}{(1-0.62\mu^*)\ln(\Theta_D/1.45T_{\bf c})+1.04}$, where $\mu^*$ is the repulsive screened Coulomb parameter usually assigned as $\mu^*$ = 0.13. For Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ we have used $T_{\bf c}$ = 2.1 K and $\Theta_D$ = 160 K , which together with $\mu^*$ = 0.13, we have estimated $\lambda_{e-ph}$ = 0.75. Further assuming that roughly all the normal state carriers ($n_e$) contribute to the superconductivity (i.e., $n_s\approx n_e$), we have estimated the magnetic penetration depth $\lambda$, superconducting carrier density $n_s$, and effective-mass enhancement $m^*$ to be $\lambda_L(0)$ = 954(9) nm (from the nodal fit), $n_s$ = 4.98$\times$10$^{26}$ carriers/m$^3$, and $m^*$ = 1.61 $m_e$, respectively. More details on these calculations can be found in Refs. [@adsd; @vkasd; @dtasd]. Very similar value of $n_s$ and $m^*$ were estimated for K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$, but the $\lambda_L(0)$= 432 nm was a factor 2.2 smaller [@DTA].
The measured ZF$-\mu$SR spectra of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ are shown in Fig. 4(a) for $T$ = 0.1 and 4.0 K. In ZF relaxation experiments, any muons stopping in the titanium sample holder give a time independent background. The absence of a muon precession signal in the spectra in Fig. 4(a), rules out the presence of a long-range magnetic ordered ground state in this compound. One possibility is that the muon$-$spin relaxation is due to either static, randomly oriented local fields associated with the nuclear moments at the muon site or the fluctuating electronic moments. The ZF$-\mu$SR data are well described by,
$$G_{z2}(t) =A_1 e^{-\lambda t}+A_{bg}$$
where $\lambda$ is the electronic relaxation rate, $A_1$ is the initial asymmetry and $A_{bg}$ is the background. The parameters $A_1$, and $A_{bg}$ are found to be temperature independent. It is interesting to note that $\lambda$ is finite at 4 K and increases \[Fig. 4 (b)\] with an onset temperature of $\ge 2.1\pm0.1$ K, indicating slowing down of electronic spin fluctuations correlated with the superconductivity. This observation suggests that the superconductivity of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ is most probably associated with the spin fluctuation mechanism, which is supported by the NMR and NQR measurements on $A_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ ($A$ = K and Rb) . The increases in $\lambda$ at $\it{T}$$_c$ has been observed in superconducting state of Sr$_2$RuO$_4$ [@gm], LaNiC$_2$ [@ad1], Lu$_5$Rh$_6$Sn$_{18}$ [@ab1] and Y$_5$Rh$_6$Sn$_{18}$ [@ab2], but above $\it{T}$$_c$ $\lambda$ remains almost constant in these compounds. This type of increase in $\lambda$ has been explained in terms of a signature of a coherent internal field with a very low frequency associated with time reversal symmetry (TRS) breaking by Luke [*et al.*]{} [@gm] for Sr$_2$RuO$_4$. Therefore based on these observations and considering the temperature dependence of $\lambda$ above and below [T]{}$_c$ in Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$, we suggest that spin fluctuations play an important role in the superconductivity. A very similar temperature dependent behavior of the ZF $\mu$SR depolarization rate is observed above and below the superconducting transition in $\it{R}$RuB$_{2}$ ($\it{R}$ = Lu, Y) by Barker [*et al.*]{} [@J.; @Barker], which has been attributed to the presence of quasistatic magnetic fluctuations.
In summary, we have presented zero-field (ZF) and transverse field (TF) muon spin rotation ($\mu$SR) measurements in the normal and the superconducting state of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$, which has a quasi-one-dimensional crystal structure. Our ZF $\mu$SR data reveal the presence of spin fluctuations at 4 K, which become stronger passing through the superconducting transition $T_{\mathrm{c}}=2.1$ K, indicating that the spin fluctuations are important for the superconducting state. The change of the ZF relaxation rate $\Delta$$\lambda$ from 4 K (i.e above $T_{\bf c}$) to the lowest temperature is $5 \times 10^{-3}\mu$s$^{-1}$ in Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$, which is a factor of 20 larger than that observed in K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ ($\Delta\lambda = 2.5 \times 10^{-4}\mu$s$^{-1}$) despite the fact that the ratio of $\it{T}_{\bf c}$ is 0.34. Considering Cs is a larger ion than K we would expect the lattice expansion to lead to reduction in the spin fluctuations in Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ when compared to K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$, which is not the case and hence remains to be understood. From the TF $\mu$SR we have determined the muon depolarization rate in ZFC and FC modes associated with the vortex-lattice. The temperature dependence of $\sigma_{sc}$ fits better to a nodal gap model than an isotropic $s-$wave model. Further, the value of $\Delta_0/k_{\mathrm{B}}/T_{\mathrm{c}} = 3.0\pm0.2$ obtained from the nodal gap model fit is larger than the 1.764 expected for BCS superconductors, indicating the presence of strong coupling and unconventional superconductivity in Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$. These results are in agreement with our previous finding for K$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$. Considering the possibility of multi-band nature of superconductivity in $A_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$ ($A$ = K, Rb and Cs) one would expect more complex behavior of the gap function and hence the conclusions obtained from our TF $\mu$SR study are in line with this. Further confirmation of the presence of line nodes in the superconducting gap requires $\mu$SR, heat capacity and thermal conductivity investigations of good quality single crystals of Cs$_2$Cr$_3$As$_3$.
DTA and ADH would like to thank CMPC-STFC, grant number CMPC-09108, for financial support. A.B would like to acknowledge FRC of UJ, NRF of South Africa and ISIS-STFC for funding support. Work at Fudan University is supported by the Shanghai Pujiang Scholar Program (Grant No.13PJ1401100). AMS thanks the SA-NRF (Grant 93549) and UJ Research Committee for financial support.
[99]{}
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. [**106**]{}, 162 (1957). J. Paglione and R. L. Greene, Nature Physics. [**6**]{}, 642 (2010). P. Dai, H. A. Mook, S. M. Hayden, G. Aeppli, T. G. Perring, R. D. Hunt, and F. Dogan, Science. [**284**]{}, 1344 (1999). P. Dai, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**87**]{}, 855 (2015). M. P. Allan, F. Massee, D. K. Morr, J. Van Dyke, A.W. Rost, A. P. Mackenzie, C. Petrovic and J. C. Davis, Nature Physics. [**9**]{}, 468 (2013). J.-K. Bao, J.-Y. Liu, C.-W. Ma, Z.-H. Meng, Z.-T. Tang, Y.-L. Sun, H.-F. Zhai, H. Jiang, H. Bai, C.-M. Feng, Z.-A. Xu, and G.-H. Cao, Phys. Rev. X [**5**]{}, 011013 (2015). T. Kong, S. L. Budko, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 020507(R) (2015). Z.-T. Tang, J.-K. Bao, Z. Wang, H. Bai, H. Jiang, Y. Liu, H.-F. Zhai, C.-M. Feng, Z.-A. Xu, G.-H. Cao, Science China Materials, [**58**]{}, 16 (2015).
Z.-T. Tang, J.-K. Bao, Y. Liu, Y.-L. Sun, A. Abliit, H.-F. Zhai, H. Jiang, C.-M. Feng, Z.-A. Xu, and G.-H. Cao, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 020506(R), (2015). G. M. Pang, M. Smidman, W. B. Jiang, J. K. Bao, Z. F. Weng, Y. F. Wang, L. Jiao, J. L. Zhang, G. H. Cao and H. Q. Yuan, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 220502(R) (2015). D. T. Adroja, A. Bhattacharyya, M. Telling, Yu. Feng, M. Smidman, B. Pan, J. Zhao, A. D. Hillier, F. L. Pratt, and A.M. Strydom, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 134505 (2015). X. Wu, C. Le, J. Yuan, H. Fan and J. Hu, Chin. Phys. Lett. [**32**]{}, 057401 (2015). H. Zhong, X. Y. Feng, H. Chen, J. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 227001 (2015). G. M. Pang, M. Smidman, Y. G. Jiang, Shi, W. B., J. K. Bao, Z. T. Tang, Z. F. Weng, Y. F. Wang, L. Jiao, J. L. Zhang, J. L. Luo, G. H. Cao, and H. Q. Yuan, J. Magn. Magn. Mater., [**84**]{}, 400 (2016). L-D. Zhang, X. Wu, H. Fan, F. Yang and J. Hu, arXiv:1512.00147. C. Cao, H. Jiang, X.-Y. Feng, and J. Dai, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 235107 (2015) A. M. Clogston, Phys Rev Lett, [**9**]{}, 266 (1962). F. Balakirev, T. Kong, M. Jaime, R. D. McDonald, C. H. Mielke, A. Gurevich, P. C. Canfield, and S. L. Bud’ko, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 220505(R) (2015) X. F. Wang, C. Roncaioli, C. Eckberg, H. Kim, J. Yong,Y. Nakajima, S. R. Saha, P.Y. Zavalij, and J. Paglione, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 020508(R) (2015) H. Z. Zhi, T. Imai, F. L. Ning, J.-K. Bao, and G.-H. Cao, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 147004 (2015). Y. Liu, J. K. Bao, H. K. Zuo, A. Ablimit, Z. T. Tang, C. M. Feng, Z. W. Zhu, and G. H. Cao, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. [**59**]{}, 657402 (2016). H. Jiang, G. Cao, and C. Cao, Scientific Reports [**5**]{}, 16054 (2015). P. Alemany and E. Canadell, Inorganic Chemistry [**54**]{}, 8029 (2015). A. Subedi, Phys. Rev. B, [**92**]{}, 174501 (2015). X. Wu, F. Yang, S. Qin, H. Fan and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 104511 (2015). X. Wu, F, Yang, C. Le, H. Fan and J. Hu, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 104511 (2015).
H. Zhong, X.-Y. Feng, H. Chen, and J. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**115**]{}, 227001 (2015). Y. Zhou, C. Cao, and F.-C. Zhang, arXiv1502.03928v2. J. Yang, Z. T. Tang, G. H. Cao, and Guo-qing Zhen, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**115**]{}, 147002 (2015).
S. L. Lee, S. H. Kilcoyne, and R. Cywinski, [*Muon Science: Muons in Physics, Chemistry and Materials*]{} (SUSSP Publications and IOP Publishing, Bristol, 1999). J. E. Sonier, J. H. Brewer, and R. F. Kiefl, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 769 (2000). F.L. Pratt, Physica B [**289-290**]{}, 710 (2000). R. Prozorov, and R. W. Giannetta, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **19**, R41 (2006). A. Carrington, and F. Manzano, Physica C [**385**]{}, 205 (2003) See, for example, J. E. Sonier, J. H. Brewer, and R. F. Kiefl, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 769 (2000). See, for example, A. Amato, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 1119 (1997). E. E. M. Chia, M. B. Salamon, H. Sugawara, and H. Sato, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 180509(R) (2004). W. McMillan, Phys. Rev. [**167**]{}, 331 (1968). A. D. Hillier and R. Cywinski, Appl. Magn. Reson. [**13**]{}, 95 (1997). V. K. Anand, D. Britz, A. Bhattacharyya, D. T. Adroja, A. D. Hillier, A. M. Strydom, W. Kockelmann, B. D. Rainford, and K. A. McEwen, Phys. Rev. B [**90**]{}, 014513 (2014). D. T. Adroja, A. D. Hillier, J. -G. Park, E. A. Goremychkin, K. A. McEwen, N. Takeda, R. Osborn, B. D. Rainford, and R. M. Ibberson, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 184503 (2005). G. M. Luke, Y. Fudamoto, K. M. Kojima, M. I. Larkin, J. Merrin, B. Nachumi, Y. J. Uemura, Y. Maeno, Z. Q. Mao, Y. Mori et al., Nature (London) [**394**]{}, 558 (1998). A. D. Hillier, J. Quintanilla, and R. Cywinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 117007 (2009). A. Bhattacharyya, D.T. Adroja, J. Quintanilla, A.D. Hillier, N. Kase, A.M. Strydom and J. Akimitsu, Phys. Rev. B [**91**]{}, 060503(R), (2015). A. Bhattacharyya, D.T. Adroja, N. Kase, A.D. Hillier, J. Akimitsu and A.M. Strydom, Sci. Rep. [**5**]{}, 12926 (2015). J. A. T. Barker, R. P. Singh, A. D. Hillier, and D. McK. Paul, arXiv:1508.00486v1
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Hydrogen bonding in infinite [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} bent (zigzag) chains is studied using the *ab initio* coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) correlation method. The correlation contribution to the binding energy is decomposed in terms of nonadditive many-body interactions between the monomers in the chains, the so-called energy increments. Van der Waals constants for the two-body dispersion interaction between distant monomers in the infinite chains are extracted from this decomposition. They allow a partitioning of the correlation contribution to the binding energy into short- and long-range terms. This finding affords a significant reduction in the computational effort of *ab initio* calculations for solids as only the short-range part requires a sophisticated treatment whereas the long-range part can be summed immediately to infinite distances.'
author:
- Christian Buth
- Beate Paulus
date: 'October 14, 2006'
title: Hydrogen bonding in infinite hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride chains
---
Introduction
============
Hydrogen fluoride [@Atoji:CS-54; @Habuda:NM-71; @Johnson:CS-75; @Otto:BE-86; @Panas:HF-93; @Berski:DHF-98] and hydrogen chloride [@Sandor:CS-67; @Sandor:CC-67; @Sandor:ND-69] are representatives of molecular crystals; the electronic structure of the constituent HF or HCl monomers is essentially preserved upon crystallization. The monomers in both crystals are hydrogen bonded; [@Hamilton:HB-68; @Pauling:NC-93; @Scheiner:HB-97; @Hadzi:TT-97; @Karpfen:CE-02] it is a directional and anisotropic bonding of the hydrogen in a HF and HCl monomer to the fluorine or chlorine atom, respectively, of a neighboring monomer. The bonding is caused by a partial withdrawal of charge from the hydrogen atom due to the high electronegativity of the fluorine or chlorine atoms. [@Hamilton:HB-68; @Pauling:NC-93; @Scheiner:HB-97; @Hadzi:TT-97; @Karpfen:CE-02] Hydrogen bonds are intermediates between ionic bonding and van der Waals bonding and are of great importance for the physical and chemical properties of many organic and inorganic crystals. Moreover, they turn out to be crucial for the structure of many biopolymers such as proteins and nucleic acids. [@Hamilton:HB-68; @Pauling:NC-93; @Scheiner:HB-97; @Hadzi:TT-97; @Karpfen:CE-02]
At low temperature, HF and HCl crystals are structurally very similar. While HF forms strong hydrogen bonds, HCl forms weak hydrogen bonds. Therefore, HF and HCl represent good candidates for a thorough analysis of this special type of bonding in crystals. The monomers in both compounds are found to be arranged in terms of parallel zigzag chains with a large interchain distance and, hence, a weak interchain interaction \[see Sec. \[sec:comp\] for details\]. Frequently, a single infinite chain is considered as a simple but realistic model of the crystals. The isolated [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} chain has fascinated many theoreticians and much work has been carried out dealing with it; namely, model studies, [@Springborg:ES-87; @Springborg:ES-88] semiempirical (intermediate neglect of differential overlap) examinations of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} by Zunger, [@Zunger:BS-75] density functional theory calculations \[local density approximation\] of Springborg, [@Springborg:ES-87; @Springborg:ES-88] and *ab initio* investigations. [@Kertesz:AI-75; @Karpfen:AI-76; @Blumen:CC-76; @Blumen:EB-77; @Kertesz:AI-78; @Karpfen:AI-80; @Karpfen:HB-81; @Karpfen:AI-82; @Ihaya:AI-84; @Liegener:AI-87; @Mayer:CH-97; @Berski:PHF-97; @Hirata:AI-98; @Jacquemin:LR-99; @Buth:BS-04; @Buth:MC-05] In contrast, the [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chain has not been investigated very extensively; there are only a few *ab initio* examinations. [@Blumen:CC-76; @Blumen:EB-77; @Blumen:EBS-77; @Berski:PHF-98] For both isolated chains the zigzag geometry of Fig. \[fig:polygeom\] is the energetically favored arrangement in comparison with the linear geometry. For [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} chains this has been shown in early studies of Karpfen [*et al.*]{} [@Karpfen:AI-76; @Karpfen:AI-80] and Beyer and Karpfen. [@Karpfen:AI-82] The structure of isolated [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains is investigated in Ref. .
![(Color online) Structure of infinite [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} zigzag chains. The structure of [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains is analogous. The grey (red) numbers below the monomers indicate the relative position of a monomer in the chain with respect to the monomer “0” at the origin.[]{data-label="fig:polygeom"}](HF_chain.eps){width="\hsize"}
The large number of *ab initio* studies that have been carried out for the chains also exhibits how challenging hydrogen-bonded systems are. An accurate treatment of hydrogen bonds requires both a good electron correlation method and a large one-particle basis set. [@Halkier:BS-99; @Buth:BS-04; @Buth:MC-05] Hence, in Refs. , we applied basis set extrapolation schemes—which are powerful methods to improve the accuracy of both Hartree-Fock and correlation energies for small molecules—to extended systems, showing their validity and usefulness also in this situation. Thereby, a periodic Hartree-Fock treatment was accompanied by correlation calculations.
We use the coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) correlation method [@Purvis:CC-82] in conjunction with the incremental scheme [@Stoll:CD-92; @Stoll:CS-92; @Stoll:CG-92; @Fulde:EC-95; @Fulde:WF-02] which has been used in many applications and yields a physically meaningful many-body decomposition of the correlation energy. It has been applied to a few one-dimensional systems before: the *trans*-polyacetylene polymer, [@Yu:IA-97] the infinite lithium hydride chain, [@Abdurahman:AI-00] the beryllium hydride polymer, [@Abdurahman:AI-00] and poly(*para*-phenylene). [@Willnauer:QC-04] In the context of the present paper, the contributions of Doll [*et al.*]{}, [@Doll:CE-95; @Doll:CE-96; @Doll:CP-97; @Doll:GS-98] who studied ionic solids, as well as the investigations of rare-gas crystals by Rościszewski [*et al.*]{} [@Rosciszewski:AI-99; @Rosciszewski:AI-00] are worth mentioning because hydrogen-bonded crystals fall in between these two types of bonding.
This paper is structured as follows. The CCSD electron correlation method and the incremental scheme are introduced in Sec. \[sec:theory\] whereas Sec. \[sec:comp\] describes geometries, basis sets, and the computer programs employed. In Sec. \[sec:elcorr\], we discuss electron correlation effects and their implications. The contributions to the binding energy of the [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains are evaluated in Sec. \[sec:bind\] and conclusions are drawn in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
We choose the Hartree-Fock approximation as a starting point to study electron correlations, employing the full non-relativistic Hamiltonian of the chains within the fixed-nuclei approximation. [@Szabo:MQC-89; @Fulde:EC-95; @Ladik:PS-99; @Fulde:WF-02; @Buth:MC-05] The resulting Hartree-Fock Bloch orbitals are transformed to Wannier orbitals because the latter provide a more appropriate, local representation of the Hamiltonian for a subsequent treatment of electron correlations. [@Fulde:EC-95; @Fulde:WF-02; @Forner:LC-92] The ground-state wave function is modeled by the coupled-cluster ansatz [@Szabo:MQC-89] $${\left|\right.\!\Psi_0^N\!\left.\right>} = {\textrm{e}}^{\hat T} {\left|\right.\!\Phi_0^N\!\left.\right>}$$ which relates the $N$-electron Hartree-Fock ground-state wave function $\Phi_0^N$ to the correlated ground-state wave function $\Psi_0^N$ employing the cluster operator $\hat T$. For the calculations in this study, it is sufficient to restrict $\hat T$ to single and double excitations, resulting in the coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) scheme [@Purvis:CC-82; @Hirata:CC-03] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat T &=& {\sum\limits}_{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1 \atop \vec R_1 \, \kappa_1}
t^{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1}_{\vec R_1 \, \kappa_1}
\hat c^{\dagger}_{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1}
\hat c_{\vec R_1 \, \kappa_1} \\
&&{} + {\sum\limits}_{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1 < \vec R_2^{\prime} \, \alpha_2
\atop \vec R_1 \, \kappa_1 < \vec R_2 \, \kappa_2}
t^{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1, \vec R_2^{\prime} \, \alpha_2}_{\vec
R_1 \, \kappa_1, \vec R_2 \, \kappa_2}
\hat c^{\dagger}_{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1}
\hat c^{\dagger}_{\vec R_2^{\prime} \, \alpha_2} \hat c_{\vec R_1 \, \kappa_1}
\hat c_{\vec R_2 \, \kappa_2}
\; . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $t^{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1}_{\vec R_1 \, \kappa_1}$ and $t^{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1, \vec R_2^{\prime} \, \alpha_2}_{\vec
R_1 \, \kappa_1, \vec R_2 \, \kappa_2}$ are referred to as excitation amplitudes. Let $\vec r$ and $s$ denote spatial and spin coordinates; then $\hat c^{\dagger}_{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1}$ creates electrons in virtual spin Wannier orbitals $w_{\vec R_1^{\prime} \, \alpha_1}(\vec
r \, s)$ whereas $\hat c_{\vec R_1 \, \kappa_1}$ annihilates electrons from occupied spin Wannier orbitals $w_{\vec R_1 \,
\kappa_1}(\vec r \, s)$. Here $\vec R_1$ and $\vec R_1^{\prime}$ denote the unit cell in which the Wannier orbital is located and $\alpha_1$ and $\kappa_1$ refer to Wannier orbital indices. Assuming Born-von Kármán boundary conditions, the correlation energy per unit cell ${{\cal E}}_{\rm corr}$ is given by $$\label{eq:ccsdenergy}
N_0 \, {{\cal E}}_{\rm corr} = {\left<\right.\!\Psi_0^N\!\left.\right|} \hat H {\left|\right.\!\Psi_0^N\!\left.\right>}
- {\left<\right.\!\Phi_0^N\!\left.\right|} \hat H {\left|\right.\!\Phi_0^N\!\left.\right>} \; ,$$ where $N_0$ is the number of unit cells in the chains.
Occupied Wannier orbitals are grouped in terms of $n_{\rm one}$ pairwise disjunct one-body orbital sets which are defined by $$\label{eq:onebset}
\vec R \, I_l = \{w_{\vec R \, \alpha}(\vec r \, s) \> |
\> \alpha \in I_l\}$$ for $l = 1, \ldots, n_{\rm one}$.
The expression for the correlation energy of a crystal (\[eq:ccsdenergy\]) is rearranged and decomposed in terms of correlation energies $\varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \cdots
\vec R_K \, I_K}$ of the electrons from the one-body orbital sets $\vec R_1 \, I_1 \cdots \vec R_K \, I_K$. The resulting formula for the correlation energy of the chains per unit cell ${{\cal E}}_{\rm corr}$ reads [@Stoll:CD-92; @Stoll:CS-92; @Stoll:CG-92; @Fulde:EC-95; @Yu:IA-97; @Abdurahman:AI-00; @Fulde:WF-02; @Willnauer:QC-04; @Buth:MC-05]
$$\label{eq:inccryst}
\begin{array}{rcl}
N_0 \, {{\cal E}}_{\rm corr} &=& \frac{1}{1!} \, {\sum\limits}_{\vec R_1 \, I_1}
\Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1} + \frac{1}{2!} \, {\sum\limits}_{\vec R_1 \,
I_1 \neq \vec R_2 \, I_2} \Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \; \vec R_2
\, I_2} \\
&&{} + \cdots + \frac{1}{K!} \, {\sum\limits}_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \cdots \vec R_K \, I_K
\atop \textrm{\scriptsize pairwise disjunct}}
\Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \cdots \vec R_K \, I_K}
+ \cdots \; . \nonumber \\
\end{array}$$
The one-body $\Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1}$, the two-body $\Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \; \vec R_2 \, I_2}$, …, up to the $K$-body $\Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \cdots
\vec R_K \, I_K}$, … energy increments are defined recursively by [@Stoll:CD-92; @Stoll:CS-92; @Stoll:CG-92; @Fulde:EC-95; @Yu:IA-97; @Abdurahman:AI-00; @Fulde:WF-02; @Willnauer:QC-04; @Buth:MC-05]
\[eq:incdefs\] \_[R\_1 I\_1]{} &=& \_[R\_1 I\_1]{} ,\
\_[R\_1 I\_1 R\_2 I\_2]{} &=& \_[R\_1 I\_1 R\_2 I\_2]{} - \_[R\_1 I\_1]{} - \_[R\_2 I\_2]{} ,\
& &\
\_[R\_1 I\_1 R\_K I\_K]{} &=& \_[R\_1 I\_1 R\_K I\_K]{} - \_[n = 1]{}\^[K - 1]{} \_[[[ { R\_1\^ I\_1\^ R\_n\^ I\_n\^ } { R\_1 I\_1 R\_K I\_K } ]{} R\_1\^ I\_1\^ R\_n\^ I\_n\^ ]{} ]{} \_[R\_1\^ I\_1\^ R\_n\^ I\_n\^]{} .\
& &
The factors $\frac{1}{1!}$, $\frac{1}{2!}$, …, $\frac{1}{K!}$, … in front of the sums on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]) account for permutations among the one-body orbital sets of a certain $K$-body energy increment ($K \geq 2$). One can eliminate all permutations that lead to the same energy increment by letting the sums in Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]) run only over distinct sets of one-body orbital sets.
The translational relation of the Wannier orbitals leads to the translational symmetry of the energy increments, [i.e.]{}, $\Delta \varepsilon_{\vec 0 \, I_1 \cdots \vec R_K
- \vec R_1 \, I_K} = \Delta \varepsilon_{\vec R_1 \, I_1 \cdots \vec R_K
\, I_K}$. This can be exploited in Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]) to make the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]) independent of the first lattice sum ${\sum\limits}_{\vec R_1}$ which, for this reason, is $N_0$ times the sum of the translational symmetry-adapted energy increments. It allows us to eliminate the factor $N_0$ in front of the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]) and enormously reduces the number of energy increments that need to be calculated to describe the chains with a given accuracy.
The localized occupied molecular orbitals of oligomers, comprising a few monomers arranged in the geometry of the infinite chains, are found to be a good approximation to the Wannier orbitals of infinite chains and crystals. [@Stoll:CD-92; @Stoll:CS-92; @Stoll:CG-92; @Fulde:EC-95; @Yu:IA-97; @Abdurahman:AI-00; @Fulde:WF-02; @Willnauer:QC-04] This facilitates the determination of the correlation contribution to the binding energy of infinite chains from the energy increments in oligomers using Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]). Yet the virtual Wannier orbitals involved in the determination of the energy increments, and implicitly contained in Eq. (\[eq:incdefs\]), are replaced by all the virtual canonical molecular orbitals of the oligomers. The procedure outlined in this paragraph is termed the incremental scheme. [@Stoll:CD-92; @Stoll:CS-92; @Stoll:CG-92; @Fulde:EC-95; @Fulde:WF-02]
Computational details {#sec:comp}
=====================
Hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride crystallize in an orthorhombic low-temperature phase described by the space groups $Bm2_1b$ for HF, [@Atoji:CS-54; @Habuda:NM-71; @Johnson:CS-75] and $Bb2_1m$ for HCl. [@Sandor:CS-67; @Sandor:CC-67; @Sandor:ND-69] The unit cells of both crystals contain four monomers which are arranged in terms of weakly interacting parallel zigzag chains \[Fig. \[fig:polygeom\]\]. The chains are described by a unit cell which comprises two monomers and are considered as an excellent one-dimensional model for HF and HCl crystals. [@Zunger:BS-75; @Kertesz:AI-75; @Karpfen:AI-76; @Blumen:CC-76; @Blumen:EB-77; @Blumen:EBS-77; @Kertesz:AI-78; @Karpfen:AI-80; @Karpfen:HB-81; @Karpfen:AI-82; @Ihaya:AI-84; @Liegener:AI-87; @Springborg:ES-87; @Springborg:ES-88; @Mayer:CH-97; @Berski:PHF-97; @Berski:PHF-98; @Hirata:AI-98; @Jacquemin:LR-99; @Buth:BS-04; @Buth:MC-05] The structure of a single chain is determined by three parameters, the H—$X$ distance $r$, the $X \cdots X$ distance $R$, and the angle $\alpha = \angle({\rm H}X{\rm H})$, $X ={}$F$,$Cl. Experimental values for the parameters are $r = 0.92 {{\,{\rm{\hbox{\AA}}}}}$, $R = 2.50 {{\,{\rm{\hbox{\AA}}}}}$, and $\alpha = 120 {{}^{\circ}}$ for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}, [@Atoji:CS-54; @Holleman:IC-01] and $r = 1.25 {{\,{\rm{\hbox{\AA}}}}}$, $R = 3.688 {{\,{\rm{\hbox{\AA}}}}}$, and $\alpha = 93.3 {{}^{\circ}}$ for [(DCl)$_{\infty}$]{}. [@Sandor:CS-67] HCl and deuterated DCl crystals have very similar lattice constants and are considered to be isomorphous. [@Sandor:CS-67] Unfortunately, further structural information for HCl crystals is unavailable.
To calculate the energy increments in Eq. (\[eq:inccryst\]), we perform molecular calculations on oligomers [(HF)$_{n}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{n}$]{}, respectively, [i.e.]{}, short fragments of the chains. We utilize the program package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">molpro</span>, [@MOLPRO2002.6] employing Foster-Boys localization [@Boys:MO-60; @Foster:MO-60] of the molecular orbitals and the coupled-cluster singles and doubles (CCSD) correlation method. [@Purvis:CC-82; @Hampel:CE-92; @MOLPRO2002.6] Thereby, we are consistent with Refs. where also the CCSD method was employed. We use the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set [@Dunning:GBS-89; @Kendall:EA-92; @Woon:GBS-93; @basislib-04] which yields somewhat less accurate total binding energies than those obtained in Refs. . Yet we are mainly interested in the long-range behavior of electron correlations in the hydrogen-bonded chains; it is well described by the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set due to vanishingly small geometrical orbital overlaps among the one-body orbital sets in the $K$-body energy increments considered. In fact, the modulus of the two-body energy increment involving the third-nearest-neighbor monomer $|\varepsilon_{03}|$, as obtained with the aug-cc-pVDZ basis set, [@Dunning:GBS-89; @Kendall:EA-92; @Woon:GBS-93; @basislib-04] is smaller by $2 \%$ for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and by $4 \%$ for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} than $|\varepsilon_{03}|$ obtained with the larger aug-cc-pVTZ basis set [@Dunning:GBS-89; @Kendall:EA-92; @Woon:GBS-93; @basislib-04] \[Sec. \[sec:elcorr\]\]. Similarly, $K$-body energy increments for $K \geq 3$ agree well as soon as the geometrical orbital overlaps between the one-body orbital sets become negligible.
In Tab. \[tab:bindtotal\] below, reference is made to periodic Hartree-Fock calculations of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains, described in Refs. , which were carried out with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">crystal</span> program. [@Pisani:HF-88; @Pisani:QM-96; @crystal03] For these calculations, the $f, g, h, i$ functions were removed from the basis sets. To estimate the influence of the neglected basis functions on the total binding energy of the chains, we use <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">molpro</span>, [@MOLPRO2002.6] to calculate the Hartree-Fock binding energy per monomer for [(HF)$_{9}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{9}$]{} both with and without $f, g, h$ functions using the cc-pV5Z basis set; [@Dunning:GBS-89; @Woon:GBS-93; @basislib-04] at the Hartree-Fock level it is close to completeness with respect to basis functions with the angular momenta $s, p, d$. The binding energies of both chains obtained with $f, g, h$ functions are smaller by $\approx 13 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ than those determined without them. This deviation turns out to be sufficiently small to be neglected in the subsequent calculation of total binding energies in Sec. \[sec:bind\]. However, note that for the correlation calculations the $f, g, h$ functions are fully considered.
The calculated binding energies reported here account for the basis set superposition error [@Duijneveldt:CP-94] (BSSE) by the counterpoise correction (CP); it is determined by surrounding an isolated HF or HCl monomer by sufficiently many ghost atoms positioned in the geometry of the infinite chains. [@Boys:CP-70; @Duijneveldt:CP-94]
Electron correlations {#sec:elcorr}
=====================
Transferability {#sec:transfer}
---------------
We have to ensure that the Foster-Boys-localized molecular orbitals [@Boys:MO-60; @Foster:MO-60] which are extracted from oligomers are a good approximation to the Wannier orbitals of the infinite [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains. They have to be approximately translationally related within a certain oligomer and must not differ substantially among oligomers of varying length. These two properties of the localized occupied molecular orbitals are termed transferability. In order to achieve transferability for moderately sized molecular clusters, one is frequently obliged to account for the omitted monomers in terms of an appropriate substitute. In the case of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}, two options offer themselves. On the one hand, both chains are cut out from a molecular crystal, implying no substitutes as in rare-gas crystals; [@Rosciszewski:AI-99; @Rosciszewski:AI-00] on the other hand, particularly [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} is rather ionic and a surrounding by point charges can be envisaged to create the embedding which adequately models the infinite chains. [@Evjen:OS-32; @Doll:CE-95; @Doll:CE-96; @Doll:CP-97; @Doll:GS-98] I explore both possibilities to elucidate what kind of procedure is adequate for hydrogen-bonded solids. The virtual orbitals of the oligomers are not altered and remain canonical molecular orbitals in the calculation of the individual energy increments. The oligomer approximation thus corresponds to a sort of domain decomposition of the virtual space which also is applied in other local correlation methods. [@Pisani:LT-03]
![(Color online) One-body energy increments $\Delta\varepsilon_0$ of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains as determined in oligomers of varying length reduced by the CP-corrected correlation energy ${{\cal E}}{_{\textrm{\scriptsize mon}}}^{\rm corr}$ of the corresponding isolated monomer. The mean value of the two innermost energy increments of the oligomers is taken. Circles stand for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and squares for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} data. Open symbols refer to oligomers surrounded by point charges whereas closed symbols denote isolated oligomers.[]{data-label="fig:one-body"}](conv_one-body.eps){width="\hsize"}
![(Color online) Two-body energy increments $\Delta\varepsilon_{01}$ of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains as determined in oligomers of varying length. The two innermost one-body orbital sets of the respective oligomer are taken to determine $\Delta\varepsilon_{01}$. Symbols are chosen as in Fig. \[fig:one-body\].[]{data-label="fig:two-body"}](conv_two-body.eps){width="\hsize"}
In the case of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}, the outer and inner valence orbitals, [i.e.]{}, eight electrons, are assigned to the one-body orbital set representing a particular HF or HCl monomer (\[eq:onebset\]). To test the transferability, we calculate all one-body energy increments and all two-body energy increments between two adjacent monomers, the so-called connected two-body energy increments, in isolated oligomers [(HF)$_{n}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{n}$]{} for $n = 2, 4, 6, 10$. They are compared with the energy increments from the oligomers which were surrounded by point charges up to twentieth-nearest neighbors. The hydrogen atoms are represented by $q = +1$; fluorine and chlorine atoms are described by $q = -1$ with the exception of the terminal charges which are set to $q = -\frac{1}{2}$. [@Evjen:OS-32; @Doll:CE-95; @Doll:CE-96; @Doll:CP-97; @Doll:GS-98]
Comparing the one-body and the connected two-body energy increments obtained in oligomers of varying length in Figs. \[fig:one-body\] and \[fig:two-body\], we observe a rapid convergence of their values toward the limit of the infinite chains where the values determined for the isolated oligomers and the values resulting from the point-charge-embedded oligomers approach each other quickly. The energy increments taken from the isolated oligomers increase (decrease) in Fig. \[fig:one-body\] (Fig. \[fig:two-body\]) monotonically with the oligomer length whereas the embedding with point charges causes an unsystematic but quicker convergence. The convergence behavior of the individual curves in Figs. \[fig:one-body\] and \[fig:two-body\] is governed by a small variation in the localized orbitals and, predominantly, by the improvement of the electronic structure which approaches rapidly the electronic structure of the infinite chains with increasing length of the oligomers. Obviously, the decision whether to employ point charges or not has only a small impact on the values of the energy increments. The one-body (two-body) energy increments differ by $67 {{\,{\rm{\mu E_{\mathit h}}}}}$ ($14 {{\,{\rm{\mu E_{\mathit h}}}}}$) in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and by $22 {{\,{\rm{\mu E_{\mathit h}}}}}$ ($31 {{\,{\rm{\mu E_{\mathit h}}}}}$) in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}. In what follows only energy increments taken from isolated oligomers are considered, as in Refs. .
The error on the binding energy due to the approximate translational relation of the Wannier orbitals taken from the finite-length oligomers can be estimated by investigating the numerical differences between energy increments whose values should be identical due to (translational) symmetry. The connected two-body increments, for example, vary at most by $40 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ in [(HF)$_{10}$]{} and at most by $11 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ in [(HCl)$_{10}$]{}. [^1] We conclude that the transferability prerequisite of the energy increments is satisfied within good accuracy. The agreement between the results obtained in the two different ways described before corroborates the applicability of oligomers to represent the electronic structure of infinite [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains.
[ldd]{} Increment & ${(HF)$_{\infty}$}$ & ${(HCl)$_{\infty}$}$\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0}$ & -223.3632 & -175.0985\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0\,1}$ & -4.0879 & -2.8213\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0\,2}$ & -0.0861 & -0.1347\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0\,1\,2}$ & -0.0163 & 0.0014\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0\,3}$ & -0.0063 & -0.0092\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0\,1\,3}$ & -0.0015 & -0.0016\
$\Delta\varepsilon_{0\,1\,2\,3}$ & 0.0003 & 0.0006\
Short-range correlations {#sec:increments}
------------------------
Let us discuss the short-range correlation contributions first. The most relevant energy increments of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} are summarized in Tab. \[tab:increments\]. The CP-corrected correlation energy of the HF monomer, $-227.3406 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$, and of the HCl monomer, $-176.2151 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$, are only larger in magnitude by $1.8 \%$ and $0.6 \%$, respectively, than the corresponding one-body energy increments $\Delta\varepsilon_0$. They are a bit larger because the electrons of a monomer in the chains experience Pauli repulsion exerted by the neighboring monomers. However, these effects are small in our case and the electronic structure of the HF and HCl monomers is essentially preserved in the [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains.
The $K$-body energy increments, $K \geq 2$, describe the mutual correlation of the valence electrons of several monomers. They give rise to a pronounced nonlinear increase of the binding energy of small clusters and short oligomers which is termed bond cooperativity (Ref. and references therein). The modulus of the connected two-body energy increment of [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}, $|\Delta\varepsilon_{01}^{\rm HCl}|$, is $31 \%$ smaller than the modulus of the corresponding energy increment of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}, $|\Delta\varepsilon_{01}^{\rm HF}|$. The connected three-body energy increment $\Delta\varepsilon_{012}^{\rm HCl}$ is repulsive, [i.e.]{}, greater than zero, but $\Delta\varepsilon_{012}^{\rm HF}$ is again attractive, [i.e.]{}, smaller than zero. The reverse trend is observed for the remaining energy increments. The modulus of the energy increment $\Delta\varepsilon_{02}^{\rm HCl}$ is $57 \%$ larger than $|\Delta\varepsilon_{02}^{\rm HF}|$. The connected four-body increment $\Delta\varepsilon_{0123}^{\rm HCl}$ is $100 \%$ larger than $\Delta\varepsilon_{0123}^{\rm HF}$ and both are repulsive. These two trends of the energy increments can be explained by two effects. First, short-range correlation is effective for nearest neighbors \[see also the ensuing Sec. \[sec:long\]\]; it is apparently stronger in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} than in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} due to the tighter packing of the monomers in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and the higher compactness of the HF monomer itself. Second, chlorine atoms have a higher polarizability than fluorine atoms because their valence electrons are more diffuse than those of the latter atom. This causes the van der Waals interaction to be stronger in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} than in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}, [@Craig:MQ-84] leading to the more distant energy increments being larger in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} when compared with [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}; all this despite the larger intermonomer distances in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} than in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}.
However, note that one should not associate too much physics with the particular values of energy increments; namely, they depend on the specific unitary transformation used to localize the occupied orbitals (here the one of Foster and Boys [@Boys:MO-60; @Foster:MO-60]). Only the binding energy, which involves the sum of all the energy increments \[Eqs. (\[eq:RHF\_bind\]) and (\[eq:corrpoly\])\], is a physical observable and thus invariant under orbital transformations. When an analysis of the individual energy increments is to be meaningful, their value should be fairly independent of the localization procedure which is well satisfied in our case.
[rddd]{} Compound & C\_6\^[odd]{} & C\_6\^[even]{} & $Experiment$[^2]\
[(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}& 23.4 & 20.2 & 19.00\
[(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}& 121 & 120 & 130.4\
Long-range correlations {#sec:long}
-----------------------
At a separation of two isolated monomers where the geometrical overlap between the orbitals from distinct one-body orbital sets of the monomers becomes negligible, only van der Waals dispersion interactions remain. This is also the case for the interaction between two monomers in the infinite chains which is correspondingly described by the two-body energy increments. Their absolute values in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} for two monomers at a distance up to seventh nearest neighbors are displayed in Fig. \[fig:two-body-short\]; the curves drop off rapidly with distance.
The monomers in Fig. \[fig:polygeom\] that are labeled by odd cardinal numbers are tilted with respect to monomer $0$. Likewise, monomers with even cardinal numbers are arranged parallel to the monomer $0$. We will refer to the two types of two-body energy increments that result from a parallel or tilted setting of monomers as even or odd energy increments, respectively. The long-range interaction between two monomers is approximated by the leading term of the two-body van der Waals dispersion interaction [@Klein:RG-76; @Craig:MQ-84] $$\label{eq:vdwdisp}
\varepsilon_{0 \, n}^{\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}} = \cases{
\textstyle - \frac{C_6^{\rm odd }}{(\frac{n}{2} \, a)^6} \; , & $n$~odd \cr
\textstyle - \frac{C_6^{\rm even}}{(\frac{n}{2} \, a)^6} \; , & $n$~even$\;,$ \cr }$$ where individual van der Waals constants $C_6^{\rm odd}$ and $C_6^{\rm even}$, respectively, are affixed for odd and even energy increments. Here $a$ represents the lattice constant of the chains. The van der Waals constants are obtained by a weighted nonlinear curve fit [@More:LM-78] of the data in Fig. \[fig:two-body-short\] for either the odd or the even energy increments. The weights are chosen such that the fit reproduces the energy increments with large $n$ best, as for them the geometrical orbital overlaps between the orbitals from two different one-body orbital sets are negligible. The van der Waals constants for the fits of the two sets of translationally equivalent monomers are given in Tab. \[tab:van-der-Waals\]. Our theoretical data compare satisfactorily with the experimental data for the dispersion interaction between two isolated monomers also given in the table.
Having identified the van der Waals contribution to the two-body energy increments in the chains, we can subtract it from the two-body energy increments to obtain van der Waals-reduced energy increments $$\label{eq:vdw-reduced}
\Delta \varepsilon^{\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}}_{0 n}
= \Delta \varepsilon_{0 n} - \varepsilon_{0 n}^{
\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}} \; .$$ Their absolute value $|\Delta \varepsilon_{0 n}^{
\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}}|$ is shown next to the absolute value of the two-body energy increments $|\Delta \varepsilon_{0 n}|$ in Fig. \[fig:two-body-short\].
Two regions can be identified in Fig. \[fig:two-body-short\]. First, from the nearest to the third-nearest neighbors, there is the local correlation zone, where, due to geometrical orbital overlaps, short-range electron correlations are effective. There, the decay of two-body energy increments with the distance between the two monomers is faster than the one that would result from a pure van der Waals interaction, following Eq. (\[eq:vdwdisp\]). We observe that the van der Waals contribution to $|\Delta \varepsilon^{
\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}}_{0 1}|$ of [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} is appreciably larger than in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} as the curves for $|\Delta \varepsilon_{0 1}|$ and $|\Delta \varepsilon^{\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}}_{0 1}|$ are much closer for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} than for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}. Second, there is the van der Waals zone reaching from the third- up to the seventh-nearest neighbor. Here a typical $r^{-6}$ decay is observed, leading to van der Waals-reduced energy increments that are essentially zero. A slight deviation of the two-body energy increments from an $r^{-6}$ behavior is perceived beyond fifth-nearest neighbors which likely can be attributed to inaccuracies caused by the oligomer approximation. The translational relation of the Wannier orbitals is better satisfied in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} compared with [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} \[Sec. \[sec:transfer\]\] which leads to a lower absolute value of the fourth to seventh van der Waals-reduced energy increments. The low absolute value of $\Delta \varepsilon^{\textrm{\scriptsize
vdW}}_{0 6}$ for both chains is an artifact of the fitting process. Figure \[fig:two-body-short\] also reveals that the two-body energy increments are of satisfactory accuracy even beyond the estimates given in Sec. \[sec:transfer\] of $40 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HF)$_{10}$]{} and $11 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HCl)$_{10}$]{} due to a considerable error cancellation.
![(Color online) Absolute values of two-body energy increments $|\Delta \varepsilon_{0 \, n}|$ (closed symbols) and van der Waals-reduced two-body energy increments $|\Delta \varepsilon_{0 \, n}^{\textrm{\scriptsize
vdW}}|$ (open symbols) using Eq. (\[eq:vdwdisp\]) and the constants in Tab. \[tab:van-der-Waals\] for both the [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} chain (circles) and the [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chain (squares).[]{data-label="fig:two-body-short"}](decay_two-body.eps){width="\hsize"}
Given the van der Waals constants in Tab. \[tab:van-der-Waals\], we can use Eq. (\[eq:vdwdisp\]) to sum up the van der Waals contribution of the two-body energy increments to the binding energy to infinite distance ${\sum\limits}_{n=3}^{\infty} \varepsilon_{0 n}^{
\textrm{\scriptsize vdW}}$ which yields $-8 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and $-12 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}. The bigger polarizability of chlorine atoms compared with fluorine atoms leads to the larger contribution in [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} when compared with [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} as can be expected from the analysis of the energy increments in Sec. \[sec:increments\]. The contribution of two-body energy increments beyond third-nearest neighbors is in both cases $\approx 30 \%$ of $\Delta \varepsilon_{0 \, 3}$.
Generally, once a good estimate of the van der Waals constants of a crystal is available, the decomposition of the energy increments into a short- and a long-range van der Waals contribution can be made. This allows one to focus on the short-range part. Thereby, the required number of energy increments to be calculated to reach a certain accuracy of the correlation energy is reduced considerably. Therefore, the computational demand of its determination is also significantly decreased.
Binding energy {#sec:bind}
==============
Having understood the impact of electron correlations in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains, we are now in a position to examine the total binding energy per monomer $\Delta E$ of the chains; it is given by $$\label{eq:RHF_bind}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\Delta E &=& \Delta E_{\rm SCF} + \Delta E_{\rm corr} \\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \, ({{\cal E}}^{\rm SCF}_{\rm chain}
+ {{\cal E}}^{\rm corr}_{\rm chain})
- {{\cal E}}^{\rm SCF}_{\rm monomer}
- {{\cal E}}^{\rm corr}_{\rm monomer} \; .
\end{array}$$ It consists of the Hartree-Fock and the correlation contributions $\Delta E_{\rm SCF}$ and $\Delta
E_{\rm corr}$, respectively, where ${{\cal E}}^{\rm
SCF}_{\rm chain}$ and ${{\cal E}}^{\rm corr}_{\rm chain}$ denote the Hartree-Fock and correlation energies per unit cell of the chains. Furthermore, ${{\cal E}}^{\rm SCF}_{\rm monomer}$ and ${{\cal E}}^{\rm corr}_{\rm monomer}$ are the corresponding energies for the monomers. The Hartree-Fock energies are readily available from molecular and periodic calculations [@Pisani:HF-88; @Pisani:QM-96; @crystal03] but electron correlations are more involved and were discussed in the previous Sec. \[sec:elcorr\].
In Tab. \[tab:bindtotal\], we communicate basis-set-extrapolated Hartree-Fock binding energies $\Delta E_{\rm SCF}(\infty)$ for the chains taken from Refs. . At the Hartree-Fock equilibrium geometry of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}, Bayer and Karpfen give $-10.360 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$ for basis set 3 in Ref. while Hirata and Iwata find $-10.855 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$ for the 6-311++G(d,p) basis set. [@Hirata:AI-98] Both numbers are in good agreement with our result which is $-10.202 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$. Yet Berski and Latajka report $-9.696 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$ for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{}, when using the 6-311G(d,p) basis set, [@Berski:PHF-97] and $-2.073 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$ for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} harnessing the DZ(d,p) basis set. [@Berski:PHF-98] The latter number in particular deviates considerably from our result, $-0.586 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$, which is most likely due to the fact that they did not remove the BSSE. [@Berski:PHF-97; @Berski:PHF-98]
To determine the correlation energy per monomer of the infinite chains ${{\cal E}}_{\rm corr}$, we inspect the energy increments in Tab. \[tab:increments\]. They converge rapidly both with increasing distance among the monomers involved and with increasing order of the many-body expansion, [i.e.]{}, with the maximum number of monomers correlated in a specific energy increment. In order to obtain an accuracy in ${{\cal E}}_{\rm corr}$ of $\approx 50 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and of $\approx 11 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}, we see from Tab. \[tab:increments\] that it is enough to include the following energy increments: $$\label{eq:corrpoly}
{{\cal E}}_{\rm corr} \approx \Delta \varepsilon_0 + \Delta \varepsilon_{01}
+ \Delta \varepsilon_{02} \; .$$ Hence, it is sufficient to correlate the electrons in the Wannier orbitals of only two monomers at a time for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains in which more distant two-body energy increments contribute only $-8 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and $-12 {\,{\rm{\mu E_h}}}$ for [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} as shown in Sec. \[sec:long\]. In three-dimensional crystals, three-body terms become more important according to the analyses in Refs. and the much larger number of three-body energy increments compared with the number of two-body energy increments.
We report $\Delta E$ based on the approximation of Eq. (\[eq:corrpoly\]) as obtained by basis-set extrapolation [@Buth:BS-04; @Buth:MC-05] in Tab. \[tab:bindtotal\]. Using density functional theory, Hirata and Iwata [@Hirata:AI-98] find at optimized geometries for the total binding energy of [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} $-13.521 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$ (BLYP) and $-13.864 {{\,{\rm{mE_{\mathit h}}}}}$ (B3LYP) \[utilizing the 6-311++G(d,p) basis set\] which are larger in magnitude by $14\%$ and $17\%$, respectively, than our result for the experimental geometry. The observed differences can be partially ascribed to the different geometries used; our experimental geometry leads to a binding energy that is somewhat smaller in magnitude than the binding energy in the optimized geometry. The 6-311++G(d,p) basis set of Iwata and Hirata [@Hirata:AI-98] also differs substantially from our choices in Refs. . Above all, we do not consider the impact of triple excitations in our study; they increase the absolute value of the short-range correlation contributions and, consequently, also the absolute value of the binding energies.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
[rdd]{} & ${(HF)$_{\infty}$}{}$ & ${(HCl)$_{\infty}$}{}$\
$\Delta E_{\rm SCF}(\infty)$ & -10.202 & -0.586\
$\Delta E_{\rm corr}(\infty)$ & -1.623 & -2.764\
$\Delta E(\infty)$ & -11.826 & -3.350\
We study hydrogen bonding in infinite [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} and [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains. Whereas in [(HF)$_{\infty}$]{} the Hartree-Fock contribution dominates the total binding energy by $86\%$ due to the electrostatic contribution of the rather ionic HF monomers, in the much more weakly bound [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{}, the Hartree-Fock calculation yields only $18\%$ of the binding energy \[Tab. \[tab:bindtotal\]\]. The transitional character of hydrogen-bonded crystals between the ionic and van der Waals regimes is reflected in these numbers. The very weak hydrogen bonds in the [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chains bear a close resemblance to purely van der Waals-bonded systems, like rare-gas solids, where bonding is entirely caused by electron correlations. [@Fink:AI-95; @Rosciszewski:AI-99; @Rosciszewski:AI-00] In fact only the inclusion of electron correlations puts the binding energy per monomer of the [(HCl)$_{\infty}$]{} chain into the range conventionally ascribed to hydrogen bonding, [@Pauling:NC-93] namely .
The incremental scheme, which provides a decomposition of the contribution of electron correlations to the binding energy of the chains in terms of nonadditive many-body energy increments, is shown to converge rapidly with respect to the number of monomers, [i.e.]{}, bodies, involved in the energy increments and the distance among them, thus providing a good tool to study hydrogen bonding in crystals. In contrast to three-dimensional crystals, the dominant contribution of electron correlations to the binding energies of the infinite chains is, in the present investigation, already given by pair interactions between the valence electrons of a monomer and its nearest and next-nearest neighbors. The $K$-body energy increments represent a general framework to describe van der Waals dispersion interaction among the electrons from $K$ one-body orbital sets. The decay of the two-body energy increments, [i.e.]{}, the electron correlations between two monomers in the chains, with the intermonomer distance is investigated and van der Waals constants are determined, which affords a partition of the energy increments into a short-range, van der Waals-reduced part and a long-range part that can be summed analytically to infinite distances.
This partitioning affords a methodological advancement; if the van der Waals constants of a crystal are available from other sources, then the number of energy increments in the incremental expansion can be reduced by considering only van der Waals-reduced energy increments; they typically need to comprise only the nearest- and next-nearest-neighbor energy increments. The small number of van der Waals-reduced energy increments permits one to significantly decrease the number of energy increments which have actually to be calculated to reach a certain accuracy of the correlation energy compared with the conventional incremental series. Furthermore, the long-range part turns out to be well described using small (double-$\zeta$) basis sets—in contrast to the short-range part where basis-set extrapolation is required for an accurate description [@Buth:BS-04; @Buth:MC-05]—thus facilitating further computational savings.
We are highly indebted to Uwe Birkenheuer, Krzysztof Rościszewski, Hermann Stoll, and Peter Fulde for helpful discussions and a critical reading of the manuscript.
[77]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, ** (, , ), ed., ISBN .
, ** (, , ), ISBN .
, ed., ** (, , ), ISBN .
, in **, edited by (, , ), vol. , pp. .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, (), .
, , , (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, **, vol. of ** (, , ), ed., ISBN .
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ** (, , ), ed., ISBN .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ** (, , ), ISBN .
, , , , , , , , , , , ** ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , **, vol. of ** (, , ), ISBN .
, ed., **, vol. of ** (, , ), ISBN .
, , , , , , , , , , , **, , (), .
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ), ISBN .
, ****, ().
, eds., **, vol. (, , ), ISBN .
, in **, edited by (, , ), vol. of **, pp. .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
[^1]: The two first and the two last monomers at the ends of the oligomers are not regarded as they are appreciably influenced by finite-size effects.
[^2]: The experimental data are taken from Ref. ; it is a rotational average of the van der Waals constants for the dispersion interaction between two isolated monomers.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show that the mechanisms used in the name data networking (NDN) and the original content centric networking (CCN) architectures may not detect Interest loops, even if the network in which they operate is static and no faults occur. Furthermore, we show that no correct Interest forwarding strategy can be defined that allows Interest aggregation and attempts to detect Interest looping by identifying Interests uniquely. We introduce SIFAH (Strategy for Interest Forwarding and Aggregation with Hop-Counts), the first Interest forwarding strategy shown to be correct under any operational conditions of a content centric network. SIFAH operates by having forwarding information bases (FIBs) store the next hops and number of hops to named content, and by having each Interest state the name of the requested content and the hop count from the router forwarding an Interest to the content. We present the results of simulation experiments using the ndnSIM simulator comparing CCN and NDN with SIFAH. The results of these experiments illustrate the negative impact of undetected Interest looping when Interests are aggregated in CCN and NDN, and the performance advantages of using SIFAH.'
author:
- |
J. J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves$^{1,2}$ and Maziar Mirzazad-Barijough$^1$\
\
\
title: Enabling Correct Interest Forwarding and Retransmissions in a Content Centric Network
---
Introduction
============
A number of information-centric networking (ICN) architectures have been proposed to improve the performance and the end-user experience of the Internet [@icn-survey1; @icn-survey2]. ICN architectures focus on (1) enabling access to content and services by name, rather than by original location; (2) protecting content rather than links or connections; and (3) exploiting in-network storage of content.
A leading approach in ICN architectures can be characterized as [*Interest-based content-centric networking*]{} and is the focus of this paper. Directed Diffusion [@diffusion] is one of the first examples of this approach. Requests for named content (called Interests) are diffused throughout a sensor network, and data matching the Interests are sent back to the issuers of Interests. Subsequent proposals (e.g., DIRECT [@direct]) use a similar approach in MANETs subject to connectivity disruption. Nodes use opportunistic caching of content and flood Interests persistently. The limitation of Directed Diffusion and other similar approaches is the need to flood the network with Interests, an approach that cannot be applied at Internet scale.
The original CCN proposal [@ccn] was the first example of an Interest-based content-centric architecture applicable to wired networks in which Interests do not state the identity of the sender. Today, NDN [@ndn] and CCN [@ccnx] are the leading proposals for content-centric networking based on Interest forwarding. In general, an Interest-based forwarding strategy consists of: populating forwarding information bases (FIB) of routers with routes to name prefixes denoting content, sending content requests (called Interests) for specific named data objects (NDO) over paths implied by the FIBs, and delivering content along the reverse paths traversed by Interests.
Section \[sec-prev\] summarizes the operation of the forwarding strategies of NDN and CCN. The designers of NDN and CCN have argued [@ccn; @ndn; @ndn-fw; @ndn-fw2] that an Interest stating a name of requested content and a nonce or unique identifier can be forwarded correctly towards an intended node advertising the content name, that routers can aggregate Interests so that a router can forward an Interest for the same content only once, and that Interest loops can be detected whenever they occur. However, no prior work has been reported proving these claims.
Section \[sec-loop\] demonstrates that the forwarding strategies of the original CCN and NDN architectures [@ccn; @ndn-fw; @ndn-paper] do not work correctly, in that some Interests may never return data objects to the consumers who issued the Interests, even if the content does exist in the network, the network topology and routing are stable, and all transmissions are successful. More importantly, it is also shown that there is no correct forwarding strategy with Interest aggregation and Interest-loop detection based on the matching of Interest-identification data carried in Interests. In this context, Interest-identification data can be names of requested content, nonces, unique identifiers, or the path traversed by an Interest.
Section \[sec-design\] introduces the Strategy for Interest Forwarding and Aggregation with Hop-counts (SIFAH), which is the first Interest-based forwarding strategy shown to be correct. SIFAH operates by having FIBs store the next hops [*and*]{} number of hops to named content, and by forwarding each Interest based on the name of the requested content and a hop count from the forwarding router to the requested content. A router accepts to forward an Interest only if the hop count stated in the Interest is larger than the hop count from the router to the content as stated in its FIB. Similarly, a router that has forwarded an Interest for a given NDO accepts to aggregate an Interest it receives while waiting for the requested NDO only if the hop count stated in the Interest is larger than the hop count of the Interest sent by the router.
Section \[sec-correct\] proves that SIFAH works correctly when Interest loops occur and Interests are aggregated.
Section \[sec-perf\] analyzes the storage requirements of SIFAH and NDN and shows that SIFAH is a more desirable approach than using nonces to attempt to detect Interest loops. Furthermore, it presents simulation results based on the unmodified implementation of the NDN forwarding strategy and our implementation of SIFAH in ndnSIM. The simulation results help to illustrate that consumers submitting Interests must receive NDO messages or negative acknowledgments (NACK) when SIFAH is used, while some Interests may go unanswered in NDN and the original CCN design due to undetected Interest loops, even in stable topologies with correct entries in FIBs. Furthermore, the results indicate that Interest loops increase the number of PIT entries and end-to-end delays experienced by consumers even when Interest loops are rare.
Existing Interest Forwarding\
Strategies {#sec-prev}
=============================
In NDN and CCN, a given router $r$ uses three primary data structures to implement any of the forwarding strategies defined for Interest-based content-centric architectures: a forwarding information base ($FIB^r$), a pending Interest table ($PIT^r$), and a content store ($CS^r$).
The forwarding strategy determines the interaction among $FIB^r$, $PIT^r$, and $CS^r$ needed to forward Interests towards nodes advertising having copies of requested content, send NDOs back to consumers who requested them over reverse paths traversed by Interests, and send any other signal indicating the inability to satisfy an Interest.
$FIB^r$ is used to route incoming Interests to the appropriate next hops towards the desired content producer advertising a content prefix name $n(j)^*$.
$FIB^r$ is populated using content routing protocols or static routes and matches Interest names stating a specific NDO $n(j)$ to $FIB^r$ entries of prefix names using *longest prefix match*.
$PIT^r$ serves as a cache of Interest state, such that content objects that satisfy Interests may follow the reverse Interest path back to the original requester. $CS^r$ is a cache for content objects.
In the rest of this paper, we use the term name data object (NDO) or content object interchangeably, and use the term neighbor instead of interface or face. We denote the name of NDO $j$ by $n(j)$, and the name prefix that includes that NDO name by $n(j)^*$. We denote the existence of an entry for a prefix $n(j)^*$ or NDO with name $n(j)$ in the FIB, PIT or CS of router $i$ by $n(j)^* \in FIB^i$, $n(j) \in PIT^i$, and $n(j) \in CS^i$, respectively. Two Interest-based forwarding strategies proposed to date are the original CCN strategy [@ccn] and the NDN forwarding strategy [@ndn-fw; @ndn-paper]. In both strategies, an Interest created by source $s$ for NDO $j$ states $n(j)$ and a nonce $id_j(s)$. The pair $(n(j), id_j(s) )$ is used to denote an Interest uniquely with a large-enough probability. Furthermore, the same pair is used to detect whether an Interest is traversing a loop.
In the context of NDN and the original CCN, we use $I[n(j), id_j(s) ]$ to denote an Interest that requests NDO with name $n(j)$ and that is originated by consumer $s$, who assigns nonce $id_j(s)$ to the Interest. A content-object message (or NDO message) sent in response to an Interest $I[n(j), id_j(s) ]$, denoted $D[n(j), id_j(s), sig(j) ]$, states the name and nonce of the Interest, a signature payload $sig(j)$ used to validate the content object, and the object itself.
The entry in $FIB^i$ for name prefix $n(j)^*$ is denoted by $FIB^i_{n(j)^*}$ and consists of $n(j)^*$ and the list of neighbors that can be used to reach the NDO. If neighbor $k$ is listed in $FIB^i_{n(j)^*}$, then we state $k \in FIB^i_{n(j)^*}$. In NDN [@ndn-fw2], the FIB entry for an NDO also contains a stale time after which the entry could be deleted; the round-trip time through the neighbor; a rate limit; and status information stating whether it is known or unknown that the neighbor can bring data back, or is known that the neighbor cannot bring data back.
The entry in $PIT^i$ for NDO with name $n(j)$ is denoted by $PI^i_{n(j)}$ and consists of a vector of one or multiple tuples, one for each nonce processed for the same NDO name. The tuple for a given NDO states the nonce used, the incoming and the outgoing neighbor(s). The tuple created as a result of processing Interest $I[n(j), id_j(s) ]$ received from $k$ and forwarded to a set of neighbors $OUTSET$ is denoted by $PI^i_{n(j)}[ id_j(s), in:k, out:OUTSET ]$, and the set of outgoing neighbors in $PI^i_{n(j)}$ is denoted by $OUTSET(PI^i_{n(j) )}$.
Each PIT entry $PI^i_{n(j)}[ id_j(s), in:k, out:OUTSET ]$ has a lifetime, which should be larger than the estimated round-trip time to a site where the requested NDO can be found.
We denote by $NI[n(j), id_j(s), \mathsf{CODE}]$ the NACK sent in response to $I[n(j), id_j(s) ]$, where $\mathsf{CODE}$ states the reason why the NACK is sent.
Algorithms \[algo-ndn-Interest\] and \[algo-ndn-fw\] illustrate the NDN Interest processing approach [@ndn-fw; @ndn-fw2] using the notation we have introduced, and correspond to Interest-processing and forwarding-strategy algorithms in [@ndn-fw2]. Algorithm \[algo-ndn-fw\] does not include the probing of neighbors proposed in NDN, given that this aspect of NDN is still being defined [@ndn-fw2]. Routers forward NACKs received from those neighbors to whom they sent Interests, unless the PIT entries have expired or do not match the information provided in the NACKs. The NDN forwarding strategy augments the original CCN strategy by introducing negative acknowledgements (NACK) sent in response to Interests for a number of reasons, including: routers identifying congestion, routers not having routes in their FIBs to the requested content, or Interest loops being detected. Algorithms 1 and 2 indicate the use of NACKs that is not part of the original CCN design by “[**\[NDN\]**]{}."
Undetected Interest Loops\
in CCN an NDN {#sec-loop}
==========================
The use of nonces in NDN and the original CCN approach can be extrapolated to include the case in which an Interest states a nonce and the path traversed by the Interest by assuming that $ id_j(s)$ equals the tuple $( id_j(s)[nonce], $ $id_j(s)[path] )$. If a nonce and path traversed by the Interest are used, deciding whether an Interest has not traversed a loop can be based on whether $ id_j(x)[nonce] \not= id_j(s)[nonce] \vee i \not\in id_j(s)[path]$. However, including path information in Interests reveals the identity of originators of Interests.
The key aspect of the forwarding strategies that have been proposed for NDN and CCN is that a router determines whether or not an Interest is a duplicate Interest based solely on the content name and Interest-identification data for the Interest (a nonce in NDN’s case). To discuss the correctness of the forwarding strategy and other strategies, we define an Interest loop as follows.
An Interest loop of $h$ hops for NDO with name $n(j)$ occurs when one or more Interests asking for $n(j)$ are forwarded and aggregated by routers along a cycle $L = $ $\{ v_1 , v_2 , ..., v_h , v_1 \}$ such that router $v_k$ receives an Interest for NDO $n(j)$ from $v_{k-1}$ while waiting for a response to the Interest it has forwarded to $v_{k+1}$ for the same NDO, with $1 \leq k \leq h$, $v_{h+1} = v_1$, and $v_{0} = v_h$. $\square$
According to the NDN forwarding strategy, a router can select a neighbor to forward an Interest if it is known that it can bring content and its performance is ranked higher than other neighbors that can also bring content. The ranking of neighbors is done by a router independently of other routers, which can result in long-term routing loops implied by the FIBs if the routing protocol used in the control plane does not guarantee instantaneous loop freedom (e.g., NLSR [@nlsr]).
Figure \[ndn-loop\] illustrates Interest looping in NDN. Arrowheads in the figure indicate the next hops to content advertised by router $j$ according to the FIB entries stored in routers. Thick lines indicate that the perceived performance of a neighbor is better than neighbors shown with thinner lines. Dashed lines indicate the traversal of Interests over links and paths. The time when an event is processed at a router is indicated by $t_i$. Figure \[ndn-loop\](a) shows the case of a long-term Interest loop formed because the multi-paths implied in FIBs are not loop-free, even though all routing tables are consistent. Figure \[ndn-loop\](b) shows the case of a temporary Interest loop when single-path routing is used and FIBs are inconsistent due to a topology change at time $t_1$ (link $(b, q)$ fails). In both cases, router $a$ aggregates the Interest from $x$ at time $t_3$, router $x$ aggregates the Interest from $c$ at time $t_4$, and the combined steps preclude the detection of Interest looping. This results in $x$ and $y$ having to wait for their Interests to time out, before they can retransmit. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that their retransmissions will elicit a response (content or NACK).
As Theorem \[theo1\] proves, the CCN and NDN forwarding strategies specified in [@ccn; @ndn-fw2; @ndn-paper] cannot ensure that Interest loops are detected when Interests are aggregated, even if nonces were to denote Interests uniquely. The theorem assumes that all messages are sent correctly and that no routing-table changes occur to show that the NDN forwarding strategy can fail to return any content or NACK in response to Interests independently of network dynamics. Furthermore, Theorem \[theo2\] shows that no forwarding strategy can be correct if it allows Interest aggregation and attempts Interest-loop detection by the matching of Interest-identification data.
\[theo1\] Interest loops can go undetected in a stable, error-free network in which NDN or CCN is used, even if nonces were to denote Interests uniquely.
Consider the NDN or CCN forwarding strategy running in a network in which no two nonces created by different nodes for the same content are equal, all transmissions are received correctly, and no topology or routing-table changes occur after time $t_0$. Let $LT^{v_k}(I[n(j), id_j(s) ])$ denote the lifetime of $I[n(j), id_j(s) ]$ at router $v_k$.
Assume that Interests may traverse loops when they are forwarded according to the forwarding strategy, and let a loop $L = $ $\{ v_1 , v_2 , ..., v_h , v_1 \}$ exist for NDO $j$, and let Interest $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ start traversing the chain of nodes $\{v_1 ,$ $v_2 , ...,$ $v_k \} \in L$ (with $1 < k < h$) at time $t_1 > t_0$.
Assume that $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ reaches router $v_k$ at time $t_3 > t_1$ and that router $v_k$ forwards Interest $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ to its next hop $v_{k+1} \in L$ at time $t_2$, where $t_1 \leq t_2 < t_3$, $id_j(x) \not= id_j(y)$, and $v_{k+1}$ may be $v_1$.
According to the Interest processing strategy in NDN and CCN, router $v_k$ creates an entry in its PIT for $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ at time $t_2$, and perceives any Interest for name $n(j)$ and a nonce different than $id_j(y)$ received after time $t_2$, and before its PIT entry for $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ is erased, as a subsequent Interest.
Let $| t_2 - t_3| < LT^{v_k}(I[n(j), id_j(y) ])$ when router $v_k$ receives $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ from router $v_{k - 1} \in L$ at time $t_3$, where $1 < k - 1$. According to the Interest processing strategy in NDN and CCN, router $v_k$ must treat $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ as a subsequent Interest for content $n(j)$ that is aggregated, because $v_k$ is waiting for $D[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ at time $t_3$.
Because of the existence of $L$, Interest $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ must be forwarded from $v_k$ to $v_1$. Let $t_4$ denote the time when $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ reaches $v_1$, where $t_4 > t_2 \geq t_1$, and assume that $| t_1 - t_4| < LT^{v_1}(I[n(j), id_j(x) ])$. According to NDN’s Interest processing strategy, $v_1$ must treat $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ as a subsequent Interest, because it is waiting for $D[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ at time $t_4$.
Given the Interest aggregation carried out by nodes $v_k$ and $v_1$, nodes in the chain $\{ v_1 , v_2 , ..., v_{k - 1} \} \in L$ process only $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$, nodes in the chain $\{ v_{k + 1} , $ $v_{k + 2} , ...,$ $ v_{h} \} \in L$ process only $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$, and no Interest loop detection can take place. Therefore, no content can be submitted in response to $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ and $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$.
Similar results to Theorem 1 can be proven for NDN and the original CCN operating in a network in which routing tables are inconsistent as a result of network or content dynamics. In this case, Interest loops can go undetected even if the control plane supports only single-path forwarding of Interests.
\[theo2\] No correct forwarding strategy exists with Interest aggregation and Interest loop detection based on the matching of Interest-identification data.
Assume any forwarding strategy in which a router remembers an Interest it has forwarded as long as necessary to detect Interest loops, and detects the occurrence of an Interest loop by matching the Interest-identification data carried in an Interest it receives with the Interest-identification data used in the Interest it forwarded previously asking for the same content. Let $I[n(j), id_j(s) ]$ denote the Interest asking for $n(j)$ with Interest-identification data $id_j(s)$ created by router $s$.
Assume that an Interest loop $L = $ $\{ v_1 , v_2 , ..., v_h , v_1 \}$ for NDO with name $n(j)$ exists in a network using the forwarding strategy. Let Interest $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ start traversing the chain of nodes $\{v_1 ,$ $v_2 , ...,$ $v_k \} \in L$ (with $1 < k < h$) at time $t_1$.
Assume that $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ reaches router $v_k$ at time $t_3 > t_1$ and that router $v_k$ forwards Interest $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ to its next hop $v_{k+1} \in L$ at time $t_2$, where $t_1 \leq t_2 < t_3$, $id_j(x) \not= id_j(y)$. Let $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ traverse the chain of nodes $\{v_k ,$ $v_{k+1} , ...,$ $v_1 \} \in L$, reaching $v_1$ at time $t_4 $, where $t_4 > t_2 \geq t_1$.
By assumption, Interest aggregation occurs, and hence $v_k$ aggregates $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ at time $t_3$, and $v_1$ aggregates $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ at time $t_4$. Therefore, independently of the amount of information contained in $id_j(x)$ and $id_j(y)$, $v_1$ cannot receive $I[n(j), id_j(x) ]$ from $v_h$ and $v_k$ cannot receive $I[n(j), id_j(y) ]$ from $v_{k-1}$. It thus follows that no node in $L$ can successfully use the matching of Interest-identification data to detect that Interests for $n(j)$ are being sent and aggregated along $L$ and the theorem is true.
The results in Theorems 1 and 2 can also be proven by mapping the Interest processing strategy of NDN, and any forwarding strategy that attempts to detect Interest loops by matching Interest-identification data, to the problem of distributed termination detection over a cycle, where Interests serve as the tokens of the algorithm [@dijkstra; @dtd]. Because Interest aggregation erases a token traversing the ring (Interest loop) when any node in the ring has previously created a different token, correct termination detection over the ring (i.e., Interest loop detection) cannot be guaranteed in the presence of Interest aggregation.
Obviously, a loop traversed by an Interest can be detected easily if each Interest is identified with the route it should traverse. This is easy to implement but requires routers in the network to have complete topology information (e.g., [@nlsr; @icnp98; @vutukury]) or at least path information or partial topology information (e.g., [@alva; @icnp98]). Similarly, carrying the path traversed by an Interest in its header also ensures that an Interest loop is detected if it occurs. In these two cases, however, there is no need for using nonces to detect Interest loops. More importantly, path information reveals the identity of the source router requesting content and hence defeats one of the key objectives of the NDN and CCN forwarding strategies.
Another view of the problem would be to say that Interest aggregation is not common and hence undetected Interest loops should be too rare to cause major performance problems. However, if Interests need not be aggregated, then very different architectures could be designed for content-centric networking that do not require using PITs.
SIFAH {#sec-design}
======
Design Rationale
----------------
It is clear from the results in the previous section that using nonces or identifying Interests uniquely is useless for Interest-loop detection when Interests are aggregated, and that source routing of Interests or including the path traversed by an Interest are not desirable. Accordingly, for an Interest forwarding strategy to be correct in the presence of Interest aggregation, it must be the case that, independently of the identity of an Interest or how Interests for the same content are aggregated, at least one router detects that it is traversing a path that is not getting the Interest closer to a node that has advertised the requested content.
Ensuring that at least one router in an Interest loop detects the incorrect forwarding of the Interest can be attained if Interests were to carry any type of ordering information that cannot be erased by the use of Interest aggregation. Fortunately, distance information for advertised name prefixes is exactly this type of ordering information.
Given that forwarding information bases (FIB) are populated from the routing tables maintained in the control plane of a network, they constitute a readily-available tool to establish the proper interaction between the forwarding strategy operating in the data plane and the distances to advertised content prefixes maintained by the routing protocol operating in the control plane. This is the basis of the [*Strategy for Interest Forwarding and Aggregation with Hop-Counts*]{} (SIFAH).
Information Stored and Exchanged
--------------------------------
A router maintains a FIB, a PIT, and an optional content store. $FIB^i$ is indexed using content name prefixes. The FIB entry for prefix $n(j)^*$ is denoted by $FIB^i_{n(j)^*}$, and consists of a list of one or more tuples. Each tuple states a next hop to $n(j)^*$ and a hop count to the prefix. The set of next hops to $n(j)^*$ listed in $FIB^i_{n(j)^*}$ is denoted by $S^i_{n(j)^*}$. The hop count to $n(j)^*$ through neighbor $q \in S^i_{n(j)^*}$ is denoted by $h(i, n(j)^*, q)$. An Interest sent by node $k$ requesting NDO $n(j)$ is denoted by $I[n(j), h^I (k) ]$, and states the name $n(j)$, and the hop count ($h^I (k)$) from node $k$ to the name prefix $n(j)^*$ that is the best match for NDO name $n(j)$ when $k$ forwards the Interest. An NDO message sent in response to the Interest $I[n(j),$ $h^I (k) ]$ is denoted by $D[n(j), sig(j) ]$, and states the name of the Interest, a signature payload $sig(j)$ used to validate the content object, and the object itself.
The NACK sent by router $i$ in response to an Interest is denoted by $NI[n(j), \mathsf{CODE}]$ where $\mathsf{CODE}$ states the reason why the NACK is sent. Possible reasons for sending a NACK include: (a) an Interest loop is detected, (b) a route failed towards the requested content, (c) no content is found, and (d) the PIT entry expired.
$PIT^i$ is indexed using NDO names. $PI^i_{n(j)}$ denotes the entry created in $PIT^i$ for NDO with name $n(j)$, and specifies: the name of the NDO; the hop count $h^I (i)$ assumed by router $i$ when it forwards Interest $I[n(j), h^I (i) ]$; the set of incoming neighbors from which Interests for $n(j)$ are received ($INSET(PI^i_{n(j)})$); the set of outgoing neighbor(s) ($OUTSET(PI^i_{n(j)})$) to whom router $i$ forwards its Interest; and the remaining lifetime for the Interest ($RT(PI^i_{n(j)})$).
Interest Loop Detection
-----------------------
To define a correct forwarding strategy, special attention must be paid to the fact that updates made to the FIBs stored at routers occur independently of and concurrently with the updates made to their PITs. For example, once a router has forwarded an Interest that assumed a given distance to content prefix $n(i)^*$ and waits for its Interest to return a data object, its distance to the same content may change based on updated to its FIB. Hence, simply comparing the minimum distance from a router to content against a distance to content stated in an Interest is not enough to ensure that Interests are not incorrectly forwarded to routers that are farther away form the requested content. SIFAH takes into account the fact that FIBs and PITs are updated independently by requiring that a router that forwards an Interest for a given piece of content remembers in its PIT entry the value of the distance to content assumed when it issues its Interest. The following rule is then used for a given router to determine whether an Interest may be propagating over an Interest loop.
The number of hops to requested content is used as the metric for the invariant condition. This is done for two reasons, storing hop-count distances in the FIB incurs less storage overhead than storing complex distance values, and the next hops to a prefix stored in the FIB can be ranked based on the actual distances to content.
Router $i$ can accept $I[n(j), h^I(k)]$ from router $k$ if one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
1. $n(j) \not\in PIT^i \wedge \exists ~v (~ v \in S^i_{n(j)^*} \wedge h^I(k) > h(i, n(j)^*, v) ~)$
2. $n(j) \in PIT^i \wedge h^I(k) > h^I(i)$
The first condition ensures that router $i$ accepts an Interest from neighbor $k$ only if $i$ determines that is closer to $n(j)^*$ through at least one neighbor than $k$ was when it sent its Interest. The second condition ensures that router $i$ accepts an Interest from neighbor $k$ only if $i$ was closer to $n(j)^*$ than $k$ when $i$ and $k$ sent their Interests.
Section \[sec-correct\] proves that using HFAR is [*sufficient*]{} to ensure that an Interest loop cannot occur without a router in the loop detecting that the Interest has been forwarded incorrectly. This result is independent of whether Interests are aggregated or sent over one or multiple paths, or how Interests are retransmitted.
Similar forwarding rules based on more sophisticated lexicographic orderings could be defined based on the same general approach stated in HFAR. The requirement for such forwarding rules is that more information needs to be maintained in the FIBs, such as distance values to name prefixes that take into account such factors as end-to-end delay, reliability, cost, or bandwidth available.
HFAR is very similar to sufficient conditions for loop-free routing introduced in the past, in particular sufficient conditions for loop-free routing based on diffusing computations [@dual; @vutukury; @dual-patent]. Indeed, the approach we introduce for Interest-loop detection in SIFAH can be viewed as a case of termination detection based on diffusing computations [@diffuse].
It should be pointed out that, because HFAR is not [*necessary*]{} to detect loops, there are cases in which HFAR is not satisfied even though no Interest loops exist. However, prior results on multi-path routing based on diffusing computations [@dual2] indicate that this does not constitute a performance problem. Given that FIBs are updated to reflect correct hop counts, or correct complex distance values in general, a sufficient condition for loop detection operating with multi-path routing is a good baseline for an Interest-based forwarding strategy.
SIFAH Operation
---------------
Algorithms \[algo-SIFAH-Interest\] to \[algo-SIFAH-link\] specify the steps taken by routers to process Interests, forward Interests, return NDOs, process perceived link failures, handle Interest-lifetime expirations, and send NACKs according to SIFAH. Optional steps and data in algorithms are indicated by “[**\[o\]**]{}".
The algorithms used to describe SIFAH were not designed to take into account such issues as load balancing of available paths, congestion-control, or the forwarding of an Interest over multiple concurrent paths. For simplicity, it is assumed that all Interest retransmissions are carried out on an end-to-end basis (i.e., by the consumers of content) rather than routers. Hence, routers do not attempt to provide any “local repair" when a neighbor fails or a NACK to an Interest is received; the origin of an Interest is in charge of retransmitting it after receiving a NACK for any reason. Interest retransmissions could also be done by routers. The design and analysis of Interest retransmission strategies implemented by routers or by content consumers is a topic deserving further study.
[**Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-Interest\]** ]{} implements HFAR. Router $i$ determines that an Interest can be forwarded because Condition 1 in HFAR is satisfied (Line 9 of Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-Interest\]), or an Interest can be aggregated because Condition 2 of HFAR is satisfied (Line 17 of Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-Interest\]). Content requests from local content consumers are sent to the router in the form of Interests stating infinite hop counts to content, and each router knows which neighbors are remote and which are local.
The Maximum Interest Life-time ($MIL$) assumed by a router before it deletes an Interest from its PIT should be large enough to preclude an excessive number of retransmissions. On the other hand, $MIL$ should not be too large to cause the PITs to store too many Interests for which no NDO messages or NACKs will be sent due to failures or transmission errors. A few seconds would be a viable value for $MIL$. In practice, however, the consumer submitting an Interest to its local router could provide an initial value for the Interest lifetime estimated over a number of Interests submitted for NDOs in the same NDO group corresponding to a large piece of content (e.g., a movie). This is specially the case given our assumption that Interest retransmissions are carried out by content consumers, rather than by routers.
[**Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-fw\]** ]{} describes a simple forwarding strategy in which router $i$ simply selects the first neighbor $v$ in the ranked list of neighbors stored in the FIB for prefix $n(j)^*$ that satisfies the first condition in HFAR (Line 4 of the algorithm). More sophisticated strategies can be devised that attain load balancing among multiple available routes towards content and can be close to optimum (e.g., [@vutukury]). In addition, the same Interest could be forwarded over multiple paths concurrently, in which case content could be sent back over some or all the paths that the Interest traversed successfully. To be effective, however, these approaches should require the adoption of a loop-free multi-path routing protocol in the control plane (e.g., [@dcr; @dcr-mcast]). In this context, the control plane establishes valid multi-paths to content prefixes using long-term performance measures, and the data plane exploits those paths using HFAR and short-term performance measurements, without risking the long delays associated with backtracking due to looping.
[**Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-Data\]**]{} outlines the processing of NDO messages received in response to Interests. A router accepts an NDO received from a neighbor if it has a PIT entry waiting for the content and the NDO message came from one of the neighbors over which the Interest was sent (Line 5 of the algorithm). The router forwards the valid NDO to any neighbor that requested it and deletes the corresponding PIT entry. A router stores an NDO it receives optionally (Step 7 of Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-Data\]). The caching of NDOs is done according to the caching strategy used in the network, which can be path-based or edge-based [@caching], for example. However, SIFAH works independently of the caching strategy adopted in the network.
[**Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-timer\]**]{} shows a simple approach to handle the case when a PIT entry expires with no NDO or NACK being received. Given that routers do not initiate Interest retransmissions, router $i$ simply sends NACKs to all neighbors from which it received Interests for $n(j)$. A more sophisticated approach would be needed for the case in which routers must provide Interest retransmissions in a way similar to on-demand routing protocols that support local repair of route requests.
[**Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-nack\]**]{} states the steps taken to handle NACKs. Router $i$ forwards the NACK it receives for $n(j)$ to all those neighbors from whom it received Interests for $n(j)$ and deletes the Interest entry after that. Supporting Interest retransmissions by routers would require a more complex approach for the handling of NACKs.
[**Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-link\]**]{} lists the steps taken by a router in response to the failure of connectivity with a neighbor. Reacting to the failure of perceived connectivity with a neighbor over which Interests have been forwarded could be simply to wait for the life-times of those Interests to expire. However, such an approach can be very slow reacting to link failures compared to using Algorithm \[algo-SIFAH-link\]. The algorithm assumes that the control plane updates $FIB^i$ to reflect any changes in hop counts to name prefixes resulting from the loss of connectivity to one or more neighbors. For each Interest that was forwarded over the failed link, router $i$ sends a NACK to all neighbors whose Interests were aggregated.
Examples of SIFAH Operation
---------------------------
Figures \[no-loop\](a) to (d) illustrate how SIFAH operates using the same example used in Figure \[ndn-loop\]. Figures \[no-loop\](a) and (b) address the case in which the control plane establishes multiple paths to each name prefix but does not guarantee loop-free routing tables. Figures \[no-loop\](c) and (d) illustrate how SIFAH operates when single-path routing is used.
The pair of numbers next to each link outgoing from a node in Figure \[no-loop\](a) indicates the hop count to $n(j)$ through a neighbor and the ranking of the neighbor in the FIB. The example assumes that: (a) routers execute a routing protocol that does not enforce loop-free FIBs; and (b) the ranking of neighbors is determined independently at each router using some data-plane strategy based on the perceived performance of each path and interface. It should be noted that the distance value of a path need not be directly proportional to the hop-count value of the path shown in the figure.
Let the tuple ($v$: $h, r$) indicate a neighbor, its hop count and its ranking. In Figure \[no-loop\](a), $FIB^a$ lists ($b$: 7, 1), ($p$: 7, 2), and ($x$: 9, 3), which is shown in green font. Similarly, $FIB^y$ states ($a$: 8, 1); $FIB^b$ states ($c$: 10, 2), ($a$: 8, 1), and ($q$: 6, 3); $FIB^c$ states ($b$: 7, 1), ($x$: 9, 2), and ($r$: 9, 3); and $FIB^x$ states ($a$: 8, 1) and ($c$: 8, 2). Some of the FIB entries for $p$, $q$ and $r$ are shown in black font.
In Figure \[no-loop\](b), router $y$ originates an Interest for $n(j)$ and sends $I[n(j), h^I(y) = 8]$ to $a$. Router $a$ receives the Interest from router $y$ at time $t_1$ and, given that $8 = h^I(y) >$ $h(a, n(j)^*, b) = 7$, it accepts the Interest because it has at least one neighbor that satisfies HFAR. Router $a$ sends $I[n(j), h^I(a) = 7]$ to $b$ because it is the highest-ranked neighbor satisfying HFAR. Router $a$ aggregates $I[n(j),$ $ h^I(x) = 8]$ at time $t_3 > t_1$, because it sent $I[n(j),$ $ h^I(a) = 7]$ at time $t_1$ and $8 = h^I(x) > h^I(a) = 7$. Router $b$ receives the Interest from $a$ at time $t_2 > t_1$; accepts it because it has at least one neighbor that satisfies HFAR ($7 = h^I(a) > h(b, n(j)^*, q) = 6$); and sends $I[n(j), h^I(b) = 6]$ to $q$ because $q$ is the highest-ranked neighbor of $b$ that satisfies HFAR. This is an example that Interests are forwarded along loop-free paths if SIFAH is used and the FIBs maintained by routers have consistent information, even if some of the multi-paths implied in the FIBs involve loops. The next section proves this result in the general case.
Figure \[no-loop\](c) shows the hop count values stored in the FIBs for name prefix $n(j)$ when single-path routing is used. Each router has a single next hop and one hop count for each prefix listed in its FIB. Router $b$ updates its FIB to reflect the failure of link $(b, q)$ at time $t_1$, while router $y$ sends an Interest to router $a$ requesting $n(j)$. Routers have inconsistent FIB states for $n(j)$ while routing updates propagate and Interests are being forwarded.
As shown in Figure \[no-loop\](d), router $b$ [*must*]{} send $NI[n(j), \mathsf{loop}]$ to $a$, because $7 = $ $h^I(a) \not> $ $h(b, n(j)^*, c) = 10$ and HFAR is not satisfied. In turn, when $a$ receives the NACK from $b$, it must forward $NI[n(j), \mathsf{loop}]$ to $y$ and to $x$. Eventually, the routing protocol running in the control plane makes routers $a$ and $y$ change the hop count to $n(j)^*$ in their FIBs to reflect the failure of link $(b, q)$. At that point, a retransmission of the Interest from $y$ would state $h^I(y) = 9$ and would make $a$ forward $I[n(j), h^I(a) = 8]$ to $p$.
Correctness of SIFAH {#sec-correct}
====================
The following theorems show that SIFAH enforces correct Interest forwarding and aggregation, and constitutes a safe Interest forwarding strategy. The results are independent of whether the network is static or dynamic, the specific caching strategy used in the network (e.g., at the edge or along paths traversed by NDO messages [@caching]), or the retransmission strategy used by content consumers after experiencing g a timeout or receiving a NACK from attached routers. SIFAH ensures that Interests cannot be incorrectly propagated and aggregated along loops without meeting routers that detect the incorrect forwarding and hence send NACKs in return.
\[theo3\] Interest loops cannot occur and be undetected in a network in which SIFAH is used.
Consider a network in which SIFAH is used. Assume for the sake of contradiction that nodes in a loop $L$ of $h$ hops $\{ v_1 , $ $v_2 , ..., $ $v_h , v_1 \}$ send and possibly aggregate Interests for $n(j)$ along $L$, with no node in $L$ detecting the incorrect forwarding of any of the Interests sent over the loop. Given that $L$ exists by assumption, $v_k \in L$ must send $I[n(j), h^I(v_{k}) ]$ to node $v_{k+1} \in L$ for $1 \leq k \leq h - 1$, and $v_h \in L$ must send $I[n(j), h^I(v_{h}) ]$ to node $v_{1} \in L$. For $1 \leq k \leq h - 1$, let $h(v_k, n(j)^*)^L$ denote the value of $h^I (v_k)$ when node $v_k$ sends $I[n(j), h^I(v_{k}) ]$ to node $v_{k+1}$, with $h(v_k, n(j)^*)^L = h(v_k, n(j)^*, v_{k+1})$. Let $h(v_h, n(j)^*)^L$ denote the value of $h^I (v_h)$ when when node $v_h$ sends $I[n(j), h^I(v_{h}) ]$ to node $v_1 \in L$, with $h(v_h, n(j)^*)^L =$ $ h(v_h, n(j)^*, v_1)$.
Because no node in $L$ detects the incorrect forwarding of an Interest, each node in $L$ must aggregate the Interest it receives from the previous hop in $L$ or it must send its own Interest as a result of the Interest it receives from the previous hop in $L$. This implies that $v_k \in L$ must accept $I[n(j), h^I(v_{k-1}) ]$ before $RT(PI^{v_k}_{n(j)})$ expires for $1 \leq k < h $, and $v_1 \in L$ must accept $I[n(j), h^I(v_{h}) ]$ before $RT(PI^{v_1}_{n(j)})$ expires.
According to SIFAH, if $v_k$ aggregates $I[n(j),$ $ h^I(v_{k-1}) ]$, then it must be true that $h^I(v_{k-1}) > h^I(v_{k})$. Similarly, if $v_1$ aggregates $I[n(j), h^I(v_{h}) ]$, then it must be the case that $h^I(v_{h}) > h^I(v_{1})$.
On the other hand, if $v_k$ sends $I[n(j), h^I(v_{k}) ]$ to $v_{k+1}$ as a result of receiving $I[n(j), h^I(v_{k-1}) ]$ from $v_{k-1}$, then it must be true that $h^I(v_{k - 1}) > h(v_{k}, n(j)^*)^L = h^I(v_{k}) $ for $1 < k \leq h$. Similarly, if $v_1$ sends $I[n(j), h^I(v_{1}) ]$ to $v_{2}$ as a result of receiving $I[n(j), h^I(v_{h}) ]$ from $v_{h}$, then $h^I(v_{h}) > h(v_{1}, n(j)^*)^L = h^I(v_{1}) $.
It follows from the above argument that, for $L$ to exist when each node in the loop follows SIFAH to send Interests asking for $n(j)$, it must be true that $h^I(v_{h}) > h^I(v_{1}) $ and $h^I(v_{k - 1}) > h^I(v_{k}) $ for $1 < k \leq h$. However, this is a contradiction, because it implies that $h^I(v_{k}) > h^I(v_{k})$ for $1 \leq k \leq h $. Therefore, the theorem is true.
The proof of Theorem 3 can be augmented to account for Interest forwarding strategies based on complex distance values rather than hop counts.
To be safe, an Interest forwarding strategy must ensure that either an NDO message with the requested content or a NACK is received within a finite time by the consumer who issues an Interest. The following theorem shows that this is the case for SIFAH, independently of the state of the topology or the fate of messages.
\[theo4\] SIFAH ensures that an NDO message for name $n(j)$ or a NACK is received within a finite time by any consumer who issues an Interest for NDO with name $n(j)$.
Consider $I[n(j), h^I (s) ]$ being issued by consumer $s$ at time $t_1$. The forwarding of Interests assumed in SIFAH is based on the best match of the requested NDO name with the prefixes advertised in the network. Furthermore, according to Algorithm 3, a router sends back an NDO message to a neighbor that sent an Interest for NDO $n(j)$ only if has an exact match of the name $n(j)$ in its content store. According to Algorithm 5, a router that receives an NDO message in response to an Interest it forwarded must forward the same NDO message. Hence, the wrong NDO message cannot be sent in response to an Interest. There are three cases to consider next: (a) there are no routes to the name prefix $n(j)^*$ of the requested NDO, (b) the Interest traverses an Interest loop, or (c) the Interest traverses a simple path towards a router $d$ that can reply to the Interest.
[*Case 1:*]{} If there is no route to $n(j)^*$, then it follows from the operation of SIFAH (Algorithm 4) that a router issues a NACK stating that there is no route. That NACK is either forwarded successfully back to $s$ or is lost due to errors or faults. In the latter case, it follows from Algorithms 6 and 8 that a router must send a NACK back towards $s$ stating that the Interest expired or the route failed.
[*Case 2:*]{} If $I[n(j), h^I (s) ]$ is forwarded along an Interest loop and does not reach any node with a copy of $n(j)$, then it follows from Theorem \[theo3\] that the Interest must either reach some router $k$ that detects the incorrect forwarding of the Interest and must issue a NACK $NI[n(j), \mathsf{loop} ]$ in response, or the Interest is dropped due to faults or transmission errors before reaching such router $k$.
If $NI[n(j), \mathsf{loop} ]$ reaches a router $k$ that detects the loop and issues $NI[n(j), \mathsf{loop} ]$, then according to SIFAH (Algorithm 7), every router receiving the NACK $NI[n(j), \mathsf{loop} ]$ originated by router $k$ from the neighbor to whom the Interest was sent must relay the NACK towards $s$. Hence, if no errors or faults prevent the NACK from reaching $s$, the consumer receives a NACK stating that an Interest loop was found.
On the other hand, if either the Interest traversing an Interest loop or the NACK it induces at some router $k$ is lost, it follows from Algorithms 6 and 8 that a router between $s$ and router $k$ must send a NACK towards $s$ indicating that the Interest expired or that the route failed. Accordingly, consumer $s$ must receive a NACK within a finite time after issuing its Interest in this case.
[*Case 3:*]{} If the Interest traverses a simple path towards a router $d$ that advertises $n(j)^*$ or has a content store containing $n(j)$, then the Interest must either reach $d$ or not.
If the Interest is lost and does not reach $d$, then it follows from Algorithms 6 and 8 that a router between $s$ and router $d$ must send a NACK towards $s$ indicating that the Interest expired or that the route failed. As a result, $s$ must receive a NACK originated by some router between $s$ and $d$.
If the Interest reaches $d$, then that router must either send the requested NDO back, or (in the case that $d$ advertises $n(j)^*$ and $n(j)$ does not exist) issue a NACK stating that $n(j)$ does not exist. According to Algorithms 5 and 7, the NDO message or NACK originated by $d$ is forwarded back towards $s$ along the reversed simple path traversed by the Interest. If no fault or errors occur between $d$ and $s$, it follows that the theorem is true for this case. Alternatively, if the NDO or NACK originated by $d$ is lost due to faults or errors, it follows from Algorithms 6 and 8 that a router between $s$ and router $d$ must send a NACK towards $s$ indicating that the Interest expired or that the route failed.
Performance Comparison {#sec-perf}
======================
We compare SIFAH with NDN and the original CCN forwarding strategy in terms of the storage complexity of the approaches; the average time that a PIT entry remains in the PIT waiting for an NDO message or a NACK to be received in response, which we call PIT entry pending time; the end-to-end delay experienced by content consumers in receiving either the content they request or negative feedback; and the number of entries in the PITs maintained by content routers.
The storage complexity of each approach provides an indication of the storage overhead induced by the type of information required for routers to detect Interests loops. The simulation results we present on PIT entry pending times, end-to-end delays, and PIT sizes should be viewed simply as indications of the negative effects that undetected Interest loops have on the performance of NDN and CCN, and the fact that they can be completely avoided using SIFAH.
Storage Complexity
------------------
There is a large difference in the storage overhead incurred with the NDN forwarding strategy compared to SIFAH.
In SIFAH, router $i$ uses only the value of $h^I(i)$ to determine whether the Interest it receives from $k$ may be traversing an Interest loop, and does not store $h^I(k)$. Hence, the PIT storage size for SIFAH is $$SS_{SIFAH} = O(( INT + |mh| ) |PIT^i|_{SIFAH})$$ where $|PIT^i |_{SIFAH}$ is the number of pending Interests in $PIT^i$ when SIFAH is used, $|mh|$ is the number of bits used to store $h^I(i)$, and $INT$ is the average storage required to maintain information about the incoming and outgoing neighbors for a given Interest. For a given NDO with name $n(j)$, the amount of storage needed to maintain the incoming and outgoing neighbors is $$INSET(PI^i_{n(j)}) + OUTSET(PI^i_{n(j)}).$$
The NDN forwarding strategy requires each router to store the list of different nonces used to denote valid Interests for a given NDO name $n(j)$. With each nonce being of size $|id|$ and router $i$ having up to $I$ neighbors that send valid Interests for an NDO, the PIT storage size for NDN is $$SS_{NDN} = O((INT + |id| I ) ~|PIT^i |_{ NDN})$$ where $|PIT^i |_{ NDN}$ is the number of pending Interests in $PIT^i$ when NDN is used. Hence, even if $|PIT^i |_{ NDN}$ is the same as $ |PIT^i |_{ SIFAH}$, the amount of additional PIT storage needed in NDN over SIFAH is $$\begin{aligned}
&&SS_{NDN}- SS_{SIFAH} \geq
\\
& & (|id| I)(|PIT^i |_{ NDN}) - (|mh|) (|PIT^i |_{ NDN}).\end{aligned}$$
A maximum hop count of 255 for an Interest is more than enough. Hence, with the size of a nonce in NDN of four bytes, the savings in PIT storage obtained with SIFAH compared to NDN is $(32 I - 8)~|PIT^i |_{ NDN}$. This represents enormous savings of RAM in large networks. Furthermore, because the NDN forwarding strategy may not detect loops when Interests are aggregated, many Interest entries in PITs may have to be stored until their lifetimes expire. Accordingly, $|PIT^i |_{SIFAH}$ can be much smaller than $|PIT^i |_{ NDN}$. This is confirmed by the simulation results presented subsequently.
The additional FIB storage overhead in SIFAH compared to the NDN forwarding strategy consists of storing the hop count information for each prefix $n(j)^*$ from each neighbor. This amounts to $ (|mh|)( |FIB^i|)D^i$ at router $i$, where $D^i$ is the number of neighbors of router $i$ and $|FIB^i|$ is the number of entries in $FIB^i$. Given that $D^i$ and $I$ are of the same order and $O(|FIB^i|) < O(|PIT^i|)$, this is far smaller than the additional PIT storage needed by the NDN forwarding strategy compared to SIFAH.
Performance Impact of\
Undetected Interest Loops
--------------------------
### Implementation of Forwarding Strategies\
in ndnSIM
We implemented SIFAH in ndnSIM, an open-source NS-3 based simulator for Named Data Networks and Information Centric Networks [@ndnSIM]. Following the NDN architecture, ndnSIM is implemented as a new network-layer protocol model, which can run on top of any available link-layer protocol model, as well as on top of network-layer and transport-layer protocols.
We used the NDN implementation of its data plane from ndnSIM without any modifications. The ndnSIM NDN implementation is capable of detecting simple loops by matching nonces. The PIT entry expiration time for NDN is set to the default of one second. It should be pointed out that, in the default NDN implementation, a router that receives a duplicate Interest simply drops the Interest without sending a NACK back. This corresponds to the original CCN forwarding strategy. The ndnSIM NDN implementation also allows the use of NACKs after Interest loop detection. The results presented in this section for “CCN" correspond to the ndnSIM implementation of NDN without NACKs, and the results presented for “NDN" correspond to the ndnSIM implementation of NDN with NACKs enabled.
To implement Algorithms 3 to 8 defining SIFAH in ndnSIM, we had to make some modifications on the basic structures of ndnSIM, namely: the FIBs, Interest packets, NACKs, and the forwarding strategy. A new field “rank” is added to every entry of the FIB. Unlike ndnSIM in which the next hop selection for requested prefixes is based on hop count, in SIFAH next hops are sorted based on rank of each FIB entry. The field $h(k)$ was added to each Interest message, which determines the hop count from forwarding node $k$ to the prefix requested by the Interest. A new type of NACK for loop detection is added and the behavior of forwarding strategy for NACKs is modified based on SIFAH definitions. Furthermore, a new class of forwarding strategy is added to ndnSIM that implements SIFAH functions.
### Simulation Scenarios
To isolate the operation of the data plane from the performance of different routing protocols operating in the control plane, we used static routes and manually configured routing loops for specific prefixes.
Given the use of static routes and configured loops, we used a simple grid topology of sixteen nodes with two consumers producing Interests with different prefixes and one producer announcing the content requested in the Interests. Interest traffic is generated at a constant bit rate with a frequency of 2000 Interests per second. The delay over each link of the topology is set t to 10 msec and PIT entry expiration time is set to only 1000 msec, which is too short for real networks but is large enough to illustrate the consequences of undetected Interest loops.
Five different scenarios, each lasting 90 seconds of simulation time, were used to compare SIFAH with NDN and CCN. Each scenario is defined by the percentage of Interests traversing loops, which was set to equal 0%, 10%, 20%, 50%, and 100% of the Interests generated by consumers. In practice, it should be the case that only a small fraction of Interests traverse loops, assuming a correct routing protocol is used in the control plane and sensible policies are used to rank the available routes in the FIBs. The scenarios we present illustrate that just a few Interests traversing undetected loops cause performance degradation, and that network performance is determined by the PIT entry expiration times as the fraction of Interests traveling loops increases.
Figure \[loop\] shows the topology and scenario we used in our simulations. Consumer C1, produces Interests for $prefix_1$ and $prefix_2$, and consumer C2 produces Interests only for $prefix_2$. Blue arrows and green arrows shows initial routes for $prefix_1$ and $prefix_2$, respectively. We assume that the route between nodes A and D, and the route between nodes B and E for $prefix_2$ are disconnected. Therefore, Interests requesting $prefix_2$ use alternate paths from node A to node B and from node B to node C2, which causes the looping of such Interests.
Interests for $prefix_2$ generated by C1 and C2, request the same content at approximately the same time, so that aggregation can take place at routers along the paths traversed by Interests. This results in the aggregation of Interests at node C1 for Interests generated by C2, and the aggregation of Interests at node C2 for Interests generated by C1. Our simple scenarios provide enough insight on the negative impact of undetected Interest loops in the presence of Interest aggregation using NDN and the original CCN design.
Simulation results are shown for three different forwarding strategies: The original CCN, NDN, and SIFAH. The difference between CCN and NDN is that CCN does not send NACKs when duplicate Interests are detected. On the other hand, NDN sends NACK when simple loops are detected by receiving duplicate Interests.
### Impact on PIT Entry Duration
Figure \[pending-time\] shows the average value of the PIT entry pending time for all PIT entries. When no Interest loops are present, NDN, CCN and SIFAH exhibit the same performance, with each having an average PIT entry pending time of 60 msec. This should be expected, given that Interests and NDO messages traverse shortest paths between consumers and producers or caches.
The average PIT entry pending time in SIFAH does not increase as he percentage of Interests that encounter Interest loops increases. The reason for this is that SIFAH ensures that an Interest must elicit either an NDO message or a NACK to be sent back from some router along the route it traverses back to the consumer that originates the Interest. Hence, the average amount of time an Interest entry spends in the PIT is a function of the round-trip time it takes for either an NDO message or a NACK to evict it from the PIT. This is proportional to a round-trip time between a consumer and a router with the content or a router at which HFAR is not satisfied, which is a few milliseconds in the grid topology.
By contrast, the average PIT entry pending time in CCN and NDN increases dramatically with the percentage of Interests that encounter Interest loops. The percentage of Interests that traverse loops need not be large to have negative performance consequences. For the scenario in which 10% of the Interests encounter Interest loops, we observe that the average PIT entry pending time increases dramatically in NDN and CCN, with the average PIT entry pending time being 113 msec, which is about twice the average PIT entry pending time in SIFAH.
The results for NDN and CCN can be easily explained. CCN simply deletes and drops duplicate Interests, each Interest that encounters an Interest loop is discarded by the router that detects a duplicate Interest, and this action forces the corresponding PIT entries in the routers traversed by the Interest to remain in those PITs, until their PIT entry expiration timers expire. In NDN, Interest loops can go undetected with aggregation and therefore no NACKs are sent in those cases. As a result, the time an Interest entry spends in the PIT equals the PIT entry expiration time if the Interest traverses an undetected loop. The results are almost the same for CCN and NDN. The reason for observing slightly lower values for NDN compared to CCN, is that some of the Interests for content in $prefix_2$ are not generated by C1 and C2 with sufficient time correlation to enable Interest aggregation, which results in detection of Interest loops in NDN and Interests being discarded in CCN.
The PIT entry pending times in NDN and CCN are many orders of magnitude larger for Interests that traverse undetected Interest loops. This is unavoidable, given that the PIT entry pending time is proportional to a PIT entry expiration time, which by design must be set conservatively to values that are far longer than average round-trip times between consumers and producers. In the simulations, the PIT entry expiration time is just one second.
### Impact on PIT Size
Figure \[PitSize\] shows the average size of PIT tables in terms of number of entries for a router included in Interest flows for five different scenarios comparing CCN, NDN, and SIFAH. CCN, NDN and SIFAH have exactly the same PIT size in the absence of Interest loops, which is expected. As the percentage of Interests that encounter loops increases, the average number of entries in the PITs increases dramatically for CCN and NDN. For the case in which only 10% of Interests encounter loops, the number of entries doubles in NDN and CCN compared to SIFAH. For the case in which 100% of Interests encounter loops, the average number of PIT entries in CCN and NDN is 1889 and 1884, respectively, while the number of PIT entries in SIFAH actually decreases.
The reason for the decrease in average number of PIT entries for SIFAH as the percentage of Interests that encounter loops increases is a consequence of the shorter round-trip times between the consumers submitting Interests and the routers sending NACKs compared to the round-trip times of paths to the producers of requested content.
### Impact on Round-Trip Times
Figure \[RTT\] shows the average round-trip time (RTT) for all five scenarios for CCN, NDN and SIFAH. In the simulation experiments, the round-trip time is considered to be the time elapsed from the instant when an Interest is first sent to the instant when an NDO message or a NACK is received by the consumer who created the Interest.
For the case of no loops, CCN, NDN, and SIFAH have the same average RTT. When the percentage of Interests traversing loops is 10%, the average RTT in CCN and NDN increases to almost two times the average RTT in SIFAH, and some Interests have much larger RTTs than the average. As the percentage of Interests that loop increases, the average RTT becomes proportional to the PIT entry expiration time, which is to be expected. The average RTT in SIFAH decreases as more Interests traverse loops, which is a result of the shorter RTTs between consumers and routers sending the NACKs.
Design Implications
-------------------
The simulation experiments we have presented are meant only to help illustrate the negative impact of undetected Interest loops when they occur, rather than to provide representative scenarios of the performance of Interest-based forwarding strategies in large networks. Our results illustrate that loops in FIBs need not be long lasting or impact a large percentage of Interest to cause the number of stored PIT entries and end-to-end delays to increase quickly.
As we have shown, the PIT storage requirements for SIFAH are smaller than those for the original CCN and NDN forwarding strategies. Thus, SIFAH is more efficient than CCN and NDN even in the absence of Interest loops. Given that SIFAH is so easy to implement in the context of CCN and NDN, it makes practical sense to eliminate the current practice in NDN and CCN of attempting to detect Interest loops by the matching of nonces and Interest names, which does not work.
Conclusions
===========
We showed that the forwarding strategies in NDN and the original CCN architectures may fail to detect Interest loops when they occur, and that a correct forwarding strategy that supports Interest aggregation cannot be designed simply by identifying each Interest uniquely and deciding that there is an Interest loop based on the matching of Interest names and nonces.
We introduced the Strategy for Interest Forwarding and Aggregation with Hop-counts (SIFAH). It is the first Interest-based forwarding strategy shown to be correct in the presence of Interest loops, Interest aggregation, faults, and the forwarding of Interests over multiple paths. SIFAH operates by requiring that FIBs store the next hops and the hop count through such hops to named content, and by having each Interest state the name of the content requested and the hop count from the relaying router to the content.
We showed that SIFAH incurs less storage overhead than using nonces to identify Interests. We also showed that, if NDN or the original CCN design is used in a network, the number of PIT entries and end-to-end delays perceived by consumers can increase substantially with just a fraction of Interests traversing undetected loops. Although our simulation experiments assumed a very small network, our results provide sufficient insight on the negative effects of undetected Interest loops in NDN and the original CCN design.
This work is just a first step in the definition of correct Interest-based forwarding strategies, and it is applicable to any Interest retransmission approach. For simplicity, we assumed that content consumers are in charge of Interest retransmissions and that routers do not provide local repair of Interests after receiving NACKs or detecting link failures. The design of an efficient Interest retransmission strategy and determining whether Interest retransmissions by routers improves performance are arguably the most important next steps. However, SIFAH provides the necessary foundation to define a correct retransmission strategy, because it guarantees that each Interest results in an NDO message or a NACK being sent to the consumer who originated the Interest.
More work is also needed to understand the performance of SIFAH in large networks, the effect of PIT entry expiration timers on performance, the effect of load balancing of Interests over multiple available routes to content, the impact of local repairs in Interest forwarding, and the performance implications of the interaction between SIFAH and a routing protocol that guarantees loop-free routing tables (and hence FIBs) at all times [@dcr; @icnp14; @dcr-mcast] compared to one that does not [@nlsr].
[99]{}
A. Afanasyev, I. Moiseenko, and L. Zhang, “ndnSIM: NDN Simulator for ns-3”, [*University of California, Los Angeles, Tech. Rep*]{}, 2012.
B. Ahlgren et al., “A Survey of Information-centric Networking," [*IEEE Commun. Magazine*]{}, July 2012, pp. 26–36.
J. Behrens and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Hierarchical Routing Using Link Vectors," [*Proc. IEEE INFOCOM ‘98*]{}, April 1998.
Content Centric Networking Project (CCN) \[online\].\
http://www.ccnx.org/releases/latest/doc/technical/
A. Dabirmoghaddam et al., “Understanding Optimal Caching and Opportunistic Caching at “The Edge” of Information-Centric Networks,” [*Proc. ACM ICN ‘14*]{}, Sept. 2014.
E.W. Dijkstra and C.S. Scholten “Termination Detection for Diffusing Computations," [*Information Processing Letters*]{}, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1980.
E.W. Dijkstra, W. Feijen, and A.J.M. van Gasteren, “Derivation of a Termination Detection Algorithm for Distributed Computations," [*Information Processing Letters*]{}, Vol. 16, No. 5, 1983.
J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “A Unified Approach to Loop-Free Routing Using Distance Vectors or Link States," [*Proc. ACM SIGCOMM ‘89*]{}, Aug. 1989.
J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Name-Based Content Routing in Information Centric Networks Using Distance Information," [*Proc. ACM ICN ‘14*]{}, Sept. 2014.
J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Routing to Multi-Instantiated Destinations: Principles and Applications," [*IEEE ICNP ‘14*]{}, Oct. 2014.
J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Efficient Multi-Source Multicasting in Information Centric Networks," [*Proc. IEEE CCNC ‘15*]{}, Jan. 2015.
C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, “Directed Diffusion: A Scalable and Robust Communication Paradigm for Sensor Networks," [*Proc. ACM MobiCom ‘00*]{}, 2000.
V. Jacobson et al., “Networking Named Content," [*Proc. IEEE CoNEXT ‘09*]{}, Dec. 2009.
A.K.M. Mahmudul-Hoque et al., “NSLR: Named-Data Link State Routing Protocol," [*Proc. ACM ICN ‘13*]{}, 2013.
J. Matocha and T. Camp, “A Taxonomy of Distributed Termination Detection Algorithms," [*Journal of Systems and Software*]{}, 1998.
NDN Project \[online\]. http://www.named-data.net/
M. Spohn and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Scalable Link-State Internet Routing," [*Proc. IEEE ICNP ‘98*]{}, Oct. 1998.
I. Solis and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Robust Content Dissemination in Disrupted Environments,” [*Proc. ACM CHANTS ‘08*]{}, Sept. 2008.
S. Vutukury and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “A Simple Approximation to Minimum-Delay Routing," [*Proc. ACM SIGCOMM ‘99*]{}, Aug. 1999.
G. Xylomenos et al., “A Survey of Information-centric Networking Research," [*IEEE Communication Surveys and Tutorials*]{}, July 2013.
C. Yi et al., “Adaptive Forwarding in Named Data Networking," [*ACM CCR*]{}, Vol. 42, No. 3, July 2012.
C. Yi et al., “A Case for Stateful Forwarding Plane," [*Computer Communications*]{}, pp. 779-791, 2013.
W.T. Zaumen and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “Dynamics of Distributed Shortest-Path Routing Algorithms," [*Proc. ACM SIGCOMM ‘91*]{}, Sept. 1991.
W.T. Zaumen and J.J. Garcia-Luna-Aceves, “System for Maintaining Multiple Loop-free Paths between Source Node and Destination Node in Computer Network," US Patent 5,881,243, 1999.
L. Zhang et al., “Named Data Networking," [*ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review*]{}, Vol. 44, No. 3, July 2014.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We revisit echelle spectra (spectral resolution $R \approx 40\,000$) of $8$ Gamma-Ray Burst afterglows to obtain the incidence ($dN/dz$) of weak intervening systems at a mean redshift of $\langle z
\rangle = 1.5$. We show that $dN/dz$ of systems having restframe equivalent widths $0.07$ Å $ \le W_r^{{\rm MgII}} < 1$ Å toward GRBs is statistically consistent with the incidence toward QSOs. Our result is in contrast to the results for systems having $W_r \ge 1$ Å, where $dN/dz$ toward GRBs has been found to be larger than toward QSOs by a factor of $\approx 4$. We confirm the overdensity albeit at a factor of $\approx 3$ only. This suggests that any explanation for the GRB/QSO discrepancy, be it intrinsic to the absorbers or a selection effect, should be inherent only to the galaxies that host strong absorbers in the line-of-sight to GRBs. We argue that, of all scenarios that have been proposed, lensing amplification is the one that could explain the strong enhancement while allowing for no significant enhancement in the weak absorbers.
author:
- 'Nicolas Tejos, Sebastian Lopez, J. Xavier Prochaska, Joshua S. Bloom, Hsiao-Wen Chen, Miroslava Dessauges-Zavadsky and Maria J. Maureira'
title: 'Casting light on the ’anomalous’ statistics of absorbers toward Gamma-Ray Burst afterglows: the incidence of weak systems'
---
Introduction
============
The recent refinements in rapid-response spectroscopy of high-redshift Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB) optical afterglows have opened a new era in the study of the intergalactic medium [IGM, @vel+04; @fiore05; @chen05]. In fact, using GRB afterglows instead of quasi-stellar objects (QSO) as background sources represents a superb complement to the absorption line technique in terms of redshift coverage [the highest redshift objects detected are GRBs, e.g., @olivares09; @tanvir09], ease of absorption system identification (no emission lines in afterglow spectra), and new insights into the interstellar medium of the host galaxies [@savaglio06; @pcd+07], not to mention the novel access to the absorbers via deep imaging that the rapid fade-out of the afterglow permits [e.g., @chen09; @pcp+09].
The first systematic, spectroscopic study of intervening systems toward GRB afterglows delivered the first surprise. Using spectra sensitive to restframe equivalent width (EW) $W_r^{2796}\ge 1$ Å systems at a mean redshift of $\langle z \rangle=
1.1$, @prochter06 [hereafter P06] identified $14$ such strong systems in a sample of 14 afterglow spectra at velocities $\beta c >
3\,000 {{\rm \; km\;s^{-1}}}$ from the GRB redshift. The redshift-path covered yielded almost $1$ strong system per unit redshift, a roughly $4$ times higher incidence than toward QSO lines-of-sight at greater than $99.9\%$ confidence. Since the intervening absorption systems are thought to be physically independent of the background source, this result has called for a serious revision of our understanding of absorption line surveys.
Four main astrophysical effects have been proposed to explain the observed discrepancy [see P06; @porciani07; @cucchiara08; @sss09]: strong gas might be intrinsic to the GRB environment or host galaxy system; dust within strong absorbers might obscure faint QSOs that never get detected; GRBs might be gravitationally lensed (and amplified) by the absorbers. A fourth scenario, namely that small absorber sizes might make the distinct beam sizes of GRBs and QSOs affect the statistics differentially [@frank07], has proven to be unviable [@pontzen07; @thone08; @aoki08]. However, as argued in P06 and @porciani07, none of these effects alone is likely to explain the QSO/GRB discrepant statistics. More recent studies have shown that the statistics of QSOs and afterglows are consistent with each other [@tejos07; @sudilovsky07], although those surveys probed a much higher redshift and also probably different galactic environments.
In this paper we use echelle spectra of GRB afterglows, sensitive to $W_r^{2803}\ge 0.07$ Å, to explore the [*weak*]{} systems. The QSO EW distribution shows a clear turnover around $W_r \sim 0.3$ Å, hinting at different populations [e.g., @churchill99; @nestor05; @milutinovic06; @narayanan07 hereafter N07]. Here we show for the first time that, contrary to the strong systems, the [*weak*]{} ($W_r < 0.3$ Å) and the [*moderately strong*]{} ($0.3 \le
W_r < 1$ Å) statistics conform to those derived from QSO surveys. In view of these new results we discuss possible explanations for the P06 result.
Data and Search Algorithm {#data}
=========================
The GRB afterglow sample comprises 8 echelle optical spectra ($R
\equiv \lambda/\delta\lambda\approx 40\,000$ and $S/N > 5$ pix$^{-1}$) taken with the Keck/HIRES [@hires], Magellan/MIKE [@mike] and VLT/UVES [@uves] spectrographs. This dataset comprises all current GRB echelle spectra available to our group. Table \[GRBsample\] lists the targets that we have used, along with references. Five of these spectra were used in the P06 survey (GRB021004, GRB050730, GRB050820, GRB051111, and GRB060418) and three are new (GRB050922C, GRB060607, and GRB080810). Note also that our survey extends beyond $z = 2$, while the P06 survey was restricted to $z \le 2$. Data reduction was conducted in the same fashion as described in @tejos07.
To identify systems in our sample we proceeded in two steps. We first performed a blind and automatic search for absorption lines using the “aperture method” [@wolfe86; @churchill08]. This yielded a list of lines detected at the $2.5\sigma$ confidence level. doublet candidates were searched for in this list by imposing a $5\sigma$ confidence limit on the stronger doublet $\lambda
2796$ line, but no constraint on the doublet ratio (DR) in order not to exclude blended lines.
The second step was to calculate EW values. To this end, we used direct pixel integration and, to conform to analysis techniques in QSO surveys (e.g., N07), complex systems were considered as a single one if the velocity span $\Delta v<500$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}. A careful inspection by eye allowed us to exclude spurious systems and obvious blends, and the final sample was built by imposing the criterion $1<{\rm DR}<2$. This last condition did not exclude any possible system.
To test the sensitivity of our search algorithm we ran it over a sample of synthetic spectra of signal-to-noise ratio $S/N=5$ and containing systems having a variety of column densities and Doppler parameters. This $S/N$ ratio or better is representative of $\gtrsim 90 \%$ of the redshift path, $\Delta z$. The efficiency was inferred by counting how many doublets were recovered over the total. The result of this analysis was that our detection method recovers $100$% of the lines having $W_r^{2803} \ge 0.07$ Å at this $S/N$ level. Thus, for our survey we take $W_{min} = 0.07$ Åin [*both*]{} components of the doublet. For this limit, the total redshift path is $\Delta z = 10.42$. The redshift-path density, $g(z)$, is shown in Figure \[gz\_MgII\].
Sample Definitions {#sample}
==================
We define following statistical samples:
#### Full Sample (FS)
All systems between the redshifted Ly$\alpha$ and associated with the GRB, with $W_r^{2803} \ge 0.07$ Åand detected at the $5\sigma$ and $2.5\sigma$ confidence level in $\lambda2796$ and $\lambda2803$, respectively. The Full Sample is composed of 23 systems (listed in Table \[FULL\]). Note that we did not find any system with $W_r^{2803} > 0.07$ Å in the GRB081010 spectrum and that -free sightlines are expected from QSO surveys.
#### Intervening Sample (IS)
All systems in the FS but excluding those ones within $5\,000$ [km s$^{-1}$]{}of $z_{GRB}$ (labeled as ’Local’ in Table \[FULL\]). This sample is composed of 19 systems, having a median redshift of $\langle
z \rangle = 1.4$. Figure \[systems\] shows the velocity profiles of those systems with $W_r^{2796} < 1$ Å.
#### Strong Intervening Sample (SIS)
All systems in the IS having $W_r^{2796} \ge 0.3$ Å. This is the same cutoff used in QSO absorption line surveys [e.g., @nestor05 N07]. This sample is composed of 14 systems (labeled as ’S’ in Table \[FULL\]) and is complete at the $99$% level along a redshift path of $\Delta z = 10.86$. Systems with $W_r^{2796} \ge 1.0$ Å are labeled with a ’V’ (very strong) in the table. This latter limit is the same used by P06.
#### Weak Intervening Sample (WIS)
All systems in the IS having $W_r^{2796} < 0.3$ Å. This sample is composed of 5 systems (labeled as ’W’ in Table \[FULL\]) and is complete at the $96$% level over $\Delta z = 10.42$. The QSO absorption line survey we compare with was that one by N07. However, these authors were able to use the more sensitive limit $W_{min}^{2796}= 0.02$ Å. Consequently, for the sake of comparison between the GRB and QSO data, we recomputed [$dN/dz|_{\rm QSO}$]{} using a sub-sample drawn from their line list.
Results
=======
Table \[resultMgII\] shows [$dN/dz|_{\rm GRB}$]{} [calculated in the same fashion as in @tejos07] for 4 EW bins, along with [$dN/dz|_{\rm QSO}$]{} in the same bins. These numbers are plotted in Figure \[fig\_MgII\_results\_Wdist\]. At this point it is important to emphasize that, as in @tejos07, our error estimation for the Poisson statistics is based on the tables given by @gehrels86 for small numbers. These errors are larger than the usual approximation, $\sigma_{N} = \sqrt{N}$.
From Figure \[fig\_MgII\_results\_Wdist\] it is clear that our results for GRB sightlines match those ones for QSOs for equivalent widths $W_r^{2796} < 1$ Å, while for those with $W_r^{2796} \ge 1$ Å we recover a similar overabundance as found by P06 which included low-resolution data.
In the WIS our result for GRB sightlines, [$dN/dz|_{\rm GRB}$]{}$(\langle z \rangle =
1.4 ) = 0.48^{+0.32}_{-0.21}$, is consistent with [$dN/dz|_{\rm QSO}$]{}$(\langle z
\rangle = 1.2 ) = 0.71 ^{+0.11}_{-0.10}$ that we infer from the data presented by N07 (55 systems at $0.4<z<2.4$ having $W_r^{2803} \ge
0.07$ Å and $W_r^{2796} < 0.3$ Å in a total redshift path $\Delta z = 77.6$[^1]). We find that our central value is actually $\approx 70\%$ of the incidence estimated for QSO sightlines, but this difference is not significant. Therefore, we consider an overabundance of weak systems in GRB sightlines compared with that from QSOs to be very unlikely.
On the other hand, in the SIS we recover the result obtained by P06 for systems with $W_r^{2796} \ge 1$ Å, although we find an overabundance of a factor of 3 only, instead of 4, when comparing with the QSO results by @nestor05. Because our redshift path is only two thirds that of P06, the significance of the result is reduced from $99.9\%$ to $\approx 95.5\%$. Nonetheless, the fact that we have added new lines-of-sight argues that the GRB/QSO discrepancy is real, and possibly not due to statistical uncertainties nor a posteriori subtleties. However, note that both surveys have 5 spectra in common and are therefore not completely independent.
Finally, let us emphasize that there seems to be a transition at $W_r^{2796} \ge 1$ Å, as we see no significant GRB/QSO differences for intermediate EW values ($0.3$ Å $ \le W_r^{2796} < 1$ Å). This is more clearly seen in Figure \[wdist\], which shows the EW distribution in our GRB sample compared with previous parameterizations obtained from QSO samples [@nestor05; @steidel92].
Discussion and Implications {#discuss}
===========================
The fact that we do not find any discrepancy between the statistics of QSO and GRB weak systems opens the question as of why there is an overabundance of systems only for $W_r^{2796} > 1$ Å systems in front of GRBs. Although the extant sample of afterglow spectra is still small, our result suggests that any explanation for the GRB/QSO discrepancy, be it intrinsic to the absorbers or a selection effect, should be inherent only to the galaxies that host strong absorbers in the line of sight to GRBs. In the following we discuss how the different models proposed to explain the P06 result may or may not be reinforced in light of our new results on weak systems.
#### Absorbers Intrinsic to the GRBs
The present high-resolution spectra seem to rule out an intrinsic origin of the systems for two reasons. First, the line profiles, as seen at high spectral resolution, show no indication of broad and shallow absorption troughs, characteristic of BAL QSOs[^2]. Secondly, if some of the systems were intrinsic to the GRB, we would expect an overabundance also for the $W_r < 1$ Å systems, which we do not observe [indeed, an overabundance of strong would be expected too, and that is also not observed; @tejos07].
#### GRB and QSO Beam Sizes
The geometrical model proposed by @frank07 (based on different GRB and QSO beam sizes, both comparable to the absorber characteristic sizes) has been tested and ruled out by subsequent observational analysis [@pontzen07]. Furthermore, initial claims of line-strength variability from @hao07 in a single sightline (GRB060206) have been refuted [@thone08; @aoki08]. Nevertheless, we will consider this model in light of our new observations.
A consequence of the geometrical model [see @porciani07] is that a fraction of weak systems in QSO spectra should have $DR \approx
1$. From the N07 sample we find this fraction to be $\approx 5\%$. Due to the smaller GRB beam sizes, the same fraction in GRB spectra is expected to be lower than this value. In contrast, we find that 2 out of 5 systems with $W_r^{2796} < 0.3$ Å show $DR\approx1$ (note that taking larger EW values would include saturated lines). Thus, this number, though not significant, does not support the geometrical model.
In addition, the model also predicts an underabundance of weak systems. This is suggested by our data for $W_r^{2796} < 0.3$ Åsystems, but the $dN/dz$ values are consistent at the $1\sigma$ confidence level.
#### Dust
As discussed in P06 and @porciani07, the apparent high incidence of strong absorbers toward GRBs might be explained by an underestimated incidence of strong systems toward QSOs, as a consequence of sources that get lost due to dust obscuration. Although there is mounting counterevidence for a dust bias in QSO surveys [@ellison01; @ellison09; @menard08], from the point of view of the GRBs data alone our result on [*weak*]{} absorbers, a priori does not rule out the dust-obscuration scenario, at least qualitatively. This is so because dust is supposed not to have a considerable obscuring effect when $W_r<1$ Å [@menard08].
On the other hand, a scenario where dust reduces the incidence of strong systems only in QSO sightlines is puzzling. In this scenario, the GRBs provide the unbiased (i.e., ’real’) EW distribution but the observed EW distribution for GRBs is atypical (see Figure \[wdist\]) when compared against any other line surveyed along QSO or GRB sightlines [e.g., , Ly$\alpha$; @paschos08]. It seems that there is a transition at $W_r^{2796} \ge 1$ Å where the EW distribution does not decrease as it would be expected. Therefore, in view of our new results, we conclude that dust is unlikely to explain the differences between toward QSO and GRB sightlines.
#### Gravitational Lensing
Source amplification due to strong gravitational lensing may bias the GRB spectral samples toward targets that contain more intervening absorbers, if these occur in the lensing galaxies [P06; @porciani07]. Our spectral sample does not offer a direct means to infer what kind of systems may be associated to galaxy configurations being more or less lensing-efficient. Obviously, further deep late-time imaging observations of GRB fields [e.g., @chen09] must be carried out in order to identify the absorbing galaxies and possibly look for impact-parameter/line-strength correlations.
Nevertheless, if we speculate that the strong absorber overdensity is purely explained by a selection effect due to lensing magnification, our results can help us estimate the fraction $f_l$ of magnified GRBs that otherwise would not have been spectroscopically observed. To estimate $f_l$, let us consider a survey composed by $M$ QSO sightlines. Then, the expected number of absorption systems will be:
$$N_{QSO} = \frac{dN}{dz}_{QSO} \langle \Delta z \rangle M \ {\rm,}$$
where $\langle \Delta z \rangle$ is the average redshift path per sightline and $dN/dz|_{QSO}$ is the expected incidence of systems (assumed unbiased; a quantitative detail of a possible lensing bias in QSO surveys is beyond the scope of this paper).
Let us now consider an equivalent GRB survey with $M$ sightlines. If the observed number of absorption systems, $N_{GRB}$, is a factor of $e$ greater than $N_{QSO}$, then the excess of systems will be $N_{e}
= N_{QSO} (e - 1)$. Let $L$ be the total number of lensed sightlines in that GRB survey. The fraction of magnified GRBs is then:
$$f_l \equiv \frac{L}{M} \ {\rm.}$$
If we assume that the excess of systems is just due to lensing (either macro or microlensing[^3]), then any extra system corresponds to a lensed sightline:
$$L = N_{e} \ {\rm,}$$
and therefore:
$$f_l = (e-1) \frac{dN}{dz}_{QSO} \langle \Delta z \rangle \
{\rm.}$$
Thus, in order to reproduce the factor of $\approx 3$ enhancement that is observed at this EW level, we estimate that $f_l$ must be of the order of $\approx 60\%$ ($e \approx 3$, $dN/dz|_{QSO} \approx 0.3$ and $\langle \Delta z \rangle \approx 1$). Such a fraction would add twice as many strong systems as encountered if there were no lensing[^4]. Similarly, an enhancement factor of $\approx 2$ (still consistent with our result at the 1$\sigma$ c.l.) would require $f_l \approx 30\%$. Since more realistically $L \le N_e$, this estimate of $f_l$ should be taken as an upper limit. Note that we do not provide here a quantitative assessment of the lensing magnification but instead we assume that it is large enough to provide $f_l > 0$. In fact, in the above situation our results would imply that the lensing agents contribute only systems with $W_r \ge 1$ Å(where $e>1$; note that this could be easily explained if weak absorbers were indeed more external to galaxies, as proposed by N07 among others). In summary, we believe that lensing by the galaxies hosting strong absorbers provides a viable explanation to the QSO/GRB discrepancy [see also @vergani09].
A test of the lensing hypothesis could be made with very rapid and deep spectroscopy of ’dark’ bursts [e.g., @perley09], for which [$dN/dz|_{\rm GRB}$]{} should show no enhancement. In addition, as mentioned above, another test of this bias is that there should be more massive (and more luminous) intervening galaxies at low impact parameters in sightlines where the EW is larger.
Summary
=======
We have used echelle spectra of 8 GRB afterglows, three of them new, to show that the incidence of weak systems ($0.07$ Å $ \le
W_r^{{\rm MgII}} <1$ Å) is the same as toward QSO lines of sight. There seems to be a transition at $W_r \approx 1$ Å, above which [$dN/dz|_{\rm GRB}$]{} rises significatively to a factor of a few with respect to [$dN/dz|_{\rm QSO}$]{}, as found by P06. In view of the present results on weak absorbers, we suggest that the GRB/QSO discrepancy should arise in the galaxies that host the strong absorbers. Effects associated to the GRB phenomenon like ejected absorbers or different beam-sizes are not supported by the data presented here nor a selection effect due to dusty absorbers. Instead, of all effects proposed in the literature, a bias toward sources amplified by lensing seems to be in best agreement with our findings.
This paper includes data obtained through the Gamma-ray Bursts Afterglows as Probes (GRAASP) Collaboration (http://www.graasp.org) from the following observatories: the W. M. Keck Observatory, which is a joint facility of the University of California, CIT, and NASA, and the 6.5 m Magellan Telescopes located at Las Campanas Observatory, Chile. This paper also includes data based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the Paranal Observatories under programs 070.A-0599(B), 075.A-0603(B) and 077.D-0661(A). SL and NT are partly supported by the Chilean [*Centro de Astrofísica*]{} FONDAP No. 15010003, and by FONDECYT grant N$^{\rm o}1060823$. JXP is partially supported by NASA/Swift grant NNG05GF55G and an NSF CAREER grant (AST-0548180).
Aoki, K., et al. 2008, arXiv:0808.4157
Bernstein, R., Shectman, S. A., Gunnels, S. M., Mochnacki, S., & Athey, A. E. 2003, , 4841, 1694
Chen, H.-W., Prochaska, J. X., Bloom, J. S., & Thompson, I. B. 2005, , 634, L25
Chen, H.-W., et al. 2009, , 691, 152
Churchill, C. W., Rigby, J. R., Charlton, J. C., & Vogt, S. S. 1999, , 120, 51
Churchill, C. 2008, QSO Absorption Lines Studies: Ultraviolet and Optical Spectroscopy
Cucchiara, A., Jones, T., Charlton, J. C., Fox, D. B., Einsig, D., & Narayanan, A. 2008, arXiv:0811.1382
Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., Kaufer, A., Delabre, B., & Kotzlowski, H. 2000, , 4008, 534
Ellison, S. L., Yan, L., Hook, I. M., Pettini, M., Wall, J. V., & Shaver, P. 2001, , 379, 393
Ellison, S. L., & Lopez, S. 2009, arXiv:0904.3330
Fiore, F., et al. 2005, , 624, 853
Frank, S., Bentz, M. C., Stanek, K. Z., Mathur, S., Dietrich, M., Peterson, B. M., & Atlee, D. W.2007, , 312, 325
Gehrels, N. 1986, , 303, 336
Hao, H., et al. 2007, , 659, L99
Kann, D. A., Klose, S., & Zeh, A. 2006, , 641, 993
Ledoux, C., Vreeswijk, P., Smette, A., Jaunsen, A., & Kaufer, A. 2006, GRB Coordinates Network, 5237, 1
M[é]{}nard, B., Nestor, D., Turnshek, D., Quider, A., Richards, G., Chelouche, D., & Rao, S.2008, , 385, 1053
Milutinovi[ć]{}, N., Rigby, J. R., Masiero, J. R., Lynch, R. S., Palma, C., & Charlton, J. C. 2006, , 641, 190
Narayanan, A., Misawa, T., Charlton, J. C., & Kim, T.-S. 2007, , 660, 1093 (N07)
Nestor, D. B., Turnshek, D. A., & Rao, S. M. 2005, , 628, 637
Olivares, F., Kruehler, T., Greiner, J., & Filgas, R. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9215
Page, K. L., et al. 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8080, 1
Paschos, P., Jena, T., Tytler, D., Kirkman, D., & Norman, M. L. 2008, arXiv:0802.3730
Perley, D. A., et al. 2009, arXiv:0905.0001
Piranomonte, S., D’Elia, V., Ward, P., Fiore, F., & Meurs, E. J. A. 2006, Nuovo Cimento B Serie, 121, 1561
, L. K., [Chen]{}, H. ., [Prochaska]{}, J. X., & [Bloom]{}, J. S. 2009, ArXiv e-prints
Pontzen, A., Hewett, P., Carswell, R., & Wild, V. 2007, , 381, L99
Porciani, C., Viel, M., & Lilly, S. J. 2007, , 659, 218
Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2007, , 168, 231
, J. X., [Chen]{}, H.-W., [Dessauges-Zavadsky]{}, M., & [Bloom]{}, J. S. 2007, , 666, 267
Prochaska, J. X., Perley, D., Howard, A., Chen, H.-W., Marcy, G., Fischer, D., & Wilburn, C. 2008, GRB Coordinates Network, 8083
Prochter, G. E., et al.2006, , 648, L93 (P06)
, S. 2006, New Journal of Physics, 8, 195
Steidel, C. C., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1992, , 80, 1
Sudilovsky, V., Savaglio, S., Vreeswijk, P., Ledoux, C., Smette, A., & Greiner, J.2007, , 669, 741
Sudilovsky, V., Smith, D., & Savaglio, S. 2009, arXiv:0904.3227
Tanvir N., et al. 2009, GRB Coordinates Network, 9219
Tejos, N., Lopez, S., Prochaska, J. X., Chen, H.-W., & Dessauges-Zavadsky, M. 2007, , 671, 622
Th[ö]{}ne, C. C., et al. 2008, , 489, 37
Vergani, S. D., Petitjean, P., Ledoux, C., Vreeswijk, P., Smette, A., & Meurs, E. J. A. 2009, , 503, 771
, P. M., [et al.]{} 2004, , 419, 927
Vogt, S. S., et al. 1994, , 2198, 362
Wolfe, A. M., Turnshek, D. A., Smith, H. E., & Cohen, R. D. 1986, , 61, 249
[^1]: The slightly different redshift coverage between the N07 data and ours makes no significant difference in this comparison.
[^2]: However, we note that very shallow systems would not, in most cases, be detected in our GRB spectral sample.
[^3]: The optical depth for microlensing increases at low impact parameters from galaxies (the surface density of stars and MACHOs is greater in the center than in the outskirts of galaxies) therefore it should also contribute to the excess of strong systems [see also @porciani07].
[^4]: Note that this argument becomes unrealistic for a factor of $\approx 4$ enhancement, for which $f_l$ would approach $\approx 100\%$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- |
Ratnesh Madaan$^{1}$ [email protected]\
Nicholas Gyde$^{1}$ [email protected]\
Sai Vemprala$^{1}$ [email protected]\
Matthew Brown$^{1}$ [email protected]\
Keiko Nagami$^{2}$ [email protected]\
Tim Taubner$^{2,3}$ [email protected]\
Eric Cristofalo$^{2}$ [email protected]\
Davide Scaramuzza$^{3}$ [email protected]\
Mac Schwager$^{2}$ [email protected]\
Ashish Kapoor$^{1}$ [email protected]\
$^{1}$ Microsoft, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052\
$^{2}$ Multi-Robot Systems Lab, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University\
Durand Building, 496 Lomita Mall, Stanford, CA 94305\
$^{3}$ Robotics and Perception Group, Depts. of Informatics and Neuroinformatics, University of Zurich and ETH, Andreasstrasse 15, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: AirSim Drone Racing Lab
---
Drone Racing, UAV, Robotics, Planning, Perception, Machine Learning
0.2in
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of estimating the unobserved amount of photovoltaic (PV) generation and demand in a power distribution network starting from measurements of the aggregated power flow at the point of common coupling (PCC) and local global horizontal irradiance (GHI). The estimation principle relies on modeling the PV generation as a function of the measured GHI, enabling the identification of PV production patterns in the aggregated power flow measurements. Four estimation algorithms are proposed: the first assumes that variability in the aggregated PV generation is given by variations of PV generation, the next two use a model of the demand to improve estimation performance, and the fourth assumes that, in a certain frequency range, the aggregated power flow is dominated by PV generation dynamics. These algorithms leverage irradiance transposition models to explore several azimuth/tilt configurations and explain PV generation patterns from multiple plants with non-uniform installation characteristics. Their estimation performance is compared and validated with measurements from a real-life setup including 4 houses with rooftop PV installations and battery systems for PV self-consumption.'
author:
- 'Fabrizio Sossan, Lorenzo Nespoli, Vasco Medici, and Mario Paolone, [^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio\_fab.bib'
title: Unsupervised Disaggregation of PhotoVoltaic Production from Composite Power Flow Measurements of Heterogeneous Prosumers
---
PV generation, Demand, Disaggregation, Optimization problems, Algorithms, Unsupervised learning.
Nomenclature and Acronyms {#nomenclature-and-acronyms .unnumbered}
=========================
Photovoltaic.
Global Horizontal Irradiance.
Global Normal Irradiance.
Normalized Root Mean Square Error.
Point of Common Coupling.
Maximum Power Point Tracking.
Discrete time index.
Active power flow at the PCC at time interval $k$.
GHI observation at time $k$.
Index for panel tilt/azimuth configuration.
Estimated GNI corrected for temperature for configuration $j$ at time $k$.
Estimated PV production at time interval $k$.
Estimated demand at time interval $k$.
PV nominal capacity at configuration $j$.
Introduction
============
Incresed levels of distributed photovoltaic (PV) generation determine higher reserve requirements at the system level and violations of voltage and line ampacity constraints in distribution systems during peak production hours [@5625442; @7593314]. Technical solutions envisaged to mitigate PV generation drawbacks are curtailment strategies, control of converters active/reactive power, PV self-consumption schemes and dispatch of local power flows according to network-safe power consumption trajectories (e.g. [@7014236; @6708466; @vanhoudt2014actively; @FASO_ISGT2013; @luthander2015photovoltaic; @7569022; @7736082; @7572208; @7542590]). A requirement for the implementation of those strategies is the availability of real-time production measurements from PV facilities. Incidentally, these are also useful to train data-driven prediction models (e.g. [@7570246; @7372485]). However, such a precondition is not always met in real-life conditions because installations are not always monitored, and, even when they are, factors such as *i)* privacy concerns, *ii)* conflicts due to the different owners of the metering infrastructures, and *iii)* lack of standards for monitoring and aggregation of measurements, and their communication, play against the possibility of collecting real-time PV production measurements.
As an alternative to direct monitoring of PV systems, we consider in this paper the problem of disaggregating PV generation from the aggregated active power measurements of a group of prosumers. The estimation principle relies on modelling PV generation as a function of the global horizontal irradiance (GHI), assumed known from local measurements. Four estimation algorithms are proposed and compared: the first assumes that the variability in the aggregated power flow measurements are mostly given by variations of the PV generation, the second and third leverage a model of the demand to improve estimation performance, and the fourth assumes that there is a certain frequency range in which the aggregated power flow measurement is dominated by PV generation components. All four algorithms use a transposition model to project GHI into a number of pre-defined differently oriented tilted planes to explain production from sites with different configurations. The algorithms are designed to be unsupervised, i.e., they do not require measurements of the PV power profiles to be trained. The algorithms are tested with measurements from a real-life setup of four houses with monitored rooftop PV plants and grid-connected battery systems, enabling the testing of estimation performance even when the demand is correlated with PV generation.
Even if in the existing literature the problem of disaggregation has been extensively investigated for nonintrusive load monitoring (e.g., [@kolter2010energy; @kim2011unsupervised]), its application to PV disaggregation was considered in [@DBLP:journals/corr/KaraRTACS16], which develops estimators of the total PV generation using the active power profile of a nearby installation and GHI proxy measurements as explanatory signals. With respect to [@DBLP:journals/corr/KaraRTACS16], we leverage PV transposition models to identify PV production patterns from installations with different tilt/azimuth configurations, a key factor in urban contexts where PV generation is from rooftop PV plants and tilt and azimuth configurations are dictated by roofs characteristics and might not be uniform.
The paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:problem\] states the problem, \[sec:algs\] presents the disaggregation algorithms, \[sec:casestudy\] discusses procedures and measurements for validation, \[sec:results\] presents and discusses performance, \[sec:conclusions\] summarizes key results and contributions.
Notation and Problem Statement {#sec:problem}
==============================
Configuration of the system
---------------------------
We consider a feeder with distributed PV production, possibly from installations with different tilt and azimuth, and demand (e.g., Fig. \[fig:setup\]). The power injections at the single buses are not measured, however the total prosumption (PV generation + demand) is known thanks to sensing the active power flow[^3] at the point of common coupling (PCC). Local GHI values are from a pyranometer (although other methods could be considered, e.g. leveraging information available from nearby monitored PV installations [@scolari2017estimation]). We do the modeling assumption that the PV installations in the area are subject to the same GHI. Local GHI measurements are known to be accurate in a range of 50 meters[@pelland2013photovoltaic]. Therefore, the proposed algorithms are expected to perform adequately when PV plants are spread over a small area, and their performance to decrease when considering larger areas. Due to the small size of the networks that these methods target, grid transmission losses are neglected at this stage due to the short length of the cables.
![A network topology with unmonitored demand and PV generation from multiple production sites with different azimuth/tilt configurations. The active power flow at the PCC and GHI are known from measurements. The problem is estimating the raw PV generation.[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](fig/FIG1_TII-17-2140.jpg){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Notation
--------
The active power flow measured at the PCC at the discrete time interval $k$ is denoted as $P_k$ (). Positive flows denote consumption and vice-versa (i.e., passive sign notation). GHI measurements are denoted by $\mathcal{I}^{\text{\----}}_k$ in , while $I^{\diagdown}_{jk}$ () denotes the estimated global normal irradiance (GNI) to a certain tilted plane $j$ corrected for temperature (as described in \[sec:temperature\]), where $j=1,\dots,J$ denotes the plane tilt/azimuth configuration. We consider $J=21$ tilted planes with tilt and azimuth values equally spaced on a south-facing semi-sphere, chosen to have a reasonably representative set of potential configurations of PV installations in the northern hemisphere. GNI estimations are from the Hay-Davies transposition model [@hay1980calculation; @maxwell1987quasi]. The quantity $\widehat{G}_k$ and $\widehat{L}_k$ () respectively denote the estimated PV production and estimated demand, which are to be determined. A practical example of the disaggregation process is described in the following paragraph.
Problem statement {#sec:problemstatement}
-----------------
The problem is estimating the trajectories of the demand and total PV generation from measurements of the active power flow at the PCC and local GHI observations. This is exemplified in Fig. \[fig:ex\]a (night time observations are omitted) which shows the inputs, intermediate results and outputs of one among the proposed algorithms. The inputs are the aggregated power flow $P_k$ at the PCC (top panel) and GHI (middle panel, solid fill). The middle panel plot in Fig. \[fig:ex\]b also shows the GNI trajectories $I^{\diagdown}_{jk}$, used to explore the potential PV production from plants with various tilt/azimuth configurations, as typical in urban feeders where panels are installed according to roof characteristics. Finally, the lower panel plot in Fig. \[fig:ex\]c shows the output of one of the proposed algorithms[^4], with the estimated demand and estimated PV generation (orange line), the latter close to the measured ground truth PV generation (solid gray fill).
\[!h\] ![Input, intermediate results and output of the proposed disaggregation algorithms (night hours not shown).[]{data-label="fig:ex"}](fig/FIG2_TII-17-2140.jpg "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}
Disaggregation Algorithms {#sec:algs}
=========================
The estimated global PV generation $\widehat{G}_k$ at the PCC is modelled as the sum over all the tilt/azimuth configurations $j=1,\cdots,J$ of the transposed irradiance $I^{\diagdown}_{jk}$ times $J$ nonnegative coefficients $\alpha_j \in \mathbf{R}_+$: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{G}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \alpha_j \cdot I^{\diagdown}_{jk}, && k=1\dots,K, \label{eq:pvgeneration}\end{aligned}$$ where $\boldsymbol\alpha = \{\alpha_j, j = 1,\cdots, J\} \in \mathbf{R}^J_+$ denotes the set of $\alpha_j$. Physically, $\alpha_j$ is the PV generation capacity installed at configuration $j$. It is measured in kWp, kilowatt peak, and denotes the amount of power produced in standard test conditions (STC, GNI at ). The temperature effect on the PV conversion efficiency is accounted for by preprocessing the input GNI time series as described in Section \[sec:temperature\]. By modelling the PV generation as in , we assume that PV plants operate in the *maximum power point tracking* (MPPT) mode; in case the output of a PV plant is controlled (i.e. curtailed), it is likely to be monitored and its contribution can be removed from the aggregated power flow, still allowing to apply the algorithms. Partial shading effects is not explicitly modeled, even if, as discussed in the following, some of the proposed methods are robust against it.
As detailed in the following, the proposed disaggregation algorithms estimate $\alpha$ (thus PV generation $\widehat{G}_k$) and require a training phase. Four algorithms, denoted as Method A, B, C and D, are discussed. They attempt to estimate PV generation by exploiting different modeling principles inspired by the following empirical considerations:
- variations of PV generation dominate the variations of the power flow at the PPC. Method A estimates PV generation by seeking for a trajectory with variations as close as possible to those observed at the PCC. The drawback is that variations are also due to demand changes (e.g. load inrushes);
- the power flow at the PCC is modelled as the sum between PV generation and demand, where the latter is described by using a load model. Method B and Method C exploit two different load models, as explained later;
- in a certain frequency range, the dynamics of the power flow at the PCC are dominated by those of PV generation. Method D exploits the fact that demand and PV generation have different time dynamics: filtering the power flow measurements at the PCC makes possible to estimated the PV generation.
The validity of these empirical modelling considerations are tested in the results section by assessing and comparing the algorithms performance.
Method A
--------
The unknowns $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ are determined by assuming that the variability in the observed aggregated power flow are due to variations of the aggregated PV power. This is modeled by minimizing the norm-1 of the difference between the once differentiated time series $P_k$ and $\widehat{G}_k$ while subject to the estimated total PV production model : $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o = {\underset{ \boldsymbol{\alpha} \in \mathbf{R}^{J}_+}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;}
\Bigg \{ \sum_{k=1}^{K} \bigg\vert & \left( P_{k} - P_{k-1} \right) + \\
- &\left(\widehat{G}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) - \widehat{G}_{k-1}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) \right) \bigg\vert \Bigg\} \label{eq:methodB:2}
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ subject to: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{G}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \alpha_j \cdot I^{\diagdown}_{jk}, && k=1\dots,K.\label{eq:methodB:3}\end{aligned}$$ The problem in - is linear, thus convex and tractable. The resolution of the input time series is a parameter of the Method A, and its importance is discussed in the performance assessment. Method A does not allow to model demand dynamics, e.g. load inrushes would be considered as variations of PV generation. The next two methods use a model of the demand to work around this limitation.
Method B
--------
Let $\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}} = [\widehat{L}_1, \dots, \widehat{L}_K]$ be the estimated demand trajectory. The estimated active power flow at the PCC $\widehat{P}_k$ is now written as: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{P}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}) = \widehat{L}_k - \widehat{G}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}), && k=1\dots,K, \label{eq:estimatedaggregated}\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the sum between the estimated total PV generation and demand, the former with negative sign because corresponding to generation. Method B attempts to determine $\widehat{L}_k$ and $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ by minimizing the norm-2 of the estimation error ${P}_k - \widehat{P}_k$. However, this problem is under-determined since the $K+J$ free variables are more than the number of observations $K$. Therefore, we augment the cost function and consider the sum of the least square and norm-1 of the once differentiated $\widehat{L}_k$ series (i.e., a combined linear regression and trend filtering problem, as for example in [@Kim2009] [@Li2015d]): $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}^o
\end{bmatrix} =
{\underset{
{\scriptsize
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\alpha} \in \mathbf{R}^{J}_+ \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}} \in \mathbf{R}^{K}_+
\end{bmatrix}}
}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;} \Bigg\{ & \sum_{k=1}^{K} \left ( P_k - \widehat{P}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}) \right )^2 + \\
+ \lambda & \sum_{k=1}^{K} \left\vert \widehat{L}_k - \widehat{L}_{k-1} \right\vert \Bigg\} \label{eq:methodB:0}
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ subject to: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{P}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}) = \widehat{L}_k - \sum_{j=1}^{J} \alpha_j \cdot I^{\diagdown}_{jk}, && k=1,\dots, K \label{eq:methodB:1}.\end{aligned}$$ The cost function is the sum of a vector norm-1 and a quadratic cost function and convex if the latter term is convex. As shown in Appendix A, the convexity of the quadratic term cannot depends on the input data and can be verified a-priori.
Method C
--------
In Method B, under-determination was solved by minimizing the norm-1 of the demand trajectory $\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}$. As an alternative, we apply here a piecewise constant model of the demand, i.e. we require the unknown sequence $\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}$ to be piecewise constant for $c$ consecutive samples, where $c$ is a parameter, by enforcing the following $c-1$ equality constraints: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{L}_{1} = \widehat{L}_{2} = \dots = \widehat{L}_{c},\end{aligned}$$ for the case of the first $c$ samples. Extending to the set of $K$ measurements ($K$ multiple of $c$) yields: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{L}_{c(i-1) + 1} = \dots = \widehat{L}_{c(i-1) + c} && i=1,\dots,K/c.\end{aligned}$$ Modelling the demand as piecewise constant is a reasonable assumption when the length of the constant segment does not overlap with typical intra-day dynamics of the demand, i.e. for small $c$ values and densely sampled series. In other words, it is reasonable when considering short periods of time (e.g., seconds), when the persistence model of the demand has unbeaten performance, see, e.g., [@hatziargyriou2014microgrids; @Piga2016]. When the demand has shorter variations than $c$ (e.g., load inrushes), the estimated demand will have the average value of the waveform and the residuals will be the estimation error. The sampling time and $c$ are design parameters: the sensitivity of the algorithm performance with respect to their values is assessed in Section \[sec:results\]. Method C consists in minimizing the norm-2 of the estimation error $P_k - \widehat{P}_k$ subject to the estimated aggregated power flow and piecewise constant demand models: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}^o
\end{bmatrix} =
{\underset{
\scriptsize \begin{bmatrix}
\boldsymbol{\alpha} \in \mathbf{R}^{J}_+ \\
\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}} \in \mathbf{R}^{K}_+
\end{bmatrix}
}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;} \left\{ \sum_{k=1}^{K} \left ( P_k - \widehat{P}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}) \right )^2 \right\} \label{eq:methodA:0}\end{aligned}$$ subject to: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{P}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}) = \widehat{L}_k - \sum_{j=1}^{J} \alpha_j \cdot I^{\diagdown}_{jk}, && k=1,\dots, K \label{eq:methodA:1} \\
& \widehat{L}_{c(i-1) + 1} = \dots = \widehat{L}_{c(i-1) + c} && i=1,\dots,K/c \label{eq:methodA:2},\end{aligned}$$ The additional constraints are linear and do not impact convexity, thus the same consideration as for Method B applies.
Method D
--------
Method D splits the observed active power flow at the PCC by exploiting similarities between the signals $P_k$ and $\widehat{G}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha})$ in a certain frequency range. This approach is motivated by having verified similarities in the spectral density of the measured aggregated power flow and measured PV generation (available from the test site) with the Welch’s periodogram method for coherence analysis [@Welch1967]. Method D initially filters the input GNI $I^{\diagdown}_{jk}$ and aggregated power flow $P_k$ with a sixth order Butterworth band-pass filter, where the low and high cut-off frequencies are parameters that reflect the frequency range where the aggregated power profile and PV generation are similar. They are free parameters and the sensitivity of the algorithm performance to their values is investigated in Section V. Let $\mathcal{P}_k$ and $\mathcal{I}^{\diagdown}_{jk}$ respectively denote the above mentioned filtered version of the sequence $P_k$ and transposed irradiance $I^{\diagdown}_{jk}$. The vector of unknowns $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o$ is computed by the following robust linear regression: $$\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o = {\underset{
\boldsymbol{\alpha} \in \mathbf{R}^{J}_+
}{\operatorname{arg}\,\operatorname{min}}\;}
\left\{ \sum_{k=1}^{K} \rho\left(\mathcal{P}_k - G_k\left(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\right)\right) \right\}\label{eq:D0}$$ subject to: $$\begin{aligned}
& \widehat{G}_k(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \alpha_j \cdot \mathcal{I}^{\diagdown}_{jk}, && k=1\dots,K. \label{eq:D1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho(\cdot)$ is the bisquare loss function, see [@Holland1977], a nonconvex relantionship which gives less weight to extreme values in the cost function to be robust against outliers. The problem - is solved by applying an iterative least square approach with guaranteed covergence [@Huber2009].
Temperature correction {#sec:temperature}
----------------------
To account for the dependency between PV conversion efficiency and temperature, GNI values are corrected to reflect temperature variations from the reference value $T_{\text{ref}}$ () by using the empirical model proposed in [@kratochvil2004photovoltaic]: $$\begin{aligned}
I^{\diagdown}_{jk} = \mathcal{I}^{\diagdown}_{jk} \left[1 + \gamma(T_{\text{cell},k}-T_{\text{ref}}) \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{I}^{\diagdown}_{jk}$ is the original irradiance value, and $T_{\text{cell},k}$ the cell temperature at time $k$, estimated as[@kratochvil2004photovoltaic]$$\begin{aligned}
T_{cell,k} = T_\text{air} +\beta \mathcal{I}^{\diagdown}_{jk},\end{aligned}$$ where $T_\text{air}$ is the air temperature, assumed known from local measurements, and $\beta=\SI{3.78 e-2}{}$ and $\gamma=\SI{-4.3e-3}{}$ are empirical and plant specific values here assigned considering typical average values[^5].
Methods for performance evaluation {#sec:casestudy}
==================================
The performance assessment of the disaggregation algorithms is performed by evaluating their ability to reconstruct the PV generation time series starting from the measurements of the power flow at the PCC and GHI. Let $e_k = G_k - \widehat{G}_k$ ($G_k$ and $\widehat{G}_k$ are the PV generation ground-truth value and estimation, respectively) be the estimation error. The performance metrics are: normalized root mean square of the estimation error (nRMSE) $\left(\frac{1}{G}\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K e_k^2\right)^{1/2}$, normalized mean absolute error (nMAE) $\frac{1}{G}\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K |e_k|$, and normalized mean error (nME) $\frac{1}{G}\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^K e_k$, where $G$ is the total installed PV capacity (35.3 kWp) and $K$ is the samples number in the testing data set.
Data sets for training and testing
----------------------------------
Time series are GHI, power flow at the PCC and PV generation measurements for 1 year from the real-life test facility described in the next paragraph. The first 2 are used for the training, while the last as the ground truth value to test the estimation performance. To preserve daily dynamics of the signals, time series are divided into daily sequences, then randomly shuffled to avoid to train and test the algorithms on different periods of the year. The series time resolutions are 10, 30, 60, 120, 300, 600 and 900 sec (downsampling by samples average) and are to assess algorithms performance with respect to sampling time. Selected resolutions include those normally implemented in existing metering systems, e.g., 900 s is the resolution of smart meters in Switzerland and Italy. Here, the intent is to verify whether such a sampling time is enough for the proposed application, or if performance would benefit from more densely sampled data. Each of the 7 datasets at different resolution is further split into 3 sub-sequences to perform a three-fold cross-validation, i.e., for each resolution, the algorithms are trained on the first fold and tested on the remaining 2; the process is repeated for all the 7 datasets, each time testing the algorithms on the part of the data which is not used for the training. In total, each algorithm is trained and tested 3 times for each resolution, for a total of 21 training and test runs. Measurements refer to days with a uniform mix of sky conditions: partly cloudy, clear sky and overcast. Algorithms performance is tested both when there are batteries performing PV self-consumption and when not, thus allowing to account for the case when the demand is correlated with PV generation.
Experimental Setup
------------------
Measurements are from a real-life setup in the region of Basel, Switzerland, with 4 private households, each equipped with a rooftop PV installation with different characteristics, as reported in Table \[tab:PVsites\]. PV converters operate in MPPT mode at unitary power factor. The total PV installed capacity is 35.3 kWp and the peak demand is 12 kWp. The households are also equipped with grid-connected battery systems with bidirectional power converter to implement PV energy self-consumption policies (actuated at 5 minutes resolution). Batteries specifications are summarized in Table \[tab:PVsites\]. Battery injections are monitored. They are removed from the power flow at the PCC by algebraic difference, such that, in the following analysis, it is possible to consider two cases: with and without battery action (self consumption).
[| C[0.5cm]{} | C[0.8cm]{} | c | C[0.7cm]{} | C[1.0cm]{} | C[1.2cm]{} |]{} House ID & PV capacity (kWh) & Azimuth & Tilt () & Distance from House 1 (m) & Battery rating (kVA/kWh)\
1 & 10.0 & 95 & 14 & 0 & 3/8.8\
2(a) & 7.2 & 187 & 36 & 100 & 3/4.4\
2(b) & 3.5 & 266 & 40 & 100 & –\
3 & 8.0 & 187 & 40 & 260 & 3/8.8\
4 & 6.6 & 180 & 24 & 170 & 3/4.4\
#### PV and power flow measurements
The power flow at the PCC is the sum of the four households flows, measured synchronously at 10 s resolution. Similarly, the global PV production (used as the ground truth value to validate the estimation performance of the algorithms) is the sum of the single PV facilities power injections, measured at the converter level.
#### Global horizontal irradiance measurements
GHI measurements are from a pyranometer installed on the roof of the household ID1. The line distance of the remaining households from the GHI observation point is shown in the second to last column of Table \[tab:PVsites\]. All the measurements are synchronized and timestamped, and logged in a time series database.
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
For a visual exemplification of the disaggregation process, the reader is referred to Section \[sec:problemstatement\] and Fig. \[fig:ex\]. In this section, we first assess the performance of the proposed methods individually. In \[sec:results:comparison\], we perform a joint performance assessment to compare the quality of the estimations of the different algorithms and support the assertion that they can be considered unsupervised. Key results are discussed and summarized in \[sec:disc\]. In \[sec:lowerpv\], the algorithms are tested in scenarios with a lower penetration of PV generation to verify if less prominent patterns of PV generation are detrimental to estimation performance. Finally in \[sec:computational\], we discuss the computational performance.
Method A
--------
The estimation nRMSE as a function of the only parameter of Method A (i.e. sampling time) with and without PV self-consumption is shown in Fig. \[fig:day0\_ab\]. With no self-consumption, the nRMSE stabilizes at around 2 kW for sampling times larger than 200 s; with self-consumption, performance is poorer and is best at around 150 s. In both cases, estimation performance when the input time series is densely sampled (large sampling time) is poor.
\[!h\] ![Method A nRMSE as a function of the input time series sampling time.[]{data-label="fig:day0_ab"}](fig/FIG3_TII-17-2140.pdf "fig:"){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Method B {#sec:results:B}
--------
On top of the series sampling time, Method B has a smoothing parameter $\lambda$ in to weight the demand time variations $\widehat{L}_k - \widehat{L}_{k-1}$ in the cost function. Performance as a function of the two parameters is shown in Fig. \[fig:methodB\]. With self-consumption, best performance happens in the middle right region of the parameter space. This region is larger in the case without self-consumption. Performance degradation patterns do not have a well identifiable trend.
Method C {#sec:results:C}
--------
The parameters of Method C are input time series sampling time and piecewise constant segment length $c$ (in number of samples). Their influence on the nRMSE is shown in Fig. \[fig:methodC\]. Estimation performance decreases when moving away from the axis origin, denoting that using densely sampled input time series and small $c$ values (the best performance is with 20 s resolution) are convenient. As mentioned in the formulation stage, this is to be expected because the choice of the two parameters affects the constant segment length of the demand piecewise constant model (i.e., the shorter it is, the better performance the persistence model has). Estimation performance is worse with self-consumption (a numerical quantification is given in the next paragraph). Contour lines of Fig. \[fig:methodC\] denote that the performance degradation follows the same pattern when with and without self-consumption. Thus, even if estimation performance is different in the two cases, the optimal values of the parameters lay in the same parameters space area.
Method D {#sec:results:D}
--------
Method D parameters are the lower and upper cut-off frequencies of the bandpass filter, and a tuning constant of the bisquare loss function $\rho(\cdot)$. The last was found not to impact substantially on the algorithm performance and is therefore excluded from the current analysis. The sensitivity of algorithm performance to upper and lower cut-off frequencies is shown in Fig. \[fig:methodD\]. Best performance happens in a well identifiable region in the lower left part of the parameter space, which however tend to shrink in the case with self-consumption.
\[!h\]
Joint Performance Comparison {#sec:results:comparison}
----------------------------
The *min, max, mean, and median* statistics of the estimation nRMSE, nMAE and nME of the 4 algorithms are reported in Table \[tab:RMSE\]. For each algorithm, the reported statistics are calculated over all the combinations of the considered parameters values. They are to be interpreted in the following way:
- *min*: performance to be expected assuming to know a-priori the best performing set of parameters.
- *max*: performance to be expected when choosing the worst possible combination of parameters.
- *mean*: performance to be expected when choosing a random combination in the parameters space.
- *median*: to evaluate performance distribution skewness.
Table \[tab:RMSE\] shows that all the methods perform poorer under self-consumption regimes (e.g. mean nRMSE 4.6 to 5.6% and 5.3 to 7% for Method D and Method C, respectively), in other words when the demand includes a component anti-correlated with PV generation. In terms of *mean* and *median* statistics, Method D scores the best metrics, followed by C, B and A. In terms of *min* value, Method C outperforms the other, except for for the cases nMAE and nRMSE without self-consumption, where Method B is better, and nME with self-consumption, where Method D is the absolute best for all the metrics.
[| C[1.1cm]{} | C[1.1cm]{} | C[1.1cm]{} | C[1.1cm]{} | C[1.1cm]{} |]{} **Statistic & **A & **B & **C & **D\
\
min & 5.22 & 5.2 & **[4.0]{} & 4.3\
max & 20.6 & 17.8 & 10.4 & **[8.2]{}\
mean & 9.7 & 9.2 & 7.0 & **[5.5]{}\
median & 8.4 & 8.4 & 7.0 & **[5.4]{}\
\
min & 3.5 & 4.4 & **[3.4]{} & 4.1\
max & 17.9 & 17.7 & 9.5 & **[8.8]{}\
mean & 6.6 & 7.62 & 5.3 & **[4.6]{}\
median & 4.6 & 4.8 & 4.7 & **[4.4]{}\
\
min & 3.3 & 3.3 & **[2.5]{} & 2.7\
max & 14.0 & 11.8 & 8.5 & **[5.1]{}\
mean & 6.2 & 5.9 & 4.7 & **[3.4]{}\
median & 5.3 & 5.3 & 4.4 & **[3.4]{}\
\
min & **[2.2]{} & 2.8 & 2.3 & 2.5\
max & 12.1 & 11.8 & **[5.4]{} & 5.6\
mean & 4.3 & 4.9 & 3.2 & **[2.9]{}\
median & 3.0 & 3.0 & 3.0 & **[2.7]{}\
\
min & -13.9 & -11.7 & -8.1 & **[-4.3]{}\
max & **[-1.8]{} & -1.8 & 8 & 4.3\
mean & -5.7 & -5.2 & 2.3 & **[-1.0]{}\
median & -4.7 & -4.8 & -2.8 & **[-1.3]{}\
\
min & -11.9 & **[-1.2]{} & -4.8 & -5.0\
max & 1.9 & **[-1.1]{} & 4.6 & 4.0\
mean & -2.2 & -3.8 & 0.8 & **[0.5]{}\
median & -1.2 & -1.7 & -1.0 & **[0.2]{}\
**********************************************************
Discussion {#sec:disc}
----------
The previous results showed that the algorithms with the largest number of best scores is Method D, followed by C, B and A. If only sparsely sampled power flow observations are available (such as those from smart meters, typically at 15 minutes resolution), Method D should be selected because it keeps good performance even at low resolutions. If densely sampled observations are available, the performance of Method C and D are comparable. In this case, Method C has two advantages: *i*) parameters can be selected with an educated physical-based guess, *ii*) degradation patterns are the same for both with and without self-consumption.
When selecting the two best performing Methods (C and D), the mean nRMSE is 7% and 5.5% and nME is rather small, 0.5 and 0.8%. The latter metric is of importance because it denotes that estimators are almost unbiased, in other words, even if a single estimation in time is wrong, the estimated global PV production over a period is nearly correct.
It is worth noting that, in the proposed sensitivity analysis, PV measurements have been used to assess estimation performance. However, in practical applications when PV observations are not available, it is not possible to do so otherwise there would be no use for disaggregation algorithms. In case of Method C (min/max nRMSE in the range $4.0\div 13.6$%), parameters can be chosen with an educated guess in order to get closer to the best performance. As far as Method D is concerned, the min/max nRMSE gap is smaller ($4.2\div 9.6$%), and estimation performance is good over a wide area of the parameter space. In other words, although it is not possible to derive analytical criteria for performing an a-priori assignment of the parameters, empirical results showed that, in the proposed case, parameters can be chosen in a wide range of values without a sensible deterioration of the performance.
Extension to cases with lower PV generation levels {#sec:lowerpv}
--------------------------------------------------
In this section, the algorithms with the best performing parameters from the previous analysis are tested in scenarios with lower PV production capacity to verify how less prominent PV generation patterns are detrimental to their performance. In each scenario, synthetic time series of the power flow at the PCC are generated as the sum between the demand and a fraction of the original PV generation. Two additional scenarios are considered, with 50% and 25% of the original PV capacity (17.5 and 8.75 kW, respectively), which correspond to 146 and 76% PV penetration levels (i.e. installed PV capacity over the observed peak demand), respectively. Results are reported in Table \[tab:pvcur\]. Results show that lower PV penetration levels affects estimation performance of methods B and C (their performance worsens approximately by a factor 2 with a quarter of PV generation), whereas Method D is more robust and its performance is minimally affected.
[| C[1.9cm]{} | C[1.4cm]{} || C[0.6cm]{} | C[0.6cm]{} | C[0.6cm]{} | C[0.6cm]{} |]{} **Nominal PV Capacity (kWp) & **PV Penetration (%) & **A & **B & **C & **D\
35.3 & 294 & 5.2 & 5.2 & **4.0 & 4.3\
17.6 & 146 & 9.4 & 6.9 & 9.7 & **4.6\
8.8 & 73 & 18.7 & 10.4 & 11.8 & **5.2\
******************
Computational aspects {#sec:computational}
---------------------
In the disaggregation and estimation process, the only required real-time operation is the computation of , a cheap task which involves algebraic and trigonometric relationships. Computing $\boldsymbol{\alpha}^o$ is a training process without real-time requirements which can be executed off-line with historical data. The computational time is 183 s for Method A, 709 s for B, 103 s for C and 67 s for D.[^6]
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
The problem of disaggregating a sequence of active power flow measurements composed of unobserved PV generation and demand into the respective trajectories was considered. Four disaggregation algorithms were discussed. They attempt to explain similarities between the time series of the aggregated and estimated PV generation, three in the time domain and one in the frequency domain. Estimation algorithms leverage GHI measurements transposed onto a number of tilted planes with the objective of explaining PV production patterns from sites with potentially different configurations (a key feature in urban/suburban context where PV generation is mostly from rooftop PV facilities with tilt/azimuth configurations dictated by roof characteristics). The effect of the air temperature was modelled by preprocessing GHI values with a model-based approach. Algorithms require an offline optimization problem-based training phase with historical data. For three algorithms, the convexity of the underlying optimization problem, important to assure tractability, is verifiable a-priori by inspecting the input data. Reconstructing the PV power output requires computing on-line an algebraic relationship and is suitable for implementation with deterministic deadlines and low processing power, in real-time target devices. Algorithm performance was tested with data from a real-life setup, with PV generation from multiple sites with different configurations, different demand profiles, and battery systems for PV self-consumption. Results show that the best performing algorithms estimate PV generation with a root mean square and mean estimation errors in the ranges $3.4\div 8.8$% and $0.5\div 2.3$%, respectively, and that performance is minimally affected by the level of PV penetration in the prosumption mix. The practical utility of the proposed algorithms is envisaged in the context of power and energy management of distributed energy resources and data-driven PV generation forecasting in those situations where information from PV plants is not available due to issues such as privacy concerns or lack of adequate communication infrastructures.
On the convexity of Method B and C {#app:convexity}
==================================
We discuss on the convexity of the problem -. Let $\boldsymbol{P}=[P_1, P_2, \cdots, P_K]$, $\boldsymbol{I}^\diagdown_j=[I^{\diagdown}_{j, 1}, \cdots, I^{\diagdown}_{jK}],\ j=1,\dots,J$, $M \in \mathbf{R}^{K \times J}= \begin{pmatrix} \boldsymbol{I}^{\diagdown}_1, \boldsymbol{I}^{\diagdown}_2, \ldots, & \boldsymbol{I}^{\diagdown}_J \end{pmatrix}$ the matrix obtained by stacking horizontally the GNI columns. The estimated total PV production is (matrix product) $\widehat{\boldsymbol{G}} = M \boldsymbol{\alpha}$, which replaced into yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\boldsymbol{P}} = \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}} - M \boldsymbol{\alpha}
=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbb{1}_{K\times K }, & -M \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\widehat{\boldsymbol{L}} \\
\boldsymbol{\alpha}
\end{pmatrix}
= S \boldsymbol{x} \label{eq:aggregatedmodel_vector}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{1}$ is the $K\times K$ identity matrix, $S=\begin{pmatrix} \mathbb{1}_{K\times K }, -M \end{pmatrix} \in \mathbf{R}^{K\times (K+J)}$ and $x=( \widehat{\boldsymbol{L}}, \boldsymbol{\alpha} )^T$. The least square cost is: $$\begin{aligned}
J &= (\boldsymbol{P} - \widehat{\boldsymbol{P}})^T(\boldsymbol{P} - \widehat{\boldsymbol{P}}) = \boldsymbol{P}^T\boldsymbol{P} + \widehat{\boldsymbol{P}}^T\widehat{\boldsymbol{P}}
- 2{\boldsymbol{P}}^T\widehat{\boldsymbol{P}} \label{eq:Ja},\end{aligned}$$ Minimizing is the same as minimizing (minimization is invariant under sum with constants and scale factors): $$\begin{aligned}
J &= \widehat{\boldsymbol{P}}^T\widehat{\boldsymbol{P}} - 2{\boldsymbol{P}}^T\widehat{\boldsymbol{P}}= \left( S \boldsymbol{x} \right)^T S \boldsymbol{x} -
2 \boldsymbol{P}^T S \boldsymbol{x} = \\
&= \boldsymbol{x}^TS^TS\boldsymbol{x} - 2 \boldsymbol{P}^T S \boldsymbol{x}
= \frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{x}^TH\boldsymbol{x} - \boldsymbol{f}^T \boldsymbol{x}, \label{eq:quad_form0}\end{aligned}$$ where is used, $H = S^TS$ and $\boldsymbol{f} = S^T \boldsymbol{P}$. Eq. \[eq:quad\_form0\] is convex if $H$ is semidefinite positive. Since $H$ depends on input data, convexity cannot be enforced by construction, but it can be checked numerically. It was noted that adding a regularization term to the matrix quadratic matrix $H'=H + \beta\cdot\mathbb{1} $ ($\beta=\SI{1e-4}{}$) helps to achieve convexity while not impacting substantially on algorithms performance.
[Fabrizio Sossan]{} is an Italian citizen and was born in Genova in 1985. He got his M.Sc. in Computer Engineering from the University of Genova in 2010, and, in 2014, the Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from DTU, Denmark. Since 2015, he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Distributed Electrical Systems Laboratory at EPFL, Switzerland. In 2017, he has been a visiting scholar at NREL, Colorado, US. His main research interest are modeling and optimization applied to power system.
[Lorenzo Nespoli]{} received the M.Sc. degree in Energy Engineering from Politecnico di Milano in 2013. Since 2014 he works on thermodynamic simulations and electric grid optimization at SUPSI, as a scientific assistant. He is a Ph.D. candidate at the Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne at the IPESE department.
[Vasco Medici]{} received a M.Sc. in Micro-Engineering from the Ecole polytechnique federale de Lausanne and a Ph.D. from the Institute of Neuroinformatics at the University of Zurich and ETH. He actually leads the Intelligent Energy Systems Team at the Institute for Sustainability Applied to the Built Environment at SUPSI. He has experience in project management, system identification, algorithmics, modeling and simulation. He is the coordinator at SUPSI for the Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research on Future Swiss Electrical Infrastructure SCCER FURIES. His team runs a number of pilot projects in the field of smart grid, in close collaboration with industrial partners.
[Mario Paolone]{} was born in Italy in 1973. He received the M.Sc. (Hons.) degree in electrical engineering and Ph.D. degree from the University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, in 1998 and 2002, respectively. He was a Researcher of Electric Power Systems at the University of Bologna in 2005, where he was with the Power Systems Laboratory until 2011. In 2010, he was an Associate Professor with Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. He is now a Full Professor with the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, Switzerland, where he was the EOS Holding Chair of the Distributed Electrical Systems Laboratory. He has authored and co-authored more than 170 scientific papers published in reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. His current research interests include power systems with particular reference to real-time monitoring and operation, power system protections, power systems dynamics, and power system transients. He is the Secretary and a member of several IEEE and Cigré Working Groups. He was a recipient of the IEEE EMC Society Technical Achievement Award in 2013.
[^1]: F. Sossan and M. Paolone are with the Distributed Electrical Systems Laboratory at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Lausanne (DESL, EPFL), L. Nespoli and V. Medici are with the ISAAC at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Italian Switzerland (SUPSI), CH. Emails: {fabrizio.sossan,mario.paolone}@epfl.ch, {vasco.medici, lorenzo.nespoli}.supsi.ch
[^2]: This research received funding from the Swiss Competence Center for Energy Research (FURIES).
[^3]: Reactive power is not of special interest since PV plants normally operate at unitary power factor and, more in general, it is not possible to do assumptions on the kind of reactive power control implemented.
[^4]: Method C, parameters $T_s=30$ s $c=10$, mean nRMSE 5%.
[^5]: $\beta$ is the average of values for the close roof mount and open rack configurations from [@kratochvil2004photovoltaic] , and $\gamma$ the average of the values for polycrystalline modules from [@pvmodules].
[^6]: Computational times refer to a workstation equipped with an Intel Xeon processor running at 2.70 GHz with Matlab on a virtualized operating system. Method C and Method A,B and D were executed on two different machines, machine 1 and 2. The computation time of Method C was adjusted by a factor $t_2/t_1$, where $t_1$ and $t_2$ is the computation time of a reference problem executed on machine 1 and 2, respectively.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider inter- and intra-species pairing interactions in an asymmetrical Fermi system. Using equation of motion method, we obtain coupled mean-field equations for superfluid gap functions and population densities. We construct a phase diagram across BCS-BEC regimes. Inclusion of intra-species correlations result in stable polarized superfluid phase on BCS and BCS sides of unitarity at low polarizations. For larger polarizations, we find phase separations in BCS and BEC regimes. A superfluid phase exists for all polarizations deep in BEC regime. Our results should be apply broadly to ultra-cold fermions, nuclear and quark matter.'
author:
- Renyuan Liao
- 'Khandker F. Quader'
title: 'Pairing in Asymmetrical Fermi Systems with Intra- and Inter-Species Correlations'
---
Pairing in two-species Fermi systems with unequal population is of great current interest and importance across a wide range of fields and systems. Examples are unequal density mixtures of fermionic cold atoms [@Zwierlein06; @Partridge06]; arbitrarily polarized liquid $^3He$; superconductors in external magnetic field [@Sarma63], in strong spin-exchange field [@Larkin65; @Fulde64; @Takada69], or with overlapping bands [@Suhl59; @Kondo63]; isospin asymmetric nuclear matter [@Sedrakian00] and dense quark matter exhibiting color superconductivity [@Alford01]. Unequal density cold fermions serve as prototypical systems, providing an unprecedented window into exploring superfluidity with tunable repulsive and attractive interactions. These are attained by sweeping across with s- or p-wave Feshbach resonances, thereby allowing the study of fermion ground states in both BCS and BEC regimes.
Among the [*outstanding*]{} questions in asymmetrical Fermi systems is the nature of the ground state in the BCS and BEC regimes, and whether the BCS superfluid state can sustain any finite imbalance between the species. Thus, it is important to arrive at a plausible phase diagram as a function of pairing interaction strength and species imbalance. Two-species systems are conveniently characterized as two pseudo-spin systems. It is believed that the BCS ground state in a finite magnetic field $h$, is robust against spin polarizations for $h~\sim\Delta$, ($\Delta$ being the superconducting gap); beyond this it becomes unstable to a normal state. For [*equal population*]{} cold atom systems, there is theoretical agreement with experiments that find superfluid states in both BCS and BEC regimes with a “smooth crossover” around the “unitarity limit”(diverging singlet scattering length $a_s$).
For systems with [*population imbalance*]{}, various theoretical scenarios have been proposed [@Bedaque03; @Pao06; @Sheehy06]. Mean-field calculations [@Pao06; @Sheehy06] find the superfluid state to be unstable to phase separation into superfluid and normal states or a mixed phase in the BCS regime; a superfluid state stabilizes however deep in the BEC regime. Currently there is intense experimental efforts in unequal density cold fermion atoms. One experiment [@Partridge06] observed a transition from a polarized superfluid to phase separation at a polarization $\sim
10\%$ near unitarity on the BEC side.
![(Color online) Polarization $P$ vs s-wave coupling, $- 1/(k_Fa_s)$ phase diagram for asymmetrical fermions:(a) with a representative intra-species correlation strength $g_{1} = 20$, corresponding to $1/(k_F^3a_t)$ = 1.25; (b) without intra-species correlations, $g_1=0$ (also obtained in Ref [@Sheehy06]). Vertical line refers to the unitarity limit; PS1, PS2, PS to phase separated regions; N to normal state.[]{data-label="fig:Fig.1"}](Fig1.eps)
To date, theoretical calculations have mostly considered [*inter-species*]{} s-wave interaction, and have ignored [*intra-species*]{} correlations. Ho et al [@Ho06] attempted to incorporate triplet correlations in a somewhat phenomenological manner; Huang et al [@Huang06] recently explored the implications for a FFLO state; Monte Carlo calculations [@Carlson05] hint at a polarized superfluid phase near unitarity.
[*In this paper*]{}, we address the issue of the nature of the zero temperature (T=0) ground state of an asymmetrical Fermi system for arbitrary repulsive/attractive interaction strength and polarization. We also examine if the BCS superfluid state can sustain a finite population imbalance. While the unequal density cold fermion systems may provide a way to test our results, our paper should have a broader appeal, viz. electronic superconductivity, nuclear and quark matter superfluidity, etc. Generally, both inter-species and intra-species correlations may be present in an asymmetrical Fermi system. These may arise from the underlying fermionic potentials (atomic, electronic, nucleon-nucleon, quark-quark) or from effects of the medium, i.e. “induced” interactions [@Bulgac06; @Quader85]. We include the simplest ones allowed by symmetry: s-wave contact interaction between the species, and a p-wave interaction within the species. Following Leggett [@Leggett80] and Eagles [@Eagles69], our discussion is in terms of BCS-type pairing in both the BCS and BEC regimes, with the chemical potentials for the two species determined self-consistently with the pairing gaps. We do a detailed [*stability analysis*]{} of the multitude of states obtained from our equations.
Our findings are [*dramatically different*]{} from those without intra-species correlations, Our proposed phase diagram, Fig. 1a, shows that at T=0, for smaller polarizations, and sufficiently large [*intra-species*]{} correlations, gapped polarized superfluidity (hereafter referred to as SFP) becomes [*stable*]{} on both BCS and BEC sides of the “unitarity” limit. Depending on the [*inter-species*]{} interaction strength, at some polarization, SFP becomes unstable via a 1st-order transition to [*phase separation*]{}, denoted by PS1. PS1 is characterized by a negative “susceptibility”, $\delta
P/\delta h$; $P$ being the spin-polarization, and $h$ the difference of the chemical potentials, playing the role of a “magnetic field”. For a given [*intra-species*]{} interaction, and for sufficiently weak inter-species interaction, SFP and PS1 undergo transitions to the normal state on the BCS side. The gapped SFP persists into the BEC regime, sustaining progressively smaller polarizations. Deeper in the BEC regime, we find a superfluid phase (SF) at all polarizations. In the BEC regime, in addition to PS1, we find the existence of a somewhat different phase separated state, PS2, characterized by positive “susceptibility”, but not satisfying requisite superfluid ground state stability criteria.
For our detailed study, we consider a two-species Fermi system with unequal “pseudo-spin” populations. To allow for both [*inter-species*]{} and [*intra-species*]{} correlations, and noting that pseudo-spin rotation invariance would be broken by unequal chemical potentials, we adopt a pairing Hamiltonian given by $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\sum_{k\sigma}\xi_{k\sigma}c_{k\sigma}^{+}c_{k\sigma}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{kk'q\sigma}\frac{g_{kk'}^{\sigma \sigma}}{V} c_{k+q/2\sigma}^{+}c_{-k+q/2\sigma}^{+}c_{-k'+q/2\sigma}c_{k'+q/2\sigma}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{kk'q}\frac{g_{kk'}^{\uparrow\downarrow}}{V} c_{k+q/2\uparrow}^{+}c_{-k+q/2\downarrow}^{+}c_{-k'+q/2\downarrow}c_{k'+q/2\uparrow}\end{aligned}$$ where the pseudospin $\sigma=\uparrow,\downarrow$ denote for example the two hyperfine states of ultracold Fermi atoms. $c_{k\sigma}^{+}$ is the fermion creation operator with kinetic energy $\xi_{k\sigma}=\epsilon_{k\sigma}-\mu_{\sigma}$; $\mu_{\sigma}$ is the chemical potential of each of the species. $g_{kk'}^{\uparrow\uparrow}$, and $g_{kk'}^{\downarrow\downarrow}$ are the interactions between the up and down spins respectively, and $V$ is the volume. The singlet interaction, $g_{kk'}^{\uparrow\downarrow}$ is taken to be a constant, $g_o$. This is usually expressed in terms of s-wave scattering length $a_s$ using $(4\pi\hbar^{2}a_s/m)^{-1}=g_o^{-1}+\sum_{k}(2\epsilon_k)^{-1}$. A mean-field decoupling is attained by introducing three order parameters or gap functions $(\sigma, \sigma' = \uparrow,\downarrow)$ given by, $\Delta_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,q)=-\sum_{k'}g_{kk'}^{\sigma\sigma'}<c_{-k'+q/2\sigma}c_{k'+q/2\sigma'}>$ This results in a mean-field Hamiltonian given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
H^{MF}&=&\sum_{k\sigma}\xi_{k\sigma}c_{k\sigma}^{+}c_{k\sigma}
-\sum_{k,\sigma}\Delta_{\sigma \sigma}(k,q)c_{k+q/2\sigma}^{+}c_{-k+q/2\sigma}^{+}
-\sum_{k,\sigma}\Delta_{\sigma \sigma}^{*}(k,q)c_{-k+q/2\sigma}c_{k+q/2\sigma}
-\sum_{k.\sigma} |\Delta_{\sigma \sigma}(k,q)|^{2}/g_{kk}^{\sigma \sigma}\nonumber\\
&-&\sum_{k}\Delta_{\downarrow\uparrow}(k,q)c_{k+q/2\uparrow}^{+}c_{-k+q/2\downarrow}^{+}
-\sum_{k} \Delta_{\downarrow\uparrow}^{*}(k,q)c_{-k+q/2\downarrow}c_{k+q/2\uparrow}
-\sum_{k} |\Delta_{\downarrow\uparrow}(k,q)|^{2}/g_{kk}^{\downarrow\uparrow}\end{aligned}$$
We employ the [*equation of motion*]{} method using imaginary time normal and anomalous Matsubara Green’s functions, $G_{\sigma
\sigma'}(k,\tau)$, $F_{\sigma \sigma'}(k,\tau)$, respectively, and our mean-field Hamiltonian, $H^{MF}$. The coupled equations in terms of $\Delta_{\sigma \sigma'}$ are given by $G_{\sigma \sigma'}(k,\tau)$ and $F_{\sigma \sigma'}(k,\tau)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\tau}G_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,\tau)&=&-\delta(\tau)\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}-\xi_{k+q/2\sigma}G_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,\tau)\nonumber\\
& &+\sum_{\sigma''}\Delta_{\sigma''\sigma}(k,q)F_{\sigma''\sigma'}(k,\tau)\\
\partial_{\tau}F_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,\tau)&=&\xi_{-k+q/2\sigma}F_{\sigma\sigma}(k,\tau)\nonumber\\
& &+\sum_{\sigma''}\Delta_{\sigma\sigma''}^{*}(k,q)G_{\sigma''\sigma'}(k,\tau)\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the imaginary time variable. These equations may be Fourier transformed in the usual way with $\tau\rightarrow iw_n$, $\partial_{\tau}\rightarrow -iw_n$, where $iw_{n}=(2n+1)\pi/\beta$ are the Matsubara frequencies, $n$ being an integer and $\beta=1/k_BT$.
Here we focus on a superfluid condensate of pairs with [*zero center-of-mass momentum*]{}, $q$. Thus, we do not consider the $q
\ne 0$ Fulde-Ferrel-Larkin-Ovchinnikov(FFLO) state [@Fulde64; @Larkin65], but which may also be studied within this scheme. Solving the Fourier transformed equations at $q=0$, we obtain the [*2-point correlation functions*]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
G_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,iw_n)&=&\frac{\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{\sigma}+\delta_{\sigma-\sigma'}(\Delta\Delta_\uparrow
b_\downarrow-\Delta\Delta_\downarrow\Delta_\uparrow)}{D}\nonumber\\
F_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,iw_n)&=&\frac{\delta_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{\sigma\sigma}+\delta_{\sigma-\sigma'}f_{\sigma-\sigma}}{D}\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\sigma}=\Delta^2b_{-\sigma}+\Delta_{-\sigma}^2b_{\sigma}-a_{-\sigma}b_{\sigma}b_{-\sigma}$; $f_{\sigma\sigma}=\Delta^2\Delta_{-\sigma}+\Delta_{\sigma}\Delta_{-\sigma}^2-\Delta_{\sigma}a_{-\sigma}b_{-\sigma}$; $f_{\sigma-\sigma}=\Delta(\Delta^2+\Delta_{\sigma}\Delta_{-\sigma}-a_{\sigma}b_{-\sigma})(\delta_{\sigma\downarrow}-\delta_{\sigma\uparrow})$; $D=(\Delta^2+\Delta_{\uparrow}\Delta_{\downarrow})^2+a_{\uparrow}a_{\downarrow}b_{\uparrow}b_{\downarrow}
-\sum_{\sigma}(\Delta^2a_{\sigma}+\Delta_{\sigma}^2a_{-\sigma})b_{-\sigma}$; with $a_{\sigma}=\xi_{k+q/2\sigma}-iw_n$, $b_{\sigma}=-\xi_{-k+q/2\sigma}-iw_n$. We have set $\Delta_{\uparrow\uparrow} \equiv \Delta_{\uparrow}$; $\Delta_{\downarrow\downarrow} \equiv \Delta_{\downarrow}$; $\Delta_{\uparrow\downarrow} \equiv \Delta$. The [*excitation spectrum*]{} can be found by examining the poles of the Green’s functions, yielding the quasiparticle energies, $$E_{k\pm}^2=(iw_n)^2 = (\alpha\pm\sqrt{\beta})/2$$ where $\alpha=\xi_{k\uparrow}^2+\xi_{k\downarrow}^2+2\Delta^2+\Delta_1^2+\Delta_2^2$, and $\beta=\left[(\xi_{k\uparrow}^2-\xi_{k\downarrow}^2)+(\Delta_1^2-\Delta_2^2)\right]^{2}+4\Delta^2\left[(\xi_{k\uparrow}-\xi_{k\downarrow})^2+(\Delta_1-\Delta_2)^2\right]$. Various quantities can now be obtained from our 2-point correlation functions. Thus, particle concentrations, $n_{\sigma}$ for the two species ($\sigma = \uparrow,\downarrow$) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&n_{\sigma}&=\sum_{k}\left<c_{k\sigma}^+c_{k\sigma}\right>
% =\sum_{k}G_{\sigma\sigma}(k,\tau=0^-)
=\sum_{k}\sum_{iw_n}\frac{1}{\beta}G_{\sigma\sigma}(k,iw_n)e^{iw_n0^+}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{k}\sum_{l=\pm}(-1)^{\lambda}\left[\frac{n_F(E_{kl})f_{\sigma}(k,E_{kl})
- n_F(-E_{kl})f_{\sigma}(k,-E_{kl})}{2E_{kl} (E_{k+}^2-E_{k-}^2)}\right]\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ is even for $l=+$, and odd for $l=-$; $n_F(E_{kl})$ are the Fermi functions. Likewise the three gaps equations are given by $(\sigma,\sigma' = \uparrow,\downarrow)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{\sigma\sigma'}
=-\sum_{k}g_{kk}^{\sigma\sigma'}\sum_{iw_n}\frac{1}{\beta}F_{\sigma\sigma'}^{*}(k,iw_n)e^{iw_n0^+}
=-\sum_{k}\sum_{l=\pm}(-1)^{\lambda}g_{kk}^{\sigma\sigma'}\left[\frac{n_F(E_{kl})f_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,E_{kl}) - n_F(-E_{kl})f_{\sigma\sigma'}(k,-E_{kl})}{2E_{kl}
(E_{k+}^2-E_{k-}^2)}\right]\end{aligned}$$
The above five equations are [*coupled*]{}, and can be solved self-consistently for the three gap functions, $\Delta, \Delta_{\uparrow}, \Delta_{\downarrow}$ for either fixed particle concentrations, $n_{\uparrow}$, $n_{\downarrow}$, or fixed chemical potentials, $\mu_{\uparrow}$, $\mu_{\downarrow}$.
We assume [*equal masses*]{} for the two species, and take the particle spectrum to be $\epsilon_k=\hbar^2k^2/2m$. We adopt standard definitions: polarization, $P=(n_1-n_2)/(n_1+n_2)$; mean chemical potential $\mu=(\mu_1+\mu_2)/2$; chemical potential difference $h=(\mu_1-\mu_2)/2$; Fermi momentum $k_{F\sigma}
=(6\pi^2n_{\sigma})^{1/3}$. Since $\sum_kf(k)\rightarrow\int_{0}^{\infty}
f(k)\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}\rightarrow\int_{0}^{\infty}
k_F^3f(k/k_F)\frac{d^3(k/k_F)}{(2\pi)^3}$, we can scale quantities having dimension of energy to $\epsilon_F$. The [*inter-species*]{} interaction $g_o$ is expressed in terms of coupling constant $\eta=-1/(k_{F}a_s)$. For the [*intra-species*]{} triplet interaction, we take the separable form $g_{kk'}^{\sigma\sigma}=g_1\omega(k)\omega(k')Y_{10}(\hat{k})Y_{10}(\hat{k'})$, where we have taken $g_{\uparrow\uparrow} = g_{\downarrow\downarrow} \equiv \tilde{g_1}$. More generally the $m=\pm1$ terms would also be present; however this choice allows us to explore the consequences of intra-species correlations while keeping the calculations tractable. As a check, we also consider different types of momentum dependence: (i) $\omega(k)\propto const$; (ii) $\omega(k)\propto k_0k/(k_0^2+k^2)$, a generalization of the Nozieres and Schmitt-Rink scheme [@NSR85]; (iii) $\omega(k)\propto \exp{[-(k/k_0)^2]}$, a Gaussian interaction; $k_o$ being a cut-off momentum; these give qualitatively similar behavior. The first two forms of interaction require regularization due to ultraviolet divergence, while the third does not. With regularization, $g_1$ can be expressed in terms of a triplet scattering volume $a_t$ [@Iskin06]: $(4\pi\hbar^{2}k_o^2a_t/m)^{-1}=g_1^{-1}+\sum_{k} w(k)^2/(2
\epsilon_k)$. Thus, $(3 n/2 \epsilon_F) \tilde{g_1} \equiv g_1$ in our plots can be easily expressed in terms of $a_t$; e.g. $g_1 = 20
$ corresponds to $1/(k_F^3a_t) = 1.25$.
For arbitrary inter-species s-wave and and intra-species p-wave pairing interactions, and population imbalances, we obtain self-consistent solutions of the $T=0$ gap functions, $\Delta, \Delta_{\uparrow},
\Delta{\downarrow}$, and chemical potentials, $\mu_{\sigma}$. On the BCS side, for a given $g_o$, the $\uparrow \downarrow$ gap $\Delta$ [*decreases*]{} with increasing intra-species interaction strength $g_1$, while at the same time both $\Delta_{\uparrow}, \Delta_{\downarrow}$ ($\Delta_{\uparrow} \ne \Delta_{\downarrow}$) increases, crossing at some value of $g_1$. The suppression of $\Delta$ is more pronounced at larger polarizations.
A proper construction of the asymmetrical Fermi system [*phase diagram*]{} requires a determination of stable ground states out of the manifold of paired condensates given by our equations [@Sheehy06; @Viverit00]. Accordingly, we carefully consider the stability criteria. The mean-field [*ground state energy*]{} as a function of the gaps at different polarizations, P is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
&E_G&(\Delta,\Delta_{\uparrow}.\Delta_{\downarrow})=\left<\Psi|H^{MF}|\Psi\right>\nonumber\\
&=&E_o + \sum_{k\sigma}\left[\xi_{k\sigma}G_{\sigma\sigma}(k,\tau=0^-)-2\Delta_{\sigma}F_{\sigma\sigma}(k,\tau=0^-)\right]\nonumber\\
&-&\sum_{k}2\Delta F_{\downarrow\uparrow}(k,\tau=0^-)
\end{aligned}$$ where $ E_o=-|\Delta_{\uparrow}|^2/g_1 - |\Delta_{\downarrow}|^2/g_1 - |\Delta|^2/g_o$. To find the stability of the polarized superfluid state SFP, we construct the 3x3 stability matrix out of all partial derivatives $\frac{\partial^2 E_G}{\partial \Delta_i \partial \Delta_j}$ ($\Delta_{i,j} = \Delta, \Delta_{\uparrow},
\Delta_{\downarrow}$), and check for positive definiteness of the determinant of the matrix, and of all its upper-left sub-matrices. We supplement this with analysis of the “susceptibility” $\partial P/\partial h$. Thus, for a given $g_1$, the stable polarized superfluid state SFP, in both BCS and BEC regimes, is characterized by $E_G$ with a [*global minimum*]{} at non-zero gaps and self-consistently determined values of $\mu_{\sigma}$’s, and $\frac{\partial P}{\partial h} > 0$. SFP sustains larger polarizations for progressively larger $g_1$.
Similar to the case without intra-species correlations, $g_1$, there exists a maximum polarization, $P_{max}$ on the BCS side, beyond which we find no solution to the coupled equations; this determines the SFP/PS1 $\leftrightarrow$ N boundary (Fig. 1a). $P_{max}$ is slightly decreased at unitarity by $g_1$. It decreases with increasing $\eta= - 1/k_Fa_s$. For a fixed $g_1$, close to both BCS and BEC sides of unitarity, and for small polarizations, unlike-spin pairing has appreciable value in the polarized superfluid SFP. However away from unitarity on the BCS side, $\Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}$ decreases, and $\uparrow \uparrow$ and $\downarrow \downarrow$ pairing becomes more dominant in SFP, as inter-species interaction becomes relatively weak compared to intra-species interaction. On the BEC side away from unitarity, on the other hand, $\Delta_{\uparrow \downarrow}$ is more dominant, and with $\Delta_{\uparrow}$ and $\Delta_{\downarrow}$ becoming negligible, SFP becomes unstable to phase separation, PS2. A SF phase emerges deep in the BCS regime with predominantly unlike-spin pairing at low polarizations and majority spin pairing at higher polarizations.
![(Color online) Polarization $P=\frac{n_{\uparrow} - n_{\downarrow}}{n_{\uparrow} + n_{\downarrow}}$ vs $h/\mu = \frac{\mu_{\uparrow} - \mu_{\downarrow}}{\mu_{\uparrow} + \mu{\downarrow}}$ ($h$ acts like a “magnetic field”) for different intra-species strengths $g_1$ at a fixed inter-species coupling $\eta = 0.25$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig 2"}](Fig2.eps)
The region PS1 in Fig 1a is characterized by [*negative*]{} “susceptibility”, $\frac{\partial P}{\partial h}$ and doe not satisfy the stability matrix criteria. For a given $P$ and $h$, $E_G$ is a [*maximum*]{} at the non-zero gap solutions, separating two local minima – a feature of phase separation into a normal and a superfluid component by 1st-order phase transition. In this context, it is instructive to study $P$ as a function of $h/\mu$ for different values of $g_1$, for a fixed $\eta$ (shown in Fig.2 for $\eta=0.25$ (BCS side)). For $g_1 = g_1^c \approx 15$, the slope is vertical ($g_1^c$ is the value of $g_1$ at which maximum polarization, $P_{max}$ occurs for a given $\eta$). For $g_1 \le g_1^c$, the slope is [*negative*]{}, corresponding to the BCS superfluid state being unstable to the normal state for $h >
\Delta$, but robust against polarization for $h < \Delta$. For $g_1
> g_1^c$, the singlet superfluid state can sustain a [*finite polarization*]{}, which exhibits a behavior over the range given by: $P
\propto ah + bh^3 + c$; a,b,c being constants. The linear behavior is achieved for larger values of $g_1$, and at low polarizations. In examining $P$ vs $h/\mu$ behavior [*beyond*]{} $P_{max}$, we find, for a given $g_1$, [*two*]{} solutions of $P$ corresponding to one value of $h/\mu$. To make a connection to Fig. 1a, obtained for $g_1
= 20$, we note that the allowed range of polarizations for SFP in $P$ vs $h/\mu$ considerations corresponds to the $\eta=0.25$ vertical line, terminating at the SFP-PS1 boundary (Fig 1a). The same line extended from SFP-PS1 boundary to PS1-N boundary correspond to the polarization range bounded by the two solutions of $P$ at a $h/\mu$ in Fig.2. The region PS2 in BEC regime, though characterized by $\frac{\partial P}{\partial h} > 0$, is not a stable superfluid phase, since the stability matrix condition cannot be satisfied. The line separating PS1 and PS2 is probably a metastable line, the position of which depends on the p-wave interaction strength.
In summary, we find that the inclusion of intra-species correlations in asymmetrical Fermi systems results in a stable polarized superfluid phase SFP at low polarizations on both BCS and BEC sides of unitarity. We have discussed the nature of the paired states and transition to phase separated states. The SF phase obtained in the deep BEC regime in the case without intra-species correlations, also emerges here with dominant unlike-species pairing, accompanied by weaker majority-species pairing. Our results should be of broad interest as it should be of relevance to any asymmetrical Fermi system, with proper choice of interaction parameters. Here, our choice of parameters appear to agree with cold atom experiment [@Partridge06] that found a SF to PS transition around $\sim 10\%$ polarization around unitarity on the BEC side. Also, the maximum polarization $\sim 70\%$ at unitarity is in agreement with experiments. Further experiments at low polarizations on both sides of unitarity are needed to test our detailed results. Experiments that measure differences in momentum distributions of two species could provide further test. Finally, our phase diagram indicates a tricritical point (SFP,PS1,N phases) at low polarization on the BCS side, in addition to one on the BEC side at $P \sim 1$. This should lead to interesting study of the evolution of these two tricritical points at finite-T; we are exploring these effects.
We would like to thank D. Allender, K. Bedell, J. Engelbrecht, S. Gaudio, R. Hulet, and M. Widom for fruitful comments and discussions. We also acknowledge support from ICAM.
[31]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, **** ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (); , , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (); , ****, (); , ****, ().
, , , ****, (); , ****, (); , , , , ****, (); , ****, (); , , ().
, , , ****, (); , , , , (); , , , (); , , , , (); , ****, ().
, (); , ().
, ().
, , , ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , ****, ().
, **** ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ().
, , , ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will provide multispectral and hyperspectral infrared images of a large number of astrophysical scenes. Multispectral images will have the highest angular resolution, while hyperspectral images (e.g., with integral field unit spectrometers) will provide the best spectral resolution. This paper aims at providing a comprehensive framework to generate an astrophysical scene and to simulate realistic hyperspectral and multispectral data acquired by two JWST instruments, namely NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU. We want to show that this simulation framework can be resorted to assess the benefits of fusing these images to recover an image of high spatial and spectral resolutions. To do so, we create a synthetic scene associated with a canonical infrared source, the Orion Bar. This scene combines pre-existing modelled spectra provided by the JWST Early Release Science Program 1288 and real high resolution spatial maps from the Hubble space and ALMA telescopes. We develop forward models including corresponding noises for the two JWST instruments based on their technical designs and physical features. JWST observations are then simulated by applying the forward models to the aforementioned synthetic scene. We test a dedicated fusion algorithm we developed on these simulated observations. We show the fusion process reconstructs the high spatio-spectral resolution scene with a good accuracy on most areas, and we identify some limitations of the method to be tackled in future works. The synthetic scene and observations presented in the paper are made publicly available and can be used for instance to evaluate instrument models (aboard the JWST or on the ground), pipelines, or more sophisticated algorithms dedicated to JWST data analysis. Besides, fusion methods such as the one presented in this paper are shown to be promising tools to fully exploit the unprecedented capabilities of the JWST.'
author:
- |
Claire Guilloteau$^{1,2}$, Thomas Oberlin$^{3}$, Olivier Berné$^{2}$ and Nicolas Dobigeon$^{1,4}$\
$^{1}$ University of Toulouse, IRIT/INP-ENSEEIHT, Toulouse, France\
(e-mail: {Claire.Guilloteau, Nicolas.Dobigeon}@enseeiht.fr).\
$^{2}$ University of Toulouse, Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (IRAP), Toulouse, France\
(e-mail: {Claire.Guilloteau,Olivier.Berne}@irap.omp.eu)\
$^{3}$ University of Toulouse, ISAE-SUPAERO, Toulouse, France\
(e-mail: [email protected])\
$^{4}$ Institut Universitaire de France (IUF)
bibliography:
- 'strings\_all\_ref.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Simulated [JWST]{} datasets for multispectral and hyperspectral image fusion'
---
Photodissociation regions, multispectral imaging, hyperspectral imaging, image fusion.
\[intro\]Introduction
=====================
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is an international collaboration space observatory involving NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and is planed to be launched in 2021 [@Gardner2006]. The four embedded instruments, the Near InfraRed Camera (NIRCam, @Rieke2005), the Near InfraRed Specrtograph (NIRSpec, @Bagnasco2007), the Near InfraRed Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (NIRISS, @Doyon2012) and the Mid InfraRed Instrument (MIRI, @Rieke2015), will cover the infrared wavelength range between $0.6$ to $28$ microns with an unprecedented sensitivity. The JWST will enable research on every epoch of the history of the Universe, from the end of the dark ages to recent galaxy evolution, star and planet formation. The scientific focuses of the JWST range from first light and reionization to planetary systems and the origins of life, through galaxies and protoplanetary systems. The JWST mission will observe with imagers and spectrographs. The imagers of NIRCam and MIRI will provide multispectral images (with low spectral resolution) on wide fields of view (with high spatial resolution) while the spectrometers Integral Field Units (IFU) of NIRSpec and MIRI will provide hyperspectral images (with high spectral resolution) on small fields of view (with low spatial resolution). The aim of the present study is to assess the possible benefits of combining complementary observations, i.e., multispectral and hyperspectral data, of the same astrophysical scene to reconstruct an image of high spatial *and* spectral resolutions. If successful, such a method would provide IFU spectroscopy with the spatial resolution of the imagers. For the near infrared range, which is the focus of this paper this corresponds to an improvement by a factor of $\sim 3$ of the angular resolution of NIRSpec IFU cubes, using the NIRCam images. Practically, this implies the possibility to derive integrated maps in spectral features (e.g. H recombination lines, ions, H$_2$) at the resolution of NIRCam and at wavelengths where this latter instrument does not have any filter over the NIRSpec field of view. This may prove useful to derive high angular resolution maps of the local physical conditions which requires the use of a combination of lines.
In the geoscience and remote sensing literature, the objective described here-above is usually referred to as “image fusion”. State-of-the-art fusion methods are based on an inverse problem formulation, consisting in minimizing a data fidelity term complemented by a regularization term [@Wei2015; @Simoes2015]. The data fidelity term is derived from a forward model of the observation instruments. The regularization term can be interpreted as a prior information on the fused image. @Simoes2015 proposed a total-variation based prior and an iterative solving while @Wei2015 introduced a fast resolution by defining an explicit solution based on a Sylvester equation, thus substantially decreasing the computational complexity. Alternatively, @Yokoya2012 proposed a method based on spectral unmixing called coupled non-negative matrix Factorization (CNMF). Elementary spectral signatures, usually referred to as endmembers, and their relative proportions in the image pixels are estimated by an alternating NMF on the hyperspectral and multispectral images related through the observation model. In the particular context of JWST astronomical imaging, the first challenge of data fusion is due to the very large scale of the fused data, considerably larger than the typical sizes of data encountered in Earth observation. Indeed, a high spatio-spectral fused image in remote sensing is composed of approximately a few ten of thousands pixels and at most a few hundred of spectral points versus a few ten of thousands pixels and a few thousand spectral points for a high spatio-spectral fused image in astronomical imaging. Moreover, another issue in astronomical images fusion is the complexity of observation instruments. Some specificities, such as the spectral variability of point spread functions (PSFs), cannot be neglected because of the large wavelength range of the observed data. Therefore, remote sensing data fusion methods are not appropriate to fuse astronomical observation images. To address these issues, we discuss the relevance of a new fusion method specifically designed to handle JWST measurements.
To assess the relevance of fusing hyperspectral and multispectral data provided by the JWST instruments, a dedicated comprehensive framework is required, in the same spirit as the celebrated protocol proposed by @Wald2005 to evaluate the performance of remote sensing fusion algorithms. This framework mainly relies on a reference image of high spatial and high spectral resolutions and the instrumental responses applied to this image to generate simulated observations. In the context of the JWST, the use of simulated observations with reference ground truth image is inevitable since, first, real data is not available yet, and second, because only synthetic data allow the algorithm performances to be quantified. Thus this paper aims at deriving an experimental protocol to evaluate the performance of fusion algorithms for JWST measurements. In the current study, the reference image of high spectral and high spatial resolutions, referred to as [*synthetic scene*]{} hereafter, has been synthetically created to fit the expected physical properties of a photodissociation region (PDR, see definition in Sect. \[pdr\]), covering a 31 $\times$ 31 arcsec$^2$ field of view (FOV) between 0.7 and 28.5 $\mu$m. This choice has been driven by our involvement in the JWST Early Release Science (ERS) program “Radiative Feedback from Massive Stars as Traced by Multiband Imaging and Spectroscopic Mosaics” lead by [@Berne2017] and hereafter referred to as ERS 1288[^1], following the ID given by Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI). This choice is also motivated by our past expertise on this type of astrophysical source. However one should keep in mind that the proposed simulation protocol and fusion method may in principle be applied to any kind of dataset, with any type of source. Besides, it is worth noting that the simulation of the hyperspectral and multispectral JWST data associated with this synthetic scene is much more complex than the forward models involved in the Wald’s protocol mainly due to the specificities of the instruments mentioned above.
The paper is organized as follows. Sect. \[pdr\] describes the specific structure of photodissociation regions. Next, in Sect. \[synthpdr\], we create a synthetic spatio-spectral infrared PDR scene located in the Orion Bar with one spectral dimension (from 0.7 to 28 microns) and two spatial dimensions (each one $\sim$ 30 arcsec wide or high). In Sect. \[formod\], we properly define the forward models associated with the NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU instruments. These are mathematical descriptions of the light path through the telescope and the instrument and include specificities such as wavelength-dependant PSFs, correlated noise, spatial sub-sampling, among others. We apply these forward models to the PDR synthetic scene, to produce simulated NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU near-infrared observations (0.7-5 $\mu$m) of the Orion Bar PDR. Finally, in Sect. \[expe\] we perform symmetric data fusion between NIRCam Imager short wavelength (SW) channel (0.7-2.35 $\mu$m) and NIRSpec IFU simulated data to qualify the fused high spatio-spectral resolution image, and we evaluate the performance of this fusion scheme.
\[pdr\]Photodissociation regions
================================
The present paper focuses on a synthetic scene of a PDR. We therefore provide in the following section the general aspects of the concept of a PDR.
In the interstellar medium, photons from massive stars affect matter, which is found to be either ionized, atomic or molecular, each phase with different temperature and density. Transition regions between molecular clouds and ionized regions (H$_\textsc{II}$) are referred to as PDR [@Tielens1985]. This concept of PDR is applicable to many regions in the Universe, such as the surface of Protoplanetary disks [@Adams2004; @Gorti2008; @Champion2017], as well as planetary nebulae (see e.g. @Bernard2005 [@Cox2016]). More broadly, star-forming and planet-forming regions can be studied as PDRs (see for instance @Tielens2005 [@Goicoechea2016; @Joblin2018]), or even starburst galaxies [@Fuente2005]. Observations of nearby and spatially extended PDRs are essential to characterize, as accurately as possible, their physical and chemical properties, and to benchmark models. This can be done using spatio-spectral maps of PDRs in the main fine-structure cooling lines of ions and atoms (in particular C$^+$ and O), or molecules such as $\mathrm{H}_2$ [@Habart2011; @Bron2014], CO [@Joblin2018], or HCO$^+$ [@Goicoechea2016]. From such observations and using PDR models (see a comparision of PDR models by @Roellig2007), temperature, electronic density and pressure gradient maps with high spatial resolution can be extracted. Observations of rotational and rovibrational lines of H$_2$ can also give clues about H$_2$ formation processes [@Bron2014]. Finally, there are numerous studies dedicated to the evolution and photochemistry of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocabons (PAHs), a family of large carbonaceous molecules which is ubiquitous in the universe, that are conducted in PDRs, see, e.g., recent examples by [@Berne2015; @Peeters2017].
In star forming regions, heating processes by extreme UV (EUV, $E<13.6$ eV) and far UV (FUV $E<13.6$ eV) photons give PDRs a specific structure schematically represented in Fig. \[pdrfig\]. The H$_\textsc{II}$ layer is the region dominated by EUV absorption and is composed of ionized gas. Its temperature is about $10^4$K and its density a few hundred ions per cm$^3$. FUV emissions penetrates deeper in the cloud and heat the neutral region, which is composed of neutral atomic gas. The temperature there is in the range of a few 100 to a few 1000 K and its density between a 1000 and 10$^4$ hydrogen atom per cm$^3$. The limit between these two regions, where protons and electrons recombine, is called the ionization front (denoted IF in Fig. \[pdrfig\] ). When the amount of FUV photons decreases sufficiently, hydrogen atoms can combine to form dihydrogen molecules (H$_2$). This region is the molecular cloud. The temperature there is between a few 10 to a few 100 K range, and its density is about $10^4$ to $10^6$ molecules per cm$^3$. The limit where hydrogen atoms combine to become dihydrogen molecules, between the neutral region and the molecular cloud, is defined as the dissociation front (denoted by DF in Fig. \[pdrfig\] ).
(0,0) rectangle (4,5); (4,0) rectangle (4.5,5); (4,0) rectangle (4.5,5); (4.5,0) rectangle (7,5); (7,0) rectangle (7.5,5); (7,0) rectangle (7.5,5); (7.5,0) rectangle (10,5);
(10.3,3) – (10.8,3); (10.3,1) – (10.8,1); (10.3,2) – (10.8,2); (10.3,4) – (10.8,4); (10.3,0.5) – (10.8,0.5); (10.3,2.5) – (10.8,2.5); (10.3,3.5) – (10.8,3.5); (10.3,1.5) – (10.8,1.5); (10.3,4.5) – (10.8,4.5); (11.1,5) node[UV photons]{};
(0,6) – (10,6) node\[above,midway\] [**Photodissociation region**]{};
(8.7,4.5) node[H$_\textsc{II}$]{}; (2,4.5) node[Molecular Cloud]{}; (5.7,4.5) node[Neutral]{}; (4.25,5.5) node[DF]{}; (4.25,5.2) – (4.25,4.5); (7.25,5.5) node[IF]{}; (7.25,5.2) – (7.25,4.5);
(8.7,0.8) node[H$^+$]{}; (2,0.8) node[H$_2$]{}; (5.7,0.8) node[H]{};
(graph) at (5.3,-4.5) [{width="0.61\linewidth"}]{};
(8.7,0.3) node[$\bullet$]{}; (7.25,0.3) node[$\bullet$]{}; (4.25,0.3) node[$\bullet$]{}; (2,0.3) node[$\bullet$]{};
(8.7,0.3) – (6.8,-1) – (6.8,-2.77); (6.8,-2.77) node[$\bullet$]{};
(7.25,0.3) – (5.5,-1) – (5.5,-4.2); (5.5,-4.2) node[$\bullet$]{};
(4.25,0.3) – (4.5,-1) – (4.5,-5.3); (4.51,-5.28) node[$\bullet$]{}; (2,0.3) – (2.17,-1) – (2.17,-7.8); (2.19,-7.8) node[$\bullet$]{};
(2,-8) – ++(5.5,6);
(graph) at (5.25,-12.2) [{width="0.61\linewidth"}]{};
(6.8,-2.77) – (6.8,-9.1); (6.8,-9.1) node[$\bullet$]{};
(5.5,-4.2) – (5.5,-10.6); (5.5,-10.6) node[$\bullet$]{};
(4.5,-5.3) – (4.5,-12); (4.5,-12) node[$\bullet$]{};
(2.17,-7.8) – (2.17,-13.6); (2.17,-13.6) node[$\bullet$]{};
at (-0.4,-11.7) [Intensity (mJy arcsec$^-2$)]{} ;
(10.51,-8.15) – ++(0,0.75); (10.51,-8.15) – ++(-0.75,0); at (10.51,-7.2) [N]{}; at (9.6,-8.1) [E]{};
(5.1,-7.8) – ++(0.5,0); at (10.1,-1.5) [to Trapezium stars]{};
(0,-8.1) – ++(0.7,0); at (0.34,-7.9) [2 pc]{};
\[synthpdr\]Synthesis of a PDR scene: The Orion Bar
===================================================
Approach
--------
$\textbf{X}$ $\textbf{H}$ $\textbf{A}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------ -------------------------------
Wavelength range ($\mu$m) 0.7-28.5 0.7-28.5 –
Spectral Resolution $\left(R=\frac{\lambda}{\Delta\lambda}\right)$ $\sim$ 3000 $\sim$ 3000 –
FOV 31“ $\times$ 31” – 31“ $\times$ 31”
Pixel size (arcsec$^2$) 0.031 $\times$ 0.031 – 0.031 $\times$ 0.031
Full size (pixels) 23000 $\times$ 1000 $\times$ 1000 23000 $\times$ 4 4 $\times$ 1000 $\times$ 1000
\[tab:recap\_scene\]
This section describes the synthesis of an accurate astrophysical scene of infrared emissions of a PDR. Here, we take the canonical PDR of the Orion Bar as a reference for the construction of this synthetic scene. This scene consists of a high spatio-spectral resolution 3D cube with 2 spatial dimensions and 1 spectral dimension. For convenience, the scene is not referred to as a 3D object, but rather as a 2D matrix whose columns contain the spectra associated with each spatial location. More precisely, let $\mathbf{X}$ denote the matrix corresponding to the synthetic scene where each column corresponds to the spectrum at a given location. This high spatial and high spectral resolution image is assumed to result from the product $$\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{H}\mathbf{A}$$ where $\mathbf{H}$ is a matrix of elementary spectra and $\mathbf{A}$ is the matrix of their corresponding spatial “weight” maps. The size, spectral range and spatial field of view of these matrices are detailed in Tab. \[tab:recap\_scene\]. The underlying assumption of this model is that the data follow a linear model, i.e., the spectra composing the scene are linear combinations of spectra coming from “typical” regions. This choice has been adopted for several reasons. First, there is no spatio-spectral model of PDRs able to provide computed spectra with all signatures observable at mid-infrared wavelengths (gas lines, PAHs, dust etc.) and accounting for the complex spatial textures generally found in the observations [@Goicoechea2016]. The second reason is that the linearity of the mixture is a reasonable assumption at mid-IR wavelengths, where most of the emission is optically thin, except perhaps around $9.7\mu$m where silicate absorption may have an effect for large column densities [@Weingartner2001]. An additional advantage of defining $\mathbf{X}$ as a matrix product is related its computing storage: the full matrix is expected to be quite large, and simply impossible to store in memory. Instead, adopting such a decomposition, only the underlying model factors $\mathbf{H}$ and $\mathbf{A}$ need to be stored, hence significantly reducing the occupied memory. The following sections describe the choice of the elementary signatures in $\mathbf{H}$ and their spatial mapping in $\mathbf{A}$.
Elementary spectra $\mathbf{H}$
-------------------------------
The elementary spectra composing the matrix $\mathbf{H}$ have been computed within the framework of the ERS 1288 program [@Berne2017]. A more detailed description of how they have been calculated will be provided in a paper aiming at describing the scientific objectives of this ERS 1288 program. This matrix $\mathbf{H}$ is composed of $k=4$ spectra corresponding to four regions of a PDR as depicted in Fig. \[pdrfig\]: the H$_\textsc{II}$ region, the ionization front, the dissociation front and the molecular cloud. These spectra have been computed individually for each region, using the Meudon PDR code for the contribution from molecular and atomic lines [@Lepetit2006], the CLOUDY code for the ionized gas [@Ferland1998], the PAHTAT model for the PAH emission [@Pilleri2012], and the DUSTEM model for the contribution from the dust continuum [@Compiegne2011]. The physical parameters used for these models correspond to those of the Orion Bar, which is a well studied region. Absolute calibration of the resulting spectra depicted in Fig. \[pdrfig\] (bottom) for each one of the four regions has been crossed-check with existing observations of the Orion Bar, so as to confirm that they are realistic in terms of flux units.
Abundance Maps ($\mathbf{A}$)
-----------------------------
Since the spectra in $\mathbf{H}$ carry the flux information, spatial abundance maps in the matrix $\mathbf{A}$ correspond to normalized between 0 and 1 textures. In this work they are derived from real data from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and the Atacama Large sub-Millimeter Array (ALMA). For clarity, they have been roated to obtain a plane-parallel morphology reminiscent of the conceptual structure described in Fig. \[pdrfig\]. This is also because the FOV of the currently planned observation of the ERS 1288 program will be perpendicular to the IF/DF, i.e., corresponding to a horizontal cut in the rotated images. The chosen FOV for the synthesis of the texture maps from the observations is a 30 $\times$ 30 arcsec$^2$, square centered on coordinates $\mathrm{RA}=5:35:20.0774$ $\mathrm{DEC}=-5:25:13.785$ in Orion. The textures associated with the four spectral components are described below according to their corresponding regions.
### Ionization front & H$_\textsc{II}$ region
To build an accurate spatial representation of the H$_\textsc{II}$ region and the ionization front, we have resorted to the Orion Bar image obtained by the narrow band filter centered at $656$nm (H$_\mathrm{\alpha}$ emission line) of the WFC3 instrument aboard the HST (Fig. \[hst\_front\]). This image was taken as part of the observing proposal lead by [@Bally2015]. This image provides an accurate view of the morphology of the H$_\textsc{II}$ region and the ionization front combined [@Tielens2005].
(graph) at (-2,0) [{width="0.45\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (8,2.8) [{width="0.3\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (8,-2.8) [{width="0.3\linewidth"}]{}; at (-6.4,2.9) [a)]{}; at (5,5.3) [b)]{}; at (5,-0.3) [c)]{}; (2.5,0) – ++(2,2); (2.5,0) – ++(2,-2); at (7,5.3) [Ionization front texture]{} ; at (6.6,-5.2) [H$_\textsc{II}$ Region texture]{} ; at (-5,2.9) [HST image]{} ; (2.5,1.1) – ++(0.5,0); at (1.6,2.5) [to Trapezium stars]{}; (-4.1,-0.5) rectangle ++(4.4,4.4);
(1.95,-3) – ++(0,0.75); (1.95,-3) – ++(-0.75,0); at (1.85,-2.1) [N]{}; at (1.05,-3) [E]{};
After cropping and rotating, we have separated the ionization front and H$_\textsc{II}$ region in the observed image. As the brightness of the ionization front is comparable to the brightest regions in the H$_\textsc{II}$ region, a thresholding on the raw image does not isolate efficiently the ionization front from the plasma cloud. However, unlike the H$_\textsc{II}$ region, the front appears as a sharp line where the gradient of the image is high. Therefore, the location of the pixels in the image belonging to the IF can be easily recovered from the pixel-scale horizontal gradient of the image. Thus, the latter is thresholded to create a mask around the pixels with highest gradient magnitudes. The smallest connected components (smaller than 10000 pixels) are then removed to delete high gradient values related to small objects in the image and thus not related to the IF. Finally, the original HST image is term-wise multiplied by this mask and slightly smoothed by a Gaussian kernel with full width at half-maximum (FWHM) of 4.7 pixels. This allows the contribution to be extracted from the IF only, and finally an IF image to be obtained (see Fig. \[hst\_front\]).
Once the ionization front is removed from the original image, the gap is expended by a morphological dilation with a $20$ pixels-diameter disk and filled using a standard inpainting technique [@Damelin2017]. This process fills the missing part by selecting similar textures available outside the mask. The result is shown in Fig \[hst\_front\]. Both images are then up-sampled to the resolution of the JWST NIRCam Imager instrument by bi-cubic spline interpolation with an 1.25 up-sampling factor.
### Dissociation front
(graph) at (-0.5,0) [{width="0.4\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (9,0) [{width="0.4\linewidth"}]{};
(-1,-1.7) rectangle ++(4,4);
(4,2.5) – ++(0.5,0); at (2.1,4.9) [to Trapezium stars]{};
(-4,-4) – ++(0,0.75); (-4,-4) – ++(-0.75,0); at (-4,-3.1) [N]{}; at (-4.9,-4) [E]{};
at (10.7,3.35) [Dissociation front texture]{};
The texture map related to the dissociation front is derived from an image of HCO (3-2)$^+$ emission observed by @Goicoechea2016 with ALMA, see Fig. \[alma\_df\]. According to the authors, this map locates well the H/H$_2$ transition and is consequently used here to define the dissociation front of this PDR.
After rotation and cropping, the high textured zone in the right part of the chosen area is extracted by thresholding. Then it is slightly smoothed by a Gaussian kernel with a 2.3 pixels FWHM. The remaining part, less structured, is much more smoothed thanks to a Gaussian kernel with a 9.4 pixels FWHM to remove visible noisy stripes due to ALMA data acquisition process.
Then, the smoothed image is up-sampled to the resolution of the NIRCam Imager instrument by bi-cubic spline interpolation with an up-sampling factor of 5 and normalized. The resulting texture is shown Fig. \[alma\_df\] (right).
### Molecular cloud
The molecular cloud texture map has been also extracted from an ALMA image [@Goicoechea2016]. The CO (3-2) emission line is commonly used as a tracer of the molecular cloud. As explained in the previous section, the area in the orange box in Fig. \[alma\_mc\] (left) has been chosen to match the textures maps already build. The stripes due to ALMA data acquisition process are clearly noticeable over the full FOV. Therefore, after rotation, the image is strongly smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with a 11 pixels FWHM to remove these unwanted stripes, identified as noise. The smoothed image is finally up-sampled to the resolution of the NIRCam Imager instrument by bi-cubic spline interpolation (with an up-sampling factor of 5) and normalized. The resulting texture is shown Fig. \[alma\_mc\] (right).
(graph) at (-0.5,0) [{width="0.48\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (9,0) [{width="0.4\linewidth"}]{};
(-0.9,-1.3) rectangle ++(4,4);
(4,2.5) – ++(0.5,0); at (2.1,4.9) [to Trapezium stars]{};
(-4,-4) – ++(0,0.75); (-4,-4) – ++(-0.75,0); at (-4,-3.1) [N]{}; at (-4.9,-4) [E]{};
at (10.7,3.35) [Molecular cloud texture]{};
\[formod\]JWST instruments forward model {#sec:forward}
========================================
In this section, we derive a simple yet sound mathematical model of two instruments embedded in the JWST, namely NIRSpec IFU and NIRCam Imager. A more advanced modeling was previously conducted by the teams in charge of the JWST Exposure Time Calculator (ETC) at the space telescope science institute (STScI) [@Pontoppidan2016]. The ETC is a tool for astronomers to simulate data acquisition and to compute signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) for all JWST observing modes and instruments. This tool models the full acquisition process (groups, integration ramps) and noise for astrophysical scenes composed of complex spectra and several extended (ellipses) or point sources. However, the ETC tool exhibits two major limitations in the context of the work targeted in this paper, i.e., within a fusion perspective. First, currently there is no stable version of the ETC that provides simulated measurements for complex spatio-spectral 3D scenes such as the astrophysical scene described in Sect. \[synthpdr\]. Note that we are currently working with STScI to overcome this limitation, e.g., by using the linear properties of the synthetic scene described in section \[synthpdr\]. The second reason is that the forward models involved in the considered fusion method requires to be explicit hence less advanced than those provided by the ETC (see Sect. \[fus\_res\]). As a consequence, we derived explicit forward models capitalizing on the information available in the ETC as a reference. The models associated with the two instruments under consideration, supplemented by a suitable noise modeling, are described in what follows.
**NIRSpec IFU**
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------
Channel SW LW
Wavelength range ($\mu$m) 0.6-2.35 2.35-5 0.6-5.3
Spectral Resolution $\left(R=\frac{\lambda}{\Delta\lambda}\right)$ $\sim$ 1-100 $\sim$ 1-100 $\sim$ 3000
Spectral points 13 16 $\sim$ 12000
FOV 2.2’ $\times$ 5.1’ (with gaps) 2.2’ $\times$ 5.1’ (with gaps) 3“ $\times$ 3”
Pixel size (arcsec$^2$) 0.031 $\times$ 0.031 0.063 $\times$ 0.063 0.1 $\times$ 0.1
FOV (pixels) 8 $\times$ 2040 $\times$ 2040 2 $\times$ 2040 $\times$ 2040 30 $\times$ 30
\[recap\_nir\]
NIRCam Imager
-------------
The near-infrared camera NIRCam Imager aboard the JWST will observe space from 0.6 to 5 microns with 3 possible data acquisition modes: imaging, coronagraphy and slit-less spectroscopy. The observing mode studied in this paper is the imaging mode. It will provide multispectral images on wide fields of view (2.2’ $\times$ 5.1’, separated on two adjacent modules). This instrument covers the 0.6 to 5 microns wavelength range simultaneously through 2 channels, the SW channel between 0.6 and 2.3 microns and the long wavelength channel (LW) between 2.4 and 5 microns, via $l_\mathrm{m} = $ 29 extra-wide, wide, medium and narrow filters. Each channel, SW or LW, acquire images composed of $p_m$ pixels with pixel sizes of 0.031 $\times$ 0.031 arcsec$^2$ and 0.063 $\times$ 0.063 arcsec$^2$, respectively. The main technical features are summarized in Table \[recap\_nir\].
The proposed mathematical model of the NIRCam Imager detailed in this section is derived to reflect the actual light path through the telescope and the instrument and the corresponding spatial and spectral distortions. The optical system of the telescope and the instrument, and more specifically mirrors, disturb the incoming light and its path. The effect on the detector and therefore on the observed image is a spatial spread of the light arising from the sky, resulting in a blurring of the spatial details. This blurring depends on the wavelength $\lambda$ (in meters) of the incoming light and the JWST primary mirror diameter $D$ (in meters) such that the effective angular resolution $\theta$ (in radians), i.e. the ability to separate two adjacent points of an object, is limited by diffraction. After the optics and the mirrors, the light passes through band-pass filters defined by specific wavelength ranges.
These two main degradations (i.e., spatial blurring and spectral filtering) can be expressed with closed-form mathematical operations successively applied to the astrophysical scene $\mathbf{X}$. First, the light spread effect due to the optical systems is modeled as a set of spectrally-varying 2-D spatial convolutions, denoted $\mathcal{M}(\cdot)$. The corresponding PSFs, calculated with the online tool [*[webbpsf]{}*]{} [@Perrin2012], are wavelength-dependent and the FWHM of the spread patch grows linearly with the wavelength. This dependency is illustrated in Fig. \[psfs\] (top) which exhibits the significantly different patterns of four PSF associated with four particular wavelengths. The following spectral filtering step, which degrades the spectral resolution of the scene, can be modelled as multiplications by the transmission functions of the NIRCam Imager filters [@JDoxNIRCamFilters]. This operation can be formulated through a product by the matrix $\mathbf{L}_\mathrm{m}$, whose rows are defined by these transmission functions. Therefore, the noise-free multispectral image $\bar{\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{m}$ composed of $l_\mathrm{m}$ ($\ll l_\mathrm{h}$) spectral bands and $p_\mathrm{m}$ pixels can be written as $$\bar{\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{m} = \mathbf{L}_\textrm{m}\mathcal{M}(\mathbf{X})$$ Note that a similar approach was followed by [@HadjYoucef2018] to derive the forward model associated with the imager embedded in MIRI.
(graph) at (0,0) [{width="0.95\linewidth"}]{};
at (-5.9,0.25) [Offset (arsec)]{}; at (-5.9,-4.35) [Offset (arsec)]{};
at (-1.7,0.25) [Offset (arsec)]{}; at (-1.7,-4.35) [Offset (arsec)]{};
at (2.5,0.25) [Offset (arsec)]{}; at (2.5,-4.35) [Offset (arsec)]{};
at (6.8,0.25) [Offset (arsec)]{}; at (6.8,-4.35) [Offset (arsec)]{};
(graph) at (9,2.4) [{width="0.048\linewidth"}]{};
(graph) at (9,-2.3) [{width="0.045\linewidth"}]{};
NIRSpec IFU
-----------
The near-infrared spectrograph NIRSpec IFU embedded in the JWST will perform spectroscopy from 0.6 to 5.3 microns at high (R$\sim$3000), medium (R$\sim$1000) or low (R$\sim$100) spectral resolution through 4 observing modes. The ERS 1288 program proposed by [@Berne2017] will rely on the integral field unit (IFU) with high resolution configuration. It will provide spectroscopic (also called hyperspectral) images on small fields of view (3 $\times$ 3 arcsec$^2$). Data acquisition on the wavelength range is covered by several disperser-filter combinations with similar features. Although unprecedented, the spatial sampling of the IFU is about 9 times less than NIRCam Imager with a 0.1 $\times$ 0.1 arcsec$^2$ pixel size. The main technical features of NIRSpec IFU are summarized and compared with NIRCam Imager features in Table \[recap\_nir\].
As for NIRCam Imager, the light path from the observed scene to the detector through the telescope and the instrument can be formulated thanks to simple mathematical operations while preserving physical accuracy of the model. At first, the light is spread by the optical system, depending on its wavelength and JWST primary mirror. Secondly, the path through the disperser-filter pair attenuates the light. Finally, this light comes on the detector, which can provide $\sim$ 12000 spectra over a 30 $\times$ 30 pixels$^2$ spatial area. The optical system distortion effect of the telescope and the instrument on the light is, as for NIRCam Imager, modeled as a set of 2-D spatial wavelength-dependent convolutions denoted $\mathcal{H}(\cdot)$ with PSFs illustrated in Fig. \[psfs\] (bottom). The light attenuation induced by the disperser-filter pair is a matrix multiplication by $\mathbf{L}_\mathrm{h}$, whose diagonal is the combination of both transmission functions [@JDoxNIRSpecFilters]. Besides attenuation, the physical gaps between NIRSpec IFU detectors involve holes in spectra. These holes are modeled by a null transmission at the corresponding wavelengths. The spatial response of the detector is seen as a downsampling operator $\mathbf{S}$, which keeps one pixel over a 0.1 $\times$ 0.1 arcsec$^2$ area, after averaging pixels over this area. Finally, the noise-free hyperspectral image $\bar{\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{h}$ composed of $l_\mathrm{h}$ spectral bands and $p_\mathrm{h}$ $\ll p_\mathrm{m}$ pixels can be written as $$\bar{\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{h}=\mathbf{L}_\textrm{h}\mathcal{H}(\mathbf{X})\mathbf{S}.
\label{hs_eq}$$
Noise modeling
--------------
This section models the noise associated with NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU which corrupts the noise-free images $\bar{\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{m}$ and $\bar{\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{h}$ to yield the simulated images ${\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{m}$ and ${\mathbf{Y}}_\textrm{h}$, respectively. This composite model relies on the most commonly used hypotheses on the nature of the space observation noise and on more specific assumptions regarding the JWST detectors. The proposed model neglects some other sources of noise which are more difficult to characterize, e.g., related to cosmic rays and background. A more realistic and exhaustive noise modelling is provided by the STScI via the ETC [@Pontoppidan2016].
### Quantum noise
Since the detectors are photon counting devices, the particular nature of light emission conventionally induces observations that obey a Poisson distribution $\mathcal{P}(\bar{y})$ whose mean is equal to the photon count $\bar{y}$. In a high flux regime, i.e., when the photon count $\bar{y}$ is typically higher than $20$, this Poisson process can be approximated by an additive heteroscedastic Gaussian noise $\mathcal{N}(\bar{y},\bar{y})$ whose mean and variance is the photon count $\bar{y}$. In the particular context of this work, we will assume that the observations follow this high flux regime, which is a reasonable assumption especially for a very bright source such as the Orion Bar. As a consequence, in practice, the incoming flux $\bar{y}$ in a given pixel and a given spectral band will be corrupted by a random variable drawn from $\mathcal{N}(\bar{y}, \bar{y})$. This model is commonly used to define noise in astronomical imaging [@Starck2006].
### Readout noise
The main source of corruptions induced by the detectors is a readout noise, which is modeled as an additive, centered, colored Gaussian noise. The correlation between two measurements at given spatial and spectral locations of the observed multiband image can be accurately characterized after unfolding the 3D data cube onto the detector plan. Indeed, the JWST and the ETC documentations [@Pontoppidan2016] provide a set of matrices reflecting the expected correlations between measurements at specific positions in the plan of the detectors associated to NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU. These correlation matrices are functions of intrinsic characteristics of the readout pattern, such as the integration time, the number of frames and the number of groups [@Rauscher2007]. For a given experimental acquisition setup, the covariance matrix of the additive Gaussian readout noise could be computed after a straightforward ordering of these correlations with respect to the reciprocal folding procedure. Alternatively, this colored Gaussian noise can be added to the unfolded multiband images with a covariance matrix directly defined by the correlations expressed in the detector plan and specified by [@Pontoppidan2016]. Complementary information regarding the NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU readout noises is given in what follows.
#### NIRCam Imager readout noise
– The spectral bands of the multispectral image are acquired successively such that the incident image on the detector corresponds to a 2D spatial image in a given spectral. Hence, the induced readout noise is only spatially correlated and can be generated for each spectral band independently. Finally, the covariance matrix describing the spatial correlation of the additive Gaussian noise is computed thanks to the correlation patterns in the detector plan discussed above.
#### NIRSpec IFU readout noise
– Contrary to the NIRCam Imager detector, the plan of the NIRSpec IFU detector consists of a 1-D spatial and 1-D spectral image. More precisely, the optical system of NIRSpec IFU is composed of a slicer mirror array which slices the observed FOV into 0.1 arcsec-wide strips (corresponding to the NIRSpec IFU pixel size) to realign them in one dimension along one detector axis [@JDoxNIRSpecIFU]. For each spatial pixel, its spectrum is dispersed along the second detector axis. As a consequence, the corresponding readout noise is not independent from one spectral band to another. Thus, as previously explained above, this noise can be generated with a covariance matrix driven by the readout pattern features discussed above and added to the unfolded counterpart of the observed hyperspectral image after projection onto the detector plan.
### Zodiacal light, background and cosmic rays
According to JWST documentation [@Kelsall1998; @Pontoppidan2016], the emissions from the Zodiacal cloud of the Solar System and of the Milky Way as well as emission from the telescope are assumed to be negligible for bright sources, up to 5 microns. Furthermore, the JWST pipeline is designed to remove 99% of cosmic rays impacts effects. These noise sources are thus neglected in this work. Note that a comprehensive model of background noise and cosmic rays impacts has been developed by the STScI for the ETC.
\[expe\]Experiments
===================
Simulating observations using JWST forward models
-------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{h}$
--------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------- ------------------
Channel SW LW
Wavelength range ($\mu$m) 0.7 - 2.35 2.35 - 5.2 0.7 - 5.2
Spectral points 13 16 11586
FOV (arcsec$^2$) 30 $\times$ 30 30 $\times$ 30 30 $\times$ 30
FOV (pixels$^2$) 1000 $\times$ 1000 500 $\times$ 500 310 $\times$ 310
\[tab:recap\_simu\_obs\]
This section capitalizes on the forward models of NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU and the associated noise model proposed in Sect. \[sec:forward\] to simulate observations associated with the synthetic astrophysical scene generated according to the framework introduced in Sect. \[synthpdr\]. To adjust the characteristics of the noise, we rely on the integration times as planned by the ERS 1288 program of [@Berne2017]. The observing parameters of this program can be downloaded publicly through the Astronomer’s Proposal Tool (APT) provided by the STScI. The characteristics of the resulting simulated multispectral and hyperspectral images, respectively denoted as $\mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{m}$ and $\mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{h}$, are summarized in Tab. \[tab:recap\_simu\_obs\]. The FOV of the resulting simulated image $\mathbf{Y}_{\mathrm{m}}$ corresponds to about one sixteenth of the total NIRCam Imager FOV since the synthetic scene is smaller than the actual full NIRCam Imager FOV. On the other hand, the FOV of the simulated hyperspectral image $\mathbf{Y}_{\mathrm{h}}$ corresponds to a mosaic of 10 $\times$ 10 NIRSpec IFU FOVs. These simulated multispectral and hyperspectral images are shown in Fig. \[fig:simus\]. To illustrate the contents of the simulated dataset, we present red-green-blue (RGB) colored compositions of the images as well as spectra extracted at specific positions, for the scene and simulated observations (see Fig. \[fig:simus\] for details of the composition). The simulations show how the instruments degrade the spectral and spatial resolution of the fully resolved synthetic astrophysical scene. More precisely, for the multispectral observations, the RGB composition shows less contrast, due to the loss of spectral information due to the wide filters. The hyperspectral data is clearly less spatially resolved, and the spectra exhibit a high level of noise. Overall, for the considered realistic scene of the Orion Bar which is a bright source, it is worth noting that the signal-to-noise ratio remains high for most parts of the images and spectra.
Fusion of simulated observations
--------------------------------
### Method {#subsec:fusion}
The synthetic scene and the simulated observed NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU images have been generated to assess the performance of a dedicated fusion method we have developed [@Guilloteau2019]. We refer the reader to this latter paper for full details about the method, but provide below the main characteristics of the fusion algorithm. The fusion task is formulated as an inverse problem, relying on the forward models specifically developed for the JWST NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU instruments in Sec. \[sec:forward\]. More precisely, the fused product $\hat{\mathbf{X}}$ is defined as a minimizer of the objective function $\mathcal{J}(\cdot)$ given by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{J}(\mathbf{X}) = \frac{1}{2\sigma_\mathrm{m}^2} \left\| \mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{m} - \mathbf{L}_\mathrm{m} \mathcal{M}(\mathbf{X}) \right\|_{\mathrm{F}}^2 + \frac{1}{2\sigma_\mathrm{h}^2} \left\| \mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{h} - \mathbf{L}_\mathrm{h} \mathcal{H}(\mathbf{X}) \mathbf{S} \right\|_{\mathrm{F}}^2 \\
+ \varphi_\mathrm{spe} (\mathbf{X}) + \varphi_\mathrm{spa} (\mathbf{X})
\label{pinv}\end{gathered}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_{\mathrm{F}}$ is the Frobenius norm. The two first terms are referred to as data fidelity terms and $\sigma_\mathrm{m}^2$ and $\sigma_\mathrm{h}^2$ are their respective weights associated to the the noise level in each observed image $\mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{m}$ and $\mathbf{Y}_\mathrm{h}$. The noisier the greater $\sigma_\mathrm{m}^2$ or $\sigma_\mathrm{h}^2$, and the less significant the related data fidelity term. The complementary terms $\varphi_\mathrm{spe}(\mathbf{X})$ and $\varphi_\mathrm{spa}(\mathbf{X})$ are respectively spectral and spatial regularizations summarizing [*[a priori]{}*]{} information on the expected fused image. In the approach advocated by [@Guilloteau2019], the spectral regularization $\varphi_\mathrm{spa}(\cdot)$ in relies on the prior assumption that the spectra of the fused image live in a low dimensional subspace whereas the spatial regularization $\varphi_\mathrm{spa}(\cdot)$ promotes a smooth spatial content. Due to the high-dimensionality of the resulting optimization problem, its solution cannot be analytically computed but requires an iterative procedure. To get a scalable and fast algorithm able to handle realistic measurements, [@Guilloteau2019] proposed two computational tricks: [*i)*]{} the problem is formulated in the Fourier domain, where the convolution operators $\mathcal{H}(\cdot)$ and $\mathcal{M}(\cdot)$ can be efficiently implemented and [*ii)*]{} in a preprocessing step, the JWST forward models are computed in the lower-dimensional subspace induced by the spectral regularization, which leads to sparse and easily storable operators. By combining these two tricks, the final algorithmic procedure minimizing $\mathcal{J}(\cdot)$ saves about 90% of the computational time with respect to a naive implementation.
### Results
In this work, we perform the fusion task on a subset of the simulated multi- and hyperspectral observed images. This choice has been first guided by the observing strategy currently considered in the ERS 1288 observing program for the Orion Bar [@Berne2017]. In practice, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:simus\], the FOV used for fusion (orange boxes in the right-hand side) is limited to a 2.7 $\times$ 27 arcsec$^2$ cut across the Bar, representing a mosaic of 9 NIRSpec IFUs FOVs. Secondly, as the SW and LW channels of the NIRCam Imager present distinct spatial sampling properties, we restrict the test of the fusion algorithm to the spectral range of the shorter wavelengths, between 0.7 and 2.35 $\mu$m, where the ratio of spatial resolution between imager and spectrometer is largest (i.e. where the fusion is most difficult). In the end, the objective is to fuse a 13 $\times$ 90 $\times$ 900 pixels simulated multispectral image and a 5000 $\times$ 28 $\times$ 279 pixels simulated hyperspectral image.
The fused image has been obtained after about 2000 seconds of pre-processing (dedicated to the pre-computation of the JWST forward models in the lower dimensional subspace) and 20 seconds of iterative minimization of the objective function $\mathcal{J}(\cdot)$. Qualitatively and generally speaking, the reconstruction is excellent from spectral and spatial points-of-view. Regarding the spectra, the fusion is very good for pixels which are located on smooth spatial structures. Efficient denoising can be observed since reconstructed spectra show much less noise than the simulated NIRSpec IFU hyperspectral image. However, in regions with significant and sharp variations of the intensity at small spatial scales (such as the ionization front), the fusion procedure appears to be less accurate. This is likely due to the chosen spatial regularization which tends to promote smooth images, and therefore distributes the flux over neighboring pixels. This issue is currently under investigation to provide a better regularization able to mitigate this effect. Similar conclusions can be drawn when analyzing the spatial content of the fused image, as illustrated in Fig. \[zoom\]. Overall, the reconstruction is very good, and a significant denoising is also observed. The gain in resolution of the reconstructed image with respect to the hyperspectral image is clearly noticeable, but thin structures, such as the ionization front, are smoother than in the original simulated astrophysical scene. Again, this is likely due to the regularization.
We now turn to a more quantitative analysis of the performance of the fusion method. To do so, we consider the reconstruction SNR of the fused image $\overline{\mathbf{X}}$ with respect to the corresponding actual scene $\mathbf{X}$. It is expressed as $$\mathrm{SNR} = 10\log_{10} \left( \frac{\left\|\mathbf{X}\right\|_2^2}{\left\| \mathbf{X}-\overline{\mathbf{X}} \right\|_{\mathrm{F}}^2}\right)$$ The reconstruction SNR reached by the proposed fusion procedure is compared to the SNR associated with an up-sampled counterpart of the observed hyperspectral image obtained by a simple band-wise bi-cubic spline interpolation to the resolution of the synthetic scene. The resulting SNRs are respectively 18.5 and 10.6 for the fused product and the up-sampled observed hyperspectral image. This means that spatial and spectral contents are much more accurately reconstructed by the fusion process proposed by [@Guilloteau2019]. Such results underline the benefit of data fusion compared with considering only the observed hyperspectral image, discarding the information brought by the multispectral image.
### Perspectives for fusion methods in the context of the JWST mission
Overall, the results of data fusion performed on simulated multispectral and hyperspectral JWST images show high quality spectral and spatial reconstruction of the scene. Most of spectral and spatial details lost either in the multispectral or in the hyperspectral image are recovered in the fused product. Such results supports further investigations on this fusion method, with great promises of application on real data. One preliminary step to be achieved concerns a more comprehensive performance assessment. It is indeed necessary to evaluate the benefit of the the fusion procedure when dealing with simulated observations obtained from the from JWST scientific team through the Exposure Time Calculator (ETC) tool, with possibly the synthesis of the same 3D complex scene described in Sec. \[synthpdr\]. This is a project that we are currently undertaking with STScI. Current limitations of the methods we have identified concern the unsatisfactory reconstruction of sharp structures in the synthetic scene, due to the chosen spatial regularization, which promotes a smooth spatial content in the fused product. Considering a regularization term in the objective function $\mathcal{J}(\cdot)$ defined in is necessary not to over-fit the noise in the observed images. Future works should address this issue by designing a tailored regularization.
(graph) at (0,0) [{width="0.35\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (0,-7) [{width="0.35\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (0,-14) [{width="0.35\linewidth"}]{};
(graph) at (9,0) [{width="0.54\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (9,-7) [{width="0.54\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (9,-14) [{width="0.54\linewidth"}]{};
(1.45,2.1) – ++(3.55,0); at (5,2.1) [$\bullet$]{}; at (1.45,2.1) [$\bullet$]{};
(1.45,2.1-7) – ++(3.6,0); at (5.05,2.1-7) [$\bullet$]{}; at (1.45,2.1-7) [$\bullet$]{};
(1.45,2.1-14) – ++(3.55,0); at (5,2.1-14) [$\bullet$]{}; at (1.45,2.1-14) [$\bullet$]{};
(-1,-1.9) – ++(6,0); at (-1,-1.9) [$\bullet$]{}; at (5,-1.9) [$\bullet$]{};
(-1,-1.9-7) – ++(6,0); at (-1,-1.9-7) [$\bullet$]{}; at (5.05,-1.9-7) [$\bullet$]{};
(-1,-1.9-14) – ++(6,0); at (-1,-1.9-14) [$\bullet$]{}; at (5,-1.9-14) [$\bullet$]{};
at (0,3.4) [**Synthetic scene**]{}; at (0,-3.6) [**Simulated multispectral image**]{}; at (0,-10.6) [**Simulated hyperspectral image**]{};
(-3,1.6) rectangle ++(6,0.6); (-3,1.6-7) rectangle ++(6,0.6); (-3,1.6-14) rectangle ++(6,0.6);
(5.4,0.75) rectangle ++(3.05,2); (5.4,0.75-3.25) rectangle ++(3.05,2);
(5.4,0.75-6.95) rectangle ++(3.15,2.1); (5.4,0.75-6.95-3.42) rectangle ++(3.15,2.1);
(5.4,0.75-14) rectangle ++(3.05,2); (5.4,0.75-17.25) rectangle ++(3.05,2);
(graph) at (0,2.5) [{width="0.95\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (0,0) [{width="0.95\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (0,-2.5) [{width="0.95\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (0,-5) [{width="0.95\linewidth"}]{};
at (0,3.6) [**Synthetic scene**]{}; at (0,1.1) [**Simulated multispectral image**]{}; at (0,-1.4) [**Simulated hyperspectral image**]{}; at (0,-3.9) [**Reconstructed image**]{};
(graph) at (0,-10) [{width="0.85\linewidth"}]{};
(2.2,3.5) rectangle (5.2,-6); at (3.7,3.7) [Zoom Fig. \[zoom\]]{};
(4.5,3) – (4.5,-6.15); at (4.5,3) [$\bullet$]{}; at (4.5,3-5) [$\bullet$]{}; at (4.5,3-7.5) [$\bullet$]{}; at (4.5,-6.15) [$\bullet$]{};
(-3,2) – (-3,-10.1); at (-3,2) [$\bullet$]{}; at (-3,2-5) [$\bullet$]{}; at (-3,2-7.5) [$\bullet$]{}; at (-3,-10.1) [$\bullet$]{};
on (4.9,-8.4) in node at (-2,-16.55); on (4.9,-12.3) in node at (4.5,-16.55);
(graph) at (0,0) [{width="0.3\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (6,0) [{width="0.29\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (0,-4) [{width="0.3\linewidth"}]{}; (graph) at (6,-4) [{width="0.3\linewidth"}]{};
at (0,1.8) [**Synthetic scene**]{}; at (6,1.8) [**Simulated multispectral image**]{}; at (0,1.8-4) [**Simulated hyperspectral image**]{}; at (6,1.8-4) [**Reconstructed image**]{};
\[ccl\]Conclusion
=================
In this work we built a synthetic scene of a photodissociation region located in the Orion Bar with high spatio-spectral resolution. This scene has been created according to current models with simulated spectra and spatial maps derived from real data. Forward models of two instruments embedded on the JWST, namely NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU, were developed and used to simulate JWST observations of the Orion Bar PDR. These simulated data were used to assess the performance of a fusion method we developed. The results showed to be promising allows for recovering spectroscopic and spatial details which were lost in the simulated NIRCam Imager and NIRSpec IFU observations. This suggested that image fusion of JWST data would offer a significant enhancement of scientific interpretation. However, improvements of the fusion method are still required, in particular to mitigate effect of the regularization. Tests on synthetic data with a more realistic noise than the one considered in this paper are also necessary.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank K. Pontoppidan for his feedback on the ETC and the JWST documentation, and the members of the core team of ERS project “Radiative Feedback from Massive Stars as Traced by Multiband Imaging and Spectroscopic Mosaics” for providing the spectra used to create the simulated datasets. They are also thankful to A. Albergel, F. Orieux and R. Abi Rizk for fruitful discussions regarding this work. Part of this work has been supported by the ANR-3IA Artificial and Natural Intelligence Toulouse Institute (ANITI), the French Programme Physique et Chimie du Milieu Interstellaire (PCMI) funded by the Conseil National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES).
[^1]: [www.jwst-ism.org](www.jwst-ism.org)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this article we review the theory of anafunctors introduced by Makkai and Bartels, and show that given a subcanonical site $S$, one can form a bicategorical localisation of various 2-categories of internal categories or groupoids at weak equivalences using anafunctors as 1-arrows. This unifies a number of proofs throughout the literature, using the fewest assumptions possible on $S$.'
address: |
School of Mathematical Sciences,\
University of Adelaide\
Adelaide, SA 5005\
Australia
author:
- David Michael Roberts
title: 'Internal categories, anafunctors and localisations'
---
Introduction {#section_1}
============
It is a well-known classical result of category theory that a functor is an equivalence (that is, in the 2-category of categories) if and only if it is fully faithful and essentially surjective. This fact is equivalent to the axiom of choice. It is therefore *not* true if one is working with categories internal to a category $S$ which doesn’t satisfy the (external) axiom of choice. This is may fail even in a category very much like the category of sets, such as a well-pointed boolean topos, or even the category of sets in constructive foundations. As internal categories are the objects of a 2-category $\Cat(S)$ we can talk about internal equivalences, and even fully faithful functors. In the case $S$ has a singleton pretopology $J$ (i.e. covering families consist of single maps) we can define an analogue of essentially surjective functors. Internal functors which are fully faithful and essentially surjective are called *weak equivalences* in the literature, going back to [@Bunge-Pare_79]. We shall call them $J$-equivalences for clarity. We can recover the classical result mentioned above if we localise the 2-category $\Cat(S)$ at the class $W_J$ of $J$-equivalences.
We are not just interested in localising $\Cat(S)$, but various full sub-2-categories $C {\hookrightarrow}\Cat(S)$ which arise in the study of presentable stacks, for example algebraic, topological, differentiable, etc. stacks. As such it is necessary to ask for a compatibility condition between the pretopology on $S$ and the sub-2-category we are interested in. We call this condition existence of *base change* for covers of the pretoplogy, and demand that for any cover $p\colon U\to X_0$ (in $S$) of the object of objects of $X\in C$, there is a fully faithful functor in $C$ with object component $p$.
Let $S$ be a category with singleton pretopology $J$ and let $C$ be a full sub-2-category of $\Cat(S)$ which admits base change along arrows in $J$. Then $C$ admits a calculus of fractions for the $J$-equivalences.
Pronk gives us the appropriate notion of a calculus of fractions for a 2-category in [@Pronk_96] as a generalisation of the usual construction for categories [@Gabriel-Zisman]. In her construction, 1-arrows are spans and 2-arrows are equivalence classes of bicategorical spans of spans. This construction, while canonical, can be a little unwieldy so we look for a simpler construction of the localisation.
We find this in the notion of *anafunctor*, introduced by Makkai for plain small categories [@Makkai] (Kelly described them briefly in [@Kelly_64] but did not develop the concept further). In his setting an anafunctor is a span of functors such that the left (or source) leg is a surjective-on-objects, fully faithful functor.[^1] For a general category $S$ with a *subcanonical* singleton pretopology $J$ [@Bartels], the analogon is a span with left leg a fully faithful functor with object component a cover. Composition of anafunctors is given by composition of spans in the usual way, and there are 2-arrows between anafunctors (a certain sort of span of spans) that give us a bicategory $\Cat_\ana(S,J)$ with objects internal categories and 1-arrows anafunctors. We can also define the full sub-bicategory $C_\ana(J) {\hookrightarrow}\Cat_\ana(S,J)$ analogous to $C$, and there is a strict inclusion 2-functor $C {\hookrightarrow}C_\ana(J)$. This gives us our second main theorem.
Let $S$ be a category with subcanonical singleton pretopology $J$ and let $C$ be a full sub-2-category of $\Cat(S)$ which admits base change along arrows in $J$, Then $C {\hookrightarrow}C_\ana(J)$ is a localisation of $C$ at the class of $J$-equivalences.
So far we haven’t mentioned the issue of size, which usually is important when constructing localisations. If the site $(S,J)$ is locally small, then $C$ is locally small, in the sense that the hom-categories are small. This also implies that $C_\ana(J)$ and hence any $C[W_J^{-1}]$ has *locally* small hom-categories i.e. has only a set of 2-arrows between any pair of 1-arrows. To prove that the localisation is locally essentially small (that is, hom-categories are equivalent to small categories), we need to assume a size restriction axiom on the pretopology $J$, called WISC (Weakly Initial Sets of Covers).
WISC can be seen as an extremely weak choice principle, weaker than the existence of enough projectives, and states that for every object $A$ of $S$, there is a set of $J$-covers of $A$ which is cofinal in all $J$-covers of $A$. It is automatically satisfied if the pretopology is specified as an assignment of a *set* of covers to each object.
Let $S$ be a category with subcanonical singleton pretopology $J$ satisfying WISC, and let $C$ be a full sub-2-category of $\Cat(S)$ which admits base change along arrows in $J$. Then any localisation of $C$ at the class of $J$-equivalences is locally essentially small.
Since a singleton pretopology can be conveniently defined as a certain wide subcategory, this is not a vacuous statement for large sites, such as $\Top$ or $\Grp(E)$ (group objects in a topos $E$). In fact WISC is independent of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms (without Choice) [@vdBerg_12; @Roberts_13]. It is thus possible to have the theorem fail for the topos $S = \Set_{\neg AC}$ with surjections as covers.
Since there have been many very closely related approaches to localisation of 2-categories of internal categories and groupoids, we give a brief sketch in the following section. Sections 3 to 6 of this article then give necessary background and notation on sites, internal categories, anafunctors and bicategories of fractions respectively. Section 7 contains our main results, while section 8 shows examples from the literature that are covered by the theorems from section 7. A short appendix detailing superextensive sites is included, as this material does not appear to be well-known (they were discussed in the recent [@Shulman_12], Example 11.12).
This article started out based on the first chapter of the author’s PhD thesis, which only dealt with groupoids in the site of topological spaces and open covers. Many thanks are due to Michael Murray, Mathai Varghese and Jim Stasheff, supervisors to the author. The patrons of the $n$-Category Café and $n$Lab, especially Mike Shulman and Toby Bartels, provided helpful input and feedback. Steve Lack suggested a number of improvements, and the referee asked for a complete rewrite of this article, which has greatly improved the theorems, proofs, and hopefully also the exposition. Any delays in publication are due entirely to the author.
Anafunctors in context
======================
The theme of giving 2-categories of internal categories or groupoids more equivalences has been approached in several different ways over the decades. We sketch a few of them, without necessarily finding the original references, to give an idea of how widely the results of this paper apply. We give some more detailed examples of this applicability in section 8.
Perhaps the oldest related construction is the distributors of Bénabou, also known as modules or profunctors [@Benabou_73] (see [@Elephant] for a detailed treatment of internal profunctors, as the original article is difficult to source). Bénabou pointed out [@Benabou_email], after a preprint of this article was released, that in the case of the category $\Set$ (and more generally in a finitely complete site with reflexive coequalisers that are stable under pullback, see [@MMV2012]), the bicategory of small (resp. internal) categories with representable profunctors as 1-arrows is equivalent to the bicategory of small categories with anafunctors as 1-arrows. In fact this was discussed by Baez and Makkai [@Baez-Makkai_emails], where the latter pointed out that representable profunctors correspond to *saturated* anafunctors in his setting. The author’s preference for anafunctors lies in the fact they can be defined with weaker assumptions on the site $(S,J)$, and in fact in the sequel [@Roberts2], do not require the 2-category to have objects which are internal categories. In a sense this is analogous to [@Street_80], where the formal bicategorical approach to profunctors between objects of a bicategory is given, albeit still requiring more colimits to exist than anafunctors do.
Bénabou has pointed out in private communication that he has an unpublished distributor-like construction that does not rely on existence of reflexive coequalisers; the author has not seen any details of this and is curious to see how it compares to anafunctors.
Related to this is the original work of Bunge and Paré [@Bunge-Pare_79], where they consider functors between indexed categories associated to internal categories, that is, the *externalisation* of an internal category and stack completions thereof. This was one motivation for considering weak equivalences in the first place, in that a pair of internal categories have equivalent stack completed externalisations if and only if they are connected by a span of internal functors which are weak equivalences.
Another approach is constructing bicategories of fractions à la Pronk [@Pronk_96]. This has been followed by a number of authors, usually followed up by an explicit construction of a localisation simplifying the canonical one. Our work here sits at the more general end of this spectrum, as others have tailored their constructions to take advantage of the structure of the site they are interested in. For example, *butterflies* (originally called papillons) have been used for the category of groups [@Noohi_05b; @Aldrovandi-Noohi_09; @Aldrovandi-Noohi_10], abelian categories [@Breckes_09] and semiabelian categories [@AMMV_10; @MMV2012]. These are similar to the meromorphisms of [@Pradines_89], introduced in the context of the site of smooth manifolds; though these only use a 1-categorical approach to localisation.
Vitale [@Vitale_10], after first showing that the 2-category of groupoids in a regular category has a bicategory of fractions, then shows that for protomodular regular categories one can generalise the pullback congruences of Bénabou in [@Benabou_89] to discuss bicategorical localisation. This approach can be applied to internal categories, as long as one restricts to invertible 2-arrows. Similarly, [@MMV2012] give a construction of what they call *fractors* between internal groupoids in a Mal’tsev category, and show that in an efficiently regular category (e.g. a Barr-exact category) fractors are 1-arrows in a localisation of the 2-category of internal groupoids. The proof also works for internal categories if one considers only invertible 2-arrows.
Other authors, in dealing with internal groupoids, have adopted the approach pioneered by Hilsum and Skandalis [@Hilsum-Skandalis_87], which has gone by various names including Hilsum-Skandalis morphisms, Morita morphisms, bimodules, bibundles, right principal bibundles and so on. All of these are very closely related to saturated anafunctors, but in fact no published definition of a saturated anafunctor in a site other than $\Set$ ([@Makkai]) has appeared, except in the guise of internal profunctors (e.g. [@Elephant], section B2.7). Note also that this approach has only been applied to internal groupoids. The review [@Lerman_10] covers the case of Lie groupoids, and in particular orbifolds, while [@Mrcun_01] treats bimodules between groupoids in the category of affine schemes, but from the point of view of Hopf algebroids.
The link between localisation at weak equivalences and presentable stacks is considered in (of course) [@Pronk_96], as well as more recently in [@Carchedi_12], [@Schappi_12], in the cases of topological and algebraic stacks respectively, and for example [@Tu-Xu-LaurentGengoux_04] in the case of differentiable stacks.
A third approach is by considering a model category structure on the 1-category of internal categories. This is considered in [@Joyal-Tierney_91] for categories in a topos, and in [@Everaert_et_al_05] for categories in a finitely complete subcanonical site $(S,J)$. In the latter case the authors show when it is possible to construct a Quillen model category structure on $\Cat(S)$ where the weak equivalences are the weak equivalences from this paper. Sufficient conditions on $S$ include being a topos with nno, being locally finitely presentable or being finitely complete regular Mal’tsev – and additionally having enough $J$-projective objects. If one is willing to consider other model-category-like structures, then these assumptions can be dropped. The proof from [@Everaert_et_al_05] can be adapted to show that for a finitely complete site $(S,J)$, the category of groupoids with source and target maps restricted to be $J$-covers has the structure of a category of fibrant objects, with the same weak equivalences. We note that [@Colman-Costoya_09] gives a Quillen model structure for the category of orbifolds, which are there defined to be proper topological groupoids with discrete hom-spaces.
In a similar vein, one could consider a localisation using *hammock* localisation [@Dwyer-Kan_80a] of a category of internal categories, which puts one squarely in the realm of $(\infty,1)$-categories. Alternatively, one could work with the $(\infty,1)$-category arising from a 2-category of internal categories, functors and natural *isomorphisms* and consider a localisation of this as given in, say [@Lurie_HTT]. However, to deal with general 2-categories of internal categories in this way, one needs to pass to $(\infty,2)$-categories to handle the non-invertible 2-arrows. The theory here is not so well-developed, however, and one could see the results of the current paper as giving toy examples with which one could work. This is one motivation for making sure the results shown in this paper apply to not just 2-categories of groupoids. Another is extending the theory of presentable stacks from stacks of groupoids to stacks of categories [@Roberts1].
Sites {#sites_categories}
=====
The idea of *surjectivity* is a necessary ingredient when talking about equivalences of categories—in the guise of just essential surjectivity—but it doesn’t generalise in a straightforward way from the category $\Set$. The necessary properties of the class of surjective maps are encoded in the definition of a Grothendieck pretopology, in particular a singleton pretopology. This section gathers definitions and notations for later use.
A *Grothendieck pretopology* (or simply *pretopology*) on a category $S
$ is a collection $J$ of families $$\{ (U_i \to A)_{i\in I} \}_{A\in \Obj(S)}$$ of morphisms for each object $A \in S$ satisfying the following properties
1. $(A' \stackrel{\sim}{\to} A)$ is in $J$ for every isomorphism $A'\simeq A$.
2. Given a map $B \to A$, for every $(U_i \to A)_{i\in I}$ in $J$ the pullbacks $B \times_A A_i$ exist and $(B \times_A A_i \to B)_{i\in I}$ is in $J$.
3. For every $(U_i \to A)_{i\in I}$ in $J$ and for a collection $(V_k^i \to
U_i)_{k\in K_i}$ from $J$ for each $i \in I$, the family of composites $$(V_k^i \to A)_{k\in K_i,i\in I}$$ are in $J$.
Families in $J$ are called *covering families*. We call a category $S$ equipped with a pretopology $J$ a *site*, denoted $(S,J)$ (note that often one sees a site defined as a category equipped with a Grothendieck *topology*).
The pretopology $J$ is called a *singleton* pretopology if every covering family consists of a single arrow $(U \to A)$. In this case a covering family is called a *cover* and we call $(S,J)$ a *unary* site.
Very often, one sees the definition of a pretopology as being an assignment of a *set* covering families to each object. We do not require this, as one can define a singleton pretopology as a subcategory with certain properties, and there is not necessarily then a set of covers for each object. One example is the category of groups with surjective homomorphisms as covers. This distinction will be important later.
One thing we will require is that sites come with *specified* pullbacks of covering families. If one does not mind applying the axiom of choice (resp. axiom of choice for classes) then any small site (resp. large site) can be so equipped. But often sites that arise in practice have more or less canonical choices for pullbacks, such as the category of ZF-sets.
The prototypical example is the pretopology $\mathcal{O}$ on $\Top$, where a covering family is an open cover. The class of numerable open covers (i.e. those that admit a subordinate partition of unity [@Dold_63]) also forms a pretopology on $\Top$. Much of traditional bundle theory is carried out using this site; for example the Milnor classifying space classifies bundles which are locally trivial over numerable covers.
\[defn:effective\_cov\_fam\] A covering family $(U_i \to A)_{i\in I} $ is called *effective* if $A$ is the colimit of the following diagram: the objects are the $U_i$ and the pullbacks $U_i \times_A
U_j$, and the arrows are the projections $$U_i \leftarrow U_i \times_A U_j \to U_j.$$ If the covering family consists of a single arrow $(U \to A)$, this is the same as saying $U \to A$ is a regular epimorphism.
A site is called *subcanonical* if every covering family is effective.
On $\Top$, the usual pretopology $\mathcal{O}$ of opens, the pretopology of numerable covers and that of open surjections are subcanonical.
In a regular category, the class of regular epimorphisms forms a subcanonical singleton pretopology.
In fact we can make the following definition.
For a category $S$, the largest class of regular epimorphisms of which all pullbacks exist, and which is stable under pullback, is called the *canonical singleton pretopology* and denoted ${\underline{c}}$.
This is a to be contrasted to the canonical *topology* on a category, which consists of covering sieves rather than covers. The canonical singleton pretopology is the largest subcanonical singleton pretopology on a category.
\[defn:saturation\] Let $(S,J)$ be a site. An arrow $P \to A$ in $S$ is called a *$J$-epimorphism* if there is a covering family $(U_i \to A)_{i\in I}$ and a lift $$\xymatrix{
& P \ar[d] \\
U_i \ar@{-->}[ur] \ar[r] & A
}$$ for every $i \in I$. A $J$-epimorphism is called *universal* if its pullback along an arbitrary map exists. We denote the singleton pretopology of universal $J$-epimorphisms by $J_{un}$.
This definition of $J$-epimorphism is equivalent to the definition in III.7.5 in [@MacLane-Moerdijk]. The dotted maps in the above definition are called local sections, after the case of the usual open cover pretopology on $\Top$. If $J$ is a singleton pretopology, it is clear that $J \subset J_{un}$.
The universal $\mathcal{O}$-epimorphisms for the pretopology $\mathcal{O}$ of open covers on $\Diff$ form $Subm$, the pretopology of surjective submersions.
\[eg:split\_epis\] In a finitely complete category the universal $triv$-epimorphisms are the split epimorphisms, where $triv$ is the *trivial pretopology* where all covering families consist of a single isomorphism. In $\Set$ with the axiom of choice there are all the epimorphisms.
Note that for a finitely complete site $(S,J)$, $J_{un}$ contains $triv_{un}$, hence all the split epimirphisms.
Although we will not assume that all sites we consider are finitely complete, results similar to ours have, and so in that case we can say a little more, given stronger properties on the pretopology.
A singleton pretopology $J$ is called *saturated* if whenever the composite $A \stackrel{h}{\to} B \stackrel{g}{\to} C$ is in $J$, then $g\in J$.
The concept of a saturated pretopology was introduced by Bénabou under the name *calibration* [@Benabou_75a]. It follows from the definition that a saturated singleton pretopology contains the split epimorphisms (take $h$ to be a section of the epimorphism $g$).
The canonical singleton pretopology ${\underline{c}}$ in a regular category (e.g. a topos) is saturated.
Given a pretopology $J$ on a finitely complete category, $J_{un}$ is saturated.
Sometimes a pretopology $J$ contains a smaller pretopology that still has enough covers to compute the same $J$-epimorphisms.
If $J$ and $K$ are two singleton pretopologies with $J \subset K$, such that $K \subset J_{un}$, then $J$ is said to be *cofinal* in $K$.
Clearly $J$ is cofinal in $J_{un}$ for any singleton pretopology $J$.
If $J$ is cofinal in $K$, then $J_{un} = K_{un}$.
We have the following lemma, which is essentially proved in [@Elephant], C2.1.6.
\[subcanonical\_goes\_up\_cofinal\] If a pretopology $J$ is subcanonical, then so any pretopology in which it is cofinal. In particular, $J$ subcanonical implies $J_{un}$ subcanonical.
As mentioned earlier, one may be given a singleton pretopology such that each object has more than a set’s worth of covers. If such a pretopology contains a cofinal pretopology with set-many covers for each object, then we can pass to the smaller pretopology and recover the same results (in a way that will be made precise later). In fact, we can get away with something weaker: one could ask only that the category of all covers of an object (see definition \[cover\_slice\] below) has a set of weakly initial objects, and such set may not form a pretopology. This is the content of the axiom WISC below. We first give some more precise definitions.
A category $C$ has a *weakly initial set* $\mathcal{I}$ of objects if for every object $A$ of $C$ there is an arrow $O\to A$ from some object $O\in \mathcal{I}$.
For example the large category $\Fields$ of fields has a weakly initial set, consisting of the prime fields $\{\mathbb{Q},\mathbb{F}_p|p\textrm{ prime}\}$. To contrast, the category of sets with surjections for arrows doesn’t have a weakly initial set of objects. Every small category has a weakly initial set, namely its set of objects.
We pause only to remark that the statement of the adjoint functor theorem can be expressed in terms of weakly initial sets.
\[cover\_slice\] Let $(S,J)$ be a site. For any object $A$, the *category of covers of $A$*, denoted $J/A$ has as objects the covering families $(U_i \to A)_{i\in I}$ and as morphisms $(U_i \to A)_{i\in I} \to (V_j \to A)_{j\in J}$ tuples consisting of a function $r\colon I\to J$ and arrows $U_i \to V_{r(i)}$ in $S/A$.
When $J$ is a singleton pretopology this is simply a full subcategory of $S/A$. We now define the axiom WISC (Weakly Initial Set of Covers), due independently to Mike Shulman and Thomas Streicher.
A site $(S,J)$ is said to *satisfy WISC* if for every object $A$ of $S$, the category $J/A$ has a weakly initial set of objects.
A site satisfying WISC is in some sense constrained by a small amount of data for each object. Any small site satisfies WISC, for example, the usual site of finite-dimensional smooth manifolds and open covers. Any pretopology $J$ containing a cofinal pretopology $K$ such that $K/A$ is small for every object $A$ satisfies WISC.
Any regular category (for example a topos) with enough projectives, equipped with the canonical singleton pretopology, satisfies WISC. In the case of $\Set$ ‘enough projectives’ is the Presentation Axiom (PAx), studied, for instance, by Aczel [@Aczel] in the context of constructive set theory.
$(\Top,\mathcal{O})$ satisfies WISC, using AC in $\Set$.
Choice may be more than is necessary here; it would be interesting to see if weaker choice principles in the site $(\Set,surjections)$ are enough to prove WISC for $(\Top,\mathcal{O})$ or other concrete sites.
If $(S,J)$ satisfies WISC, then so does $(S,J_{un})$.
It is instructive to consider an example where WISC fails in a non-artificial way. The category of sets and surjections with all arrows covers clearly doesn’t satisfy WISC, but is contrived and not a ‘useful’ sort of category. For the moment, assume the existence of a Grothendieck universe $\mathbb{U}$ with cardinality $\lambda$, and let $\mathrm{Set}_\mathbb{U}$ refer to the category of $\mathbb{U}$-small sets. Clearly we can define WISC relative to $\mathbb{U}$, call it WISC${}_\mathbb{U}$. Let $G$ be a $\mathbb{U}$-large group and $\mathbf{B}G$ the $\mathbb{U}$-large groupoid with one object associated to $G$. The boolean topos $\mathrm{Set}_\mathbb{U}^{\mathbf{B}G}$ of $\mathbb{U}$-small $G$-sets is a unary site with the class $epi$ of epimorphisms for covers. One could consider this topos as being an exotic sort of forcing construction.
\[U-small\_G-sets\] If $G$ has at least $\lambda$-many conjugacy classes of subgroups, then $(\mathrm{Set}_\mathbb{U}^{\mathbf{B}G},epi)$ does not satisfy WISC${}_\mathbb{U}$.
Alternatively, one could work in foundations where it is legitimate to discuss a proper class-sized group, and then consider the topos of sets with an action by this group. If there is a proper class of conjugacy classes of subgroups, then this topos with its canonical singleton pretopology will fail to satisfy WISC. Simple examples of such groups are $\mathbb{Z}^\mathbb{U}$ (given a universe $\mathbb{U}$) and $\mathbb{Z}^K$ (for some proper class $K$).
Recently, [@vdBerg_12] (relative to a large cardinal axiom) and [@Roberts_13] (with no large cardinals) have shown that the category of sets may fail to satisfy WISC. The models constructed in [@Karaglia_12] are also conjectured to not satisfy WISC.
Perhaps of independent interest is a form of WISC with a bound: the weakly initial set for each category $J/A$ has cardinality less than some cardinal $\kappa$ (call this WISC${}_\kappa$). Then one could consider, for example, sites where each object has a weakly initial finite or countable set of covers. Note that the condition ‘enough projectives’ is the case $\kappa = 2$.
Internal categories {#internal_cats}
===================
Internal categories were introduced in [@Ehresmann_63], starting with differentiable and topological categories (i.e. internal to $\Diff$ and $\Top$ respectively). We collect here the necessary definitions, terminology and notation. For a thorough recent account, see [@HDA5] or the encyclopedic [@Elephant].
Fix a category $S$, referred to as the *ambient category*.
\[def:cat\] An *internal category* $X$ in a category $S$ is a diagram $$X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1\rightrightarrows X_1 \times_{X_0}
X_1 \xrightarrow{m} X_1 \stackrel{s,t}{{\rightrightarrows}} X_0 \xrightarrow{e} X_1$$ in $S$ such that the *multiplication* $m$ is associative (we demand the limits in the diagram exist), the *unit map* $e$ is a two-sided unit for $m$ and $s$ and $t$ are the usual *source* and *target*. An *internal groupoid* is an internal category with an involution $$(-)^{-1}\colon X_1 \to X_1$$ satisfying the usual diagrams for an inverse.
Since multiplication is associative, there is a well-defined map $X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1 \to X_1$, which will also be denoted by $m$. The pullback in the diagram in definition \[def:cat\] is $$\xymatrix{
X_1 \times_{X_0} X_1 \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_1 \ar[d]^-{s}\\
X_1 \ar[r]_-{t} & X_0\;.
}$$ and the double pullback is the limit of $X_1 \stackrel{t}{\rightarrow} X_0 \stackrel{s}{\leftarrow} X_1
\stackrel{t}{\rightarrow} X_0 \stackrel{s}{\leftarrow}X_0$. These, and pullbacks like these (where source is pulled back along target), will occur often. If confusion can arise, the maps in question will be explicity written, as in $X_1 \times_{s,X_0,t} X_1$. One usually sees the requirement that $S$ is finitely complete in order to define internal categories. This is not strictly necessary, and not true in the well-studied case of $S = \Diff$, the category of smooth manifolds.
Often an internal category will be denoted $X_1 {\rightrightarrows}X_0$, the arrows $m,s,t,e$ (and $(-)^{-1}$) will be referred to as *structure maps* and $X_1$ and $X_0$ called the object of arrows and the object of objects respectively. For example, if $S = \Top$, we have the space of arrows and the space of objects, for $S = \Grp$ we have the group of arrows and so on.
\[eg:cech\_gpd\] If $X \to Y$ is an arrow in $S$ admitting iterated kernel pairs, there is an internal groupoid $\check{C}(X)$ with $\check{C}(X)_0 = X$, $\check{C}(X)_1 = X \times_Y X$, source and target are projection on first and second factor, and the multiplication is projecting out the middle factor in $X \times_Y X \times_Y X$. This groupoid is called the *Čech groupoid* of the map $X \to Y$. The origin of the name is that in $\Top$, for maps of the form $\coprod_I U_i \to Y$ (arising from an open cover), the Čech groupoid $\check{C}(\coprod_I U_i)$ appears in the definition of Čech cohomology.
\[eg:disc-codisc\_gpd\] Let $S$ be a category with binary products. For each object $A \in S$ there is an internal groupoid $\disc(A)$ which has $\disc(A)_1 = \disc(A)_0 = A$ and all structure maps equal to $id_A$. Such a category is called *discrete*. There is also an internal groupoid $\codisc(A)$ with $$\codisc(A)_0 = A,\
\codisc(A)_1 = A \times A$$ and where source and target are projections on the first and second factor respectively. Such a groupoid is called *codiscrete*.
\[def:functor\] Given internal categories $X$ and $Y$ in $S$, an *internal functor* is a pair of maps $$f_0\colon X_0 \to Y_0 \quad\textrm{and}\quad f_1\colon X_1 \to Y_1$$ called the object and arrow component respectively. Both components are required to commute with all the structure maps.
If $A\to C$ and $B\to C$ are maps admitting iterated kernel pairs, and $A \to B$ is a map over $C$, there is a functor $\check{C}(A) \to \check{C}(B)$.
\[functors2discrete\] If $(S,J)$ is a subcanonical unary site, and $U \to A$ is a cover, a functor $\check{C}(U) \to \disc(B)$ gives a unique arrow $A\to B$. This follows immediately from the fact $A$ is the colimit of the diagram underlying $\check{C}(U)$.
\[def:nat\_iso\] Given internal categories $X,Y$ and internal functors $f,g\colon X \to Y$, an *internal natural transformation* (or simply *transformation*) $$a\colon f \Rightarrow g$$ is a map $a\colon X_0 \to Y_1$ such that $s \circ a = f_0,\ t\circ a = g_0$ and the following diagram commutes $$\label{diag:naturality}
\xymatrix{
X_1 \ar[r]^-{(g_1,a\circ s)} \ar[d]_{(a \circ t,f_1)} &
Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \ar[d]^{m} \\
Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \ar[r]^-{m} & Y_1
}$$ expressing the naturality of $a$.
Internal categories (resp. groupoids), functors and transformations in a locally small category $S$ form a locally small 2-category $\Cat(S)$ (resp. $\Gpd(S)$) [@Ehresmann_63]. There is clearly an inclusion 2-functor $\Gpd(S) \to \Cat(S)$. Also, $\disc$ and $\codisc$, described in example \[eg:disc-codisc\_gpd\], are 2-functors $S \to \Gpd(S)$, whose underlying functors are left and right adjoint to the functor $$\Obj\colon\Cat(S)_{\leq 1} \to S,\qquad (X_1{\rightrightarrows}X_0)\mapsto X_0.$$ Here $\Cat(S)_{\leq 1}$ is the 1-category underlying the 2-category $\Cat(S)$. Hence for an internal category $X$ in $S$, there are functors $\disc(X_0) \to X$ and $X \to \codisc(X_0)$, the arrow component of the latter being $(s,t):X_1\to X_0^2$.
We say a natural transformation is a *natural isomorphism* if it has an inverse with respect to vertical composition. Clearly there is no distinction between natural transformations and natural isomorphisms when the codomain of the functors is an internal groupoid. We can reformulate the naturality diagram (\[diag:naturality\]) in the case that $a$ is a natural isomorphism. Denote by $-a$ the inverse of $a$. Then the diagram (\[diag:naturality\]) commutes if and only if the diagram $$\label{naturality}
\xymatrix{
X_0 \times_{X_0} X_1 \times_{X_0} X_0
\ar[rr]^{-a\times f_1 \times a}
\ar[d]_{\simeq} &&Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \ar[d]^m \\
X_1 \ar[rr]_{g_1} && Y_1
}$$ commutes, a fact we will use several times.
If $X$ is a category in $S$, $A$ is an object of $S$ and $f,g:X \to \codisc(A)$ are functors, there is a unique natural isomorphism $f\stackrel{\sim}{\Rightarrow} g$.
An *internal* or *strong equivalence* of internal categories is an equivalence in the 2-category of internal categories. That is, an internal functor $f
\colon X\to Y$ such that there is a functor $f'\colon Y\to X$ and natural isomorphisms $f\circ f' \Rightarrow \id_Y$, $f'\circ f \Rightarrow \id_X$.
\[induced\_cat\] For an internal category $X$ and a map $p:M\to X_0$ in $S$ the *base change of $X$ along $p$* is any category $X[M]$ with object of objects $M$ and object of arrows given by the pullback $$\xymatrix{
M^2 \times_{X_0^2} X_1 \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_1 \ar[d]^{(s,t)} \\
M^2 \ar[r]_{p^2} & X_0^2
}$$
If $C\subset \Cat(S)$ denotes a full sub-2-category and if the base change along any map in a given class $K$ of maps exists in $C$ for all objects of $C$, then we say $C$ *admits base change along maps in $K$*, or simply *admits base change for $K$*.
In all that follows, ‘category’ will mean object of $C$ and similarly for ‘functor’ and ‘natural transformation/isomorphism’.
The strict pullback of internal categories $$\xymatrix{
X \times_Y Z \ar[r] \ar[d] & Z \ar[d] \\
X \ar[r] & Y
}$$ when it exists, is the internal category with objects $X_0 \times_{Y_0} Z_0$, arrows $X_1 \times_{Y_1} Z_1$, and all structure maps given componentwise by those of $X$ and $Z$. Often we will be able to prove that certain pullbacks exist because of conditions on various component maps in $S$. We do not assume that all strict pullbacks of internal categories exists in our chosen $C$.
It follows immediately from definition \[induced\_cat\] that given maps $N\to M$ and $M\to X_0$, there is a canonical isomorphism $$\label{induced_cat_1}
X[M][N] \simeq X[N].$$ with object component the identity map, when these base changes exist.
\[remark:pullback\_of\_x\_along\_x\] If we agree to follow the convention that $M \times_N N = M$ is the pullback along the identity arrow $\id_N$, then $X[X_0] = X$. This also simplifies other results of this paper, so will be adopted from now on.
One consequence of this assumption is that the iterated fibre product $$M\times_M M \times_M \ldots \times_M M,$$ bracketed in any order, is *equal* to $M$. We cannot, however, equate two bracketings of a general iterated fibred product; they are only canonically isomorphic.
\[strict\_pullbacks\_triv\_J\_fibrations\] Let $Y\to X$ be a functor in $S$ and $j_0\colon U \to X_0$ a map. If the base change along $j_0$ exists, the following square is a strict pullback $$\xymatrix{
Y[Y_0\times_{X_0}U] \ar[r] \ar[d] & X[U] \ar[d]^j \\
Y \ar[r] & X
}$$ assuming it exists.
Since base change along $j_0$ exists, we know that we have the functor $Y[Y_0\times_{X_0}U] \to Y$, we just need to show it is a strict pullback of $j$. On the level of objects this is clear, and on the level of arrows, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(Y_0\times_{X_0}U)^2 \times_{Y_0^2}Y_1 &\simeq U^2\times_{X_0^2} Y_1\\
&\simeq (U^2\times_{X_0^2}X_1) \times_{X_1}Y_1 \\
&\simeq X[U]_1\times_{X_1}Y_1\end{aligned}$$ so the square is a pullback.
We are interested in 2-categories $C$ which admits base change for a given pretopology $J$ on $S$, which we shall cover in more detail in section \[examples\].
Equivalences in $\Cat$—assuming the axiom of choice—are precisely the fully faithful, essentially surjective functors. For internal categories, however, this is not the case. In addition, we need to make use of a pretopology to make the ‘surjective’ part of ‘essentially surjective’ meaningful.
\[def:weak\_equiv\] Let $(S,J)$ be a unary site. An internal functor $f:X \to Y$ in $S$ is called
1. *fully faithful* if $$\xymatrix{
X_1 \ar[r]^{f_1} \ar[d]_{(s,t)} & Y_1 \ar[d]^{(s,t)}\\
X_0 \times X_0 \ar[r]_{f_0 \times f_0} & Y_0 \times Y_0
}$$ is a pullback diagram;
2. *$J$-locally split* if there is a $J$-cover $U\to Y_0$ and a diagram $$\xymatrix{
Y[U] \ar[d]_{\bar f} \ar@/^.5pc/[dr]_{\ }="s1"^{u}& \\
X\ar[r]_{f}^(.33){\ }="t1"&Y
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"
}$$ commuting up to a natural isomorphism;
3. a *$J$-equivalence* if it is fully faithful and $J$-locally split.
The class of $J$-equivalences will be denoted $W_J$. If mention of $J$ is suppressed, they will be called *weak equivalences*.
There is another defintion of full faithfulness for internal categories, namely that of a functor $f\colon Z\to Y$ being *representably fully faithful*. This means that for all categories $Z$, the functor $$f_\ast\colon \Cat(S)(Z,X) \to \Cat(S)(Z,Y)$$ is fully faithful. It is a well-known result that these two notions coincide, so we shall use either characterisation as needed.
If $f:X \to Y$ is a fully faithful functor such that $f_0$ is in $J$, then $f$ is $J$-locally split.
That is, the canonical functor $X[U] \to X$ is a $J$-equivalence whenever the base change exists. Also, we do not require that $J$ is subcanonical. We record here a useful lemma.
\[rep\_ff\_functors\_closed\_under\_iso\] Given a fully faithful functor $f\colon X \to Y$ in $C$ and a natural isomorphism $f \Rightarrow g$, the functor $g$ is also fully faithful. In particular, an internal equivalence is fully faithful.
This is a simple application of the definition of representable full faithfulness and the fact that the result is true in $\Cat$.
The first definition of weak equivalence of internal categories along the lines we are considering appeared in [@Bunge-Pare_79] for $S$ a regular category, and $J$ the class of regular epimorphisms (i.e. ${\underline{c}}$), in the context of stacks and indexed categories. This was later generalised in [@Everaert_et_al_05] to more general finitely complete sites to discuss model structures on the category of internal categories. Both work only with saturated singleton pretopologies.
Note that when $S$ is finitely complete, the object $X_1^{iso} {\hookrightarrow}X_1$ of isomorphisms of a category $X$ can be constructed as a finite limit [@Bunge-Pare_79], and in the case when $X$ is a groupoid we have $X_1^{iso} \simeq X_1$.
[[@Bunge-Pare_79; @Everaert_et_al_05]]{}\[def:PB\_weak\_equiv\] For a finitely complete unary site $(S,J)$ with $J$ saturated, a functor $f$ is called *essentially $J$-surjective* if the arrow labelled $\circledast$ below is in $J$. $$\xymatrix{
&\ar[dl] X_0 \times_{Y_0} Y_1^{iso} \ar@/^1pc/[ddr]^\circledast \ar[d]&\\
X_0 \ar[d]_{f_0} & \ar[dl]^s Y_1^{iso} \ar[dr]_t &\\
Y_0 && Y_0
}$$ A functor is called a *Bunge-Paré $J$-equivalence* if it is fully faithful and essentially $J$-surjective. Denote the class of such maps by $W_J^{BP}$.
Definition \[def:weak\_equiv\] is equivalent to the one in [@Bunge-Pare_79; @Everaert_et_al_05] in the sites they consider but seems more appropriate for sites without all finite limits. Also, definition \[def:weak\_equiv\] makes sense in 2-categories other than $\Cat(S)$ or sub-2-categories thereof.
\[BP\_equiv\_iff\_weak\_equiv\] Let $(S,J)$ be a finitely complete unary site with $J$ saturated. Then a functor is a $J$-equivalence if and only if it is a Bunge-Paré $J$-equivalence.
Let $f\colon X \to Y$ be a Bunge-Paré $J$-equivalence, and consider the $J$-cover given by the map $U := X_0 \times_{Y_0} Y_1^{iso} \to Y_0$. Denote by $\iota\colon U\to Y_1^{iso}$ the projection on the second factor, by $-\iota$ the composite of $\iota$ with the inversion map $(-)^{-1}$ and by $s_0\colon U\to X_0$ the projection on the first factor. The arrow $s_0$ will be the object component of a functor $s\colon Y[U] \to X$, we need to define the arrow component $s_1$. Consider the composite $$\begin{aligned}
Y[U]_1 \simeq U\times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} U \xrightarrow{(s,\iota)\times\id\times(-\iota,s)}
(X_0 \times_{Y_0} Y_1^{iso}) \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} ( Y_1^{iso} \times_{Y_0} X_0) \\
\hookrightarrow X_0 \times_{Y_0} Y_3 \times_{Y_0} X_0 \xrightarrow{\id\times m\times\id}
X_0 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} X_0 \simeq X_1\end{aligned}$$ where the last isomorphism arises from $f$ being fully faithful. It is clear that this commutes with source and target, because these are given by projection on the first and last factor at each step. To see that it respects identities and composition, one can use generalised elements and the fact that the $\iota$ component will cancel with the $-\iota = (-)^{-1}\circ \iota$ component.
We define the natural isomorphism $f\circ s \Rightarrow j$ (here $j\colon Y[U] \to Y$ is the canonical functor) to have component $\iota$ as denoted above. Notice that the composite $f_1\circ s_1$ is just $$Y[U]_1 \simeq U \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} U \xrightarrow{\iota\times\id
\times -\iota} Y_1^{iso} \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1^{iso} \hookrightarrow
Y_3 \xrightarrow{m} Y_1.$$ Since the arrow component of $Y[U] \to Y$ is $U \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} U
\xrightarrow{\pr_2} Y_1$, $\iota$ is indeed a natural isomorphism using the diagram (\[naturality\]). Thus a Bunge-Paré $J$-equivalence is a $J$-equivalence.
In the other direction, given a $J$-equivalence $f\colon X\to Y$, we have a $J$-cover $j\colon U\to Y_0$ and a map $(\overline{f},a)\colon U \to X_0 \times Y_1^{iso}$ such that $j = (t\circ pr_2)\circ(\overline{f},a)$. Since $J$ is saturated, $(t\circ pr_2)\in J$ and hence $f$ is a Buge-Paré $J$-equivalence.
We can thus use definition \[def:weak\_equiv\] as we like, and it will still refer to the same sorts of weak equivalences that appear in the literature.
Anafunctors
===========
We now let $J$ be a *subcanonical* singleton pretopology on the ambient category $S$. In this section we assume that $C{\hookrightarrow}\Cat(S)$ admits base change along arrows in the given pretopology $J$. This is a slight generalisation of what is considered in [@Bartels], where only $C = \Cat(S)$ is considered.
[[@Makkai; @Bartels]]{}\[def:anafunctor\] An *anafunctor* in $(S,J)$ from a category $X$ to a category $Y$ consists of a $J$-cover $(U \to X_0)$ and an internal functor $$f\colon X[U] \to Y.$$ Since $X[U]$ is an object of $C$, an anafunctor is a span in $C$, and can be denoted $$(U,f)\colon X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y.$$
\[eg:ordinary\_functor\] For an internal functor $f\colon X \to Y$ in $S$, define the anafunctor $(X_0,f)\colon
X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ as the following span $$X \xleftarrow{=} X[X_0] \xrightarrow{f} Y.$$ We will blur the distinction between these two descriptions. If $f=id\colon X \to X$, then $(X_0,id)$ will be denoted simply by $id_X$.
If $U \to A$ is a cover in $(S,J)$ and $\mathbf{B}G$ is a groupoid with one object in $S$ (i.e. a group in $S$), an anafunctor $(U,g)\colon\disc(A) {-\!\!\!\mapsto}\mathbf{B}G$ is the same thing as a Čech cocycle.
[[@Makkai; @Bartels]]{} Let $(S,J)$ be a site and let $$(U,f),(V,g)\colon X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$$ be anafunctors in $S$. A *transformation* $$\alpha\colon (U,f) \Rightarrow (V,g)$$ from $(U,f)$ to $(V,g)$ is a natural transformation $$\xymatrix{
& \ar[dl] X[U\times_{X_0}V] \ar[dr] & \\
X[U] \ar[dr]_f & \stackrel{\alpha}{\Rightarrow} & X[V] \ar[dl]^g\\
& Y &
}$$ If $\alpha$ is a natural isomorphism, then $\alpha$ will be called an *isotransformation*. In that case we say $(U,f)$ is isomorphic to $(V,g)$. Clearly all transformations between anafunctors between internal groupoids are isotransformations.
\[eg:ordinary\_transf\] Given functors $f,g\colon X \to Y$ between categories in $S$, and a natural transformation $a\colon f \Rightarrow g$, there is a transformation $a\colon (X_0,f)
\Rightarrow (X_0,g)$ of anafunctors, given by the component $X_0\times_{X_0}X_0
= X_0 \xrightarrow{a} Y_1$.
If $(U,g),(V,h)\colon \disc(A) {-\!\!\!\mapsto}\mathbf{B}G$ are two Čech cocycles, a transformation between them is a coboundary on the cover $U\times_A V\to A$.
Let $(U,f)\colon X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ be an anafunctor in $S$. There is an isotransformation $1_{(U,f)}\colon (U,f) \Rightarrow (U,f)$ called the *identity transformation*, given by the natural transformation with component $$\label{id_transf_component}
U \times_{X_0} U \simeq (U \times U) \times_{X_0^2} X_0 \xrightarrow{id_U^2
\times e} X[U]_1 \xrightarrow{f_1} Y_1$$
[[@Makkai]]{}\[renaming\_transf\] Given anafunctors $(U,f)\colon X\to Y$ and $(V,f\circ k)\colon X \to Y$ where $k
\colon V\to U$ is a cover (over $X_0$), a *renaming transformation* $$(U,f)\Rightarrow(V,f\circ k)$$ is an isotransformation with component $$1_{(U,f)}\circ (k\times \id):V\times_{X_0} U \to U\times_{X_0} U \to Y_1.$$ (We also call its inverse for vertical composition a renaming transformation.) If $k$ is an isomorphism, then it will itself be referred to as a *renaming isomorphism*.
We define (following [@Bartels]) the composition of anafunctors as follows. Let $$(U,f)\colon X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y \quad \textrm{and} \quad (V,g)\colon Y {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Z$$ be anafunctors in the site $(S,J)$. Their composite $(V,g)\circ(U,f)$ is the composite span defined in the usual way. It is again a span in $C$: $$\xymatrix{
&& \ar[dl] X[U\times_{Y_0}V] \ar[dr]^{f^V} & \\
&\ar[dl]X[U] \ar[dr]_f & & Y[V] \ar[dl] \ar[dr]^g\\
X&& Y &&Z
}$$ The square is a pullback by lemma \[strict\_pullbacks\_triv\_J\_fibrations\] (which exists because $V\to
Y_0$ is a cover), and the resulting span is an anafunctor because $V \to Y_0$, hence $U\times_{Y_0}V\to X_0$, are covers, and using the isomorphism (\[induced\_cat\_1\]). We will sometimes denote the composite by $(U\times_{Y_0}V,g\circ f^V)$.
Here we are using the fact we have specified pullbacks of covers in $S$. Without this we would not end up with a bicategory (see theorem \[anafunctors\_are\_a\_bicat\]), but what [@Makkai] calls an *anabicategory*. This is similar to a bicategory, but composition and other structural maps are only anafunctors, not functors.
Consider the special case when $V = Y_0$, so that $(Y_0,g)$ is just an ordinary functor. Then there is a renaming transformation (the identity transformation!) $(Y_0,g)\circ(U,f) \Rightarrow (U,g\circ f)$, using the equality $U \times_{Y_0} Y_0= U$ (by remark \[remark:pullback\_of\_x\_along\_x\]). If we let $g=\id_Y$, then we see that $(Y_0,\id_Y)$ is a strict unit on the left for anafunctor composition. Similarly, considering $(V,g)\circ(Y_0,\id)$, we see that $(Y_0,\id_Y)$ is a two-sided strict unit for anafunctor composition. In fact, we have also proved
\[coherent\_composition\] Given two functors $f\colon X\to Y$, $g\colon Y \to Z$ in $S$, their composition as anafunctors is equal to their composition as functors: $$(Y_0,g)\circ(X_0,f) = (X_0,g\circ f).$$
As a concrete and relevant example of a renaming transformation we can consider the triple composition of anafunctors $$\begin{aligned}
(U,f)\colon & X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y,\\
(V,g)\colon & Y {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Z,\\
(W,h)\colon & Z {-\!\!\!\mapsto}A.\end{aligned}$$ The two possibilities of composing these are $$\left((U\times_{Y_0} V)\times_{Z_0}W,h\circ(gf^V)^W\right)\quad \text{and}\quad \left(U
\times_{Y_0} (V\times_{Z_0} W),h\circ g^W\circ f^{V\times_{Z_0}W}\right).$$
\[lemma:associator\] The unique isomorphism $(U\times_{Y_0} V)\times_{Z_0}W \simeq U\times_{Y_0} (V
\times_{Z_0} W)$ commuting with the various projections is a renaming isomorphism. The isotransformation arising from this renaming transformation is called the *associator*.
A simple but useful criterion for describing isotransformations where one of the anafunctors involved is a functor is as follows.
\[anafun\_iso2\_fun\] An anafunctor $(V,g)\colon X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ is isomorphic to a functor $(X_0,f)\colon X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ if and only if there is a natural isomorphism $$\xymatrix{
& \ar[dl] X[V] \ar[dr]^g \\
X \ar@/_1.5pc/[rr]_(.6){f}& \stackrel{\sim}{\Rightarrow} & Y
}$$
Just as there is a vertical composition of natural transformations between internal functors, there is a vertical composition of transformations between internal anafunctors [@Bartels]. This is where the subcanonicity of $J$ will be used in order to construct a map locally over some cover. Consider the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
&& \ar[dl] X[U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W] \ar[dr]\\
& \ar[dl] X[U\times_{X_0} V] \ar[dr] &
& \ar[dl] X[V\times_{X_0} W] \ar[dr]\\
X[U] \ar[drr]_f & \stackrel{a}{\Rightarrow} & X[V] \ar[d]^g& \stackrel{b}
{\Rightarrow} & X[W] \ar[dll]^h \\
&&Y&&
}$$ We can form a natural transformation between the leftmost and the rightmost composites as functors in $S$. This will have as its component the arrow $$\widetilde{ba}\colon U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W \xrightarrow{\id\times \Delta
\times \id} U\times_{X_0}V\times_{X_0}V\times_{X_0} W \xrightarrow{a\times b}
Y_1\times_{Y_0} Y_1 \xrightarrow{m} Y_1$$ in $S$. Notice that the Čech groupoid of the cover $$\label{iterated_cover}
U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W \to U \times_{X_0} W$$ is $$U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W {\rightrightarrows}U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W,$$ with source and target arising from the two projections $V\times_{X_0} V \to V$. Denote this pair of parallel arrows by $s,t\colon UV^2W {\rightrightarrows}UVW$ for brevity. In [@Bartels], section 2.2.3, we find the commuting diagram $$\label{tobys_diag}
\xymatrix{
UV^2W \ar[r]^t \ar[d]_s & UVW \ar[d]^{\widetilde{ba}}\\
UVW \ar[r]_{\widetilde{ba}} & Y_1
}$$ (this can be checked by using generalised elements) and so we have a functor $$\check{C}(U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W) \to \disc(Y_1).$$ Our pretopology $J$ is assumed to be subcanonical, so example \[functors2discrete\] gives us a unique arrow $ba\colon U\times_{X_0} W \to Y_1$, which is the data for the composite of $a$ and $b$.
In the special case that $U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W \to U \times_{X_0} W$ is split (e.g. is an isomorphism), the composite transformation has $$U \times_{X_0} W\to U\times_{X_0} V\times_{X_0} W \xrightarrow{\widetilde{ba}} Y_1$$ as its component arrow. In particular, this is the case if one of $a$ or $b$ is a renaming transformation.
\[eg:transf\_compose2\] Let $(U,f):X{-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ be an anafunctor and $U'' \xrightarrow{j'} U' \xrightarrow{j} U$ successive refinements of $U \to X_0$ (e.g isomorphisms). Let $(U',f_{U'})$ and $(U'',f_{U''})$ denote the composites of $f$ with $X[U'] \to X[U]$ and $X[U''] \to X[U]$ respectively. The arrow $$U \times_{X_0} U'' \xrightarrow{\id_U\times j\circ j'} U \times_{X_0} U \to Y_1$$ is the component for the composition of the isotransformations $(U,f)
\Rightarrow(U',f_{U'}),\Rightarrow(U'',f_{U''})$ described in example \[renaming\_transf\]. Thus we can see that the composite of renaming transformations associated to isomorphisms $\phi_1,\phi_2$ is simply the renaming transformation associated to their composite $\phi_1\circ \phi_2$.
This can be used to show that the associator satisfies the necessary coherence conditions.
\[eg:transf\_compose1\] If $a\colon f\Rightarrow g,\ b\colon g\Rightarrow h$ are natural transformations between functors $f,g,h\colon X\to Y$ in $S$, their composite as transformations between anafunctors $$(X_0,f),(X_0,g),(X_0,h)\colon X{-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y.$$ is just their composite as natural transformations. This uses the equality $$X_0\times_{X_0} X_0\times_{X_0} X_0= X_0\times_{X_0} X_0 = X_0,$$ which is due to our choice in remark \[remark:pullback\_of\_x\_along\_x\] of canonical pullbacks.
Even though we don’t have pseudoinverses for weak equivalences of internal categories, one might guess that the local splitting guaranteed to exist by definition is actually more than just a splitting of sorts. This is in fact the case, if we use anafunctors.
\[anafunctors-r-inverses\] Let $f\colon X \to Y$ be a $J$-equivalence in $S$. There is an anafunctor $$(U,\bar{f})\colon Y {-\!\!\!\mapsto}X$$ and isotransformations $$\begin{aligned}
\iota\colon (X_0,f)\circ (U,\bar{f}) & \Rightarrow id_Y\\
\epsilon\colon(U,\bar{f})\circ (X_0,f) & \Rightarrow id_X\end{aligned}$$
We have the anafunctor $(U,\bar{f})$ by definition as $f$ is $J$-locally split. Since the anafunctors $\id_X,\ \id_Y$ are actually functors, we can use lemma \[anafun\_iso2\_fun\]. Using the special case of anafunctor composition when the second is a functor, this tells us that $\iota$ will be given by a natural isomorphism $$\xymatrix{
& X \ar[dr]^{f}_(0.2){\ }="s" & \\
Y[U] \ar[rr]^{\ }="t" \ar[ur]^{\bar{f}} && Y
\ar@{=>}"s";"t"
}$$ with component $\iota\colon U \to Y_1$. Notice that the composite $f_1\circ \bar{f}_1$ is just $$Y[U]_1 \simeq U \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} U \xrightarrow{\iota\times\id
\times -\iota} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \hookrightarrow
Y_3 \xrightarrow{m} Y_1.$$ Since the arrow component of $Y[U] \to Y$ is $U \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} U
\xrightarrow{\pr_2} Y_1$, $\iota$ is indeed a natural isomorphism using the diagram (\[naturality\]).
The other isotransformation $\epsilon$ is between $(X_0\times_{Y_0} U,\bar{f}\circ \pr_2)$ and $(X_0,\id_X)$, and is given by the component $$\epsilon\colon X_0 \times_{X_0} X_0\times_{Y_0} U = X_0\times_{Y_0} U
\xrightarrow{\id\times (\bar{f}_0,\iota)} X_0\times_{Y_0} (X_0\times_{Y_0} Y_1) \simeq X_0^2
\times_{Y_0^2} Y_1 \simeq X_1$$ The diagram $$\xymatrix{
(X_0\times_{Y_0^2} U)^2 \times_{X_0^2} X_1 \ar[d]_\simeq \ar[rr]^{\pr_2}
& &X_1 \ar[dd]^\simeq\\
U \times_{Y_0} X_1 \times_{Y_0}U \ar[d]_{-\iota\times f\times\iota} & \\
(X_0 \times_{Y_0} Y_1) \times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} (Y_1 \times_{Y_0} X_0)
\ar[rr]_(.6){\id\times m \times \id}
&& X_0\times_{Y_0} Y_1 \times_{Y_0} X_0
}$$ commutes (a fact which can be checked using generalised elements), and using (\[naturality\]) we see that $\epsilon$ is natural.
The first half of the following theorem is proposition 12 in [@Bartels], and the second half follows because all the constructions of categories involved in dealing with anafunctors outlined above are still objects of $C$.
[[@Bartels]]{}\[anafunctors\_are\_a\_bicat\] For a site $(S,J)$ where $J$ is a subcanonical singleton pretopology, internal categories, anafunctors and transformations form a bicategory $\Cat_\ana(S,J)$. If we restrict attention to a full sub-2-category $C$ which admits base change for arrows in $J$, we have an analogous full sub-bicategory $C_\ana(J)$.
In fact the bicategory $C_{ana}(J)$ fails to be a strict 2-category only in the sense that the associator is given by the non-identity isotransformation from lemma \[lemma:associator\]. All the other structure is strict.
There is a strict 2-functor $C_\ana(J) \to \Cat_\ana(S,J)$ which is an inclusion on objects and fully faithful in the strictest sense, namely being the identity functor on hom-categories. The following is the main result of this section, and allows us to relate anafunctors to the localisations considered in the next section.
\[W-inverting\_alpha\] There is a strict, identity-on-objects 2-functor $$\alpha_J\colon C \to C_\ana(J)$$ sending $J$-equivalences to equivalences, and commuting with the respective inclusions into $\Cat(S)$ and $\Cat_\ana(S,J)$.
We define $\alpha_J$ to be the identity on objects, and as described in examples \[eg:ordinary\_functor\], \[eg:ordinary\_transf\] on 1-arrows and 2-arrows (i.e. functors and transformations). We need first to show that this gives a functor $C(X,Y)
\to C_\ana(J)(X,Y)$. This is precisely the content of example \[eg:transf\_compose1\]. Since the identity 1-cell on a category $X$ in $C_\ana(J)$ is the image of the identity functor on $S$ in $C$, $\alpha_J$ respects identity 1-cells. Also, lemma \[coherent\_composition\] tells us that $
\alpha_J$ respects composition. That $\alpha_J$ sends $J$-equivalences to equivalences is the content of lemma \[anafunctors-r-inverses\].
The 2-category $C$ is locally small (i.e. enriched in small categories) if $S$ itself is locally small (i.e. enriched in sets), but *a priori* the collection of anafunctors $X{-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ do not constitute a set for $S$ a large category.
Let $(S,J)$ be a locally small, subcanonical unary site satisfying WISC and let $C$ admit base change along arrows in $J$. Then $C_\ana(J)$ is locally essentially small.
Given an object $A$ of $S$, let $I(A)$ be a weakly initial set for $J/A$. Consider the locally full sub-2-category of $C_\ana(J)$ with the same objects, and arrows those anafunctors $(U,f):X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ such that $U \to X_0$ is in $I(X_0)$. Every anafunctor is then isomorphic, by example \[renaming\_transf\], to one in this sub-2-category. The collection of anafunctors $(U,f):X {-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ for a fixed $U$ forms a set, by local smallness of $C$, and similarly the collection of transformations between a pair of anafunctors forms a set by local smallness of $S$.
Examples of locally small sites $(S,J)$ where $C_\ana(J)$ is not known to be locally essentially small are the category of sets from the model of ZF used in [@vdBerg_12], the model of ZF constructed in [@Roberts_13] and the topos from proposition \[U-small\_G-sets\]. We note that local essential smallness of $C_\ana(J)$ seems to be a condition just slightly weaker than WISC.
Localising bicategories at a class of 1-cells {#localisation}
=============================================
Ultimately we are interesting in inverting all $J$-equivalences in $C$ and so need to discuss what it means to add the formal pseudoinverses to a class of 1-cells in a 2-category – a process known as *localisation*. This was done in [@Pronk_96] for the more general case of a class of 1-cells in a bicategory, where the resulting bicategory is constructed and its universal properties examined. The application in *loc. cit.* is to show the equivalence of various bicategories of stacks to localisations of 2-categories of smooth, topological and algebraic groupoids. The results of this article can be seen as one-half of a generalisation of these results to more general sites.
[[@Pronk_96]]{} Let $B$ be a bicategory and $W \subset B_1$ a class of 1-cells. A *localisation of $B$ with respect to $W$* is a bicategory $B[W^{-1}]$ and a weak 2-functor $$U \colon B \to B[W^{-1}]$$ such that $U$ sends elements of $W$ to equivalences, and is universal with this property i.e. precomposition with $U$ gives an equivalence of bicategories $$U^* \colon Hom(B[W^{-1}],D) \to Hom_W(B,D),$$ where $Hom_W$ denotes the sub-bicategory of weak 2-functors that send elements of $W$ to equivalences (call these *$W$-inverting*, abusing notation slightly).
The universal property means that $W$-inverting weak 2-functors $F\colon B \to D$ factor, up to an equivalence, through $B[W^{-1}]$, inducing an essentially unique weak 2-functor $\widetilde{F}\colon B[W^{-1}] \to D$.
[[@Pronk_96]]{}\[bicat\_fracs\] Let $B$ be a bicategory with a class $W$ of 1-cells. $W$ is said to *admit a right calculus of fractions* if it satisfies the following conditions
1. $W$ contains all equivalences
2. a\) $W$ is closed under composition\
b) If $a\in W$ and there is an isomorphism $a \stackrel{\sim}{\Rightarrow} b$ then $b\in W$
3. For all $w\colon A' \to A,\ f\colon C \to A$ with $w\in W$ there exists a 2-commutative square $$\xymatrix{
P \ar[dd]^v \ar[rr]^g && A'\ar[dd]^w_{\ }="s" \\
\\
C \ar[rr]^{f}="t" & & A
\ar@{=>}_{\simeq} "s"; "t"
}$$ with $v\in W$.
4. If $\alpha\colon w \circ f \Rightarrow w \circ g$ is a 2-arrow and $w\in W$ there is a 1-cell $v \in W$ and a 2-arrow $\beta\colon f\circ v \Rightarrow g \circ v$ such that $\alpha\circ v = w \circ \beta$. Moreover: when $\alpha$ is an isomorphism, we require $\beta$ to be an isomorphism too; when $v'$ and $\beta'$ form another such pair, there exist 1-cells $u,\,u'$ such that $v\circ u$ and $v'\circ u'$ are in $W$, and an isomorphism $\epsilon\colon v\circ u \Rightarrow v' \circ u'$ such that the following diagram commutes: $$\label{2cf4.diag}
\xymatrix{
f \circ v \circ u \ar@{=>}[rr]^{\beta\circ u}
\ar@{=>}[dd]_{f\circ \epsilon}^\simeq &&
g\circ v \circ u \ar@{=>}[dd]^{g\circ \epsilon}_\simeq \\
\\
f\circ v' \circ u' \ar@{=>}[rr]_{\beta'\circ u'} && g\circ v' \circ u'
}$$
For a bicategory $B$ with a calculus of right fractions, [@Pronk_96] constructs a localisation of $B$ as a bicategory of fractions; the 1-arrows are spans and the 2-arrows are equivalence classes of bicategorical spans-of-spans diagrams.
From now on we shall refer to a calculus of right fractions as simply a calculus of fractions, and the resulting localisation constructed by Pronk as a bicategory of fractions. Since $B[W^{-1}]$ is defined only up to equivalence, it is of great interest to know when a bicategory $D$, in which elements of $W$ are sent to equivalences by a 2-functor $B \to D$, is equivalent to $B[W^{-1}]$. In particular, one might be interested in finding such an equivalent bicategory with a simpler description than that which appears in [@Pronk_96].
[[@Pronk_96]]{}\[comparison\_thm\] A weak 2-functor $F:B \to D$ which sends elements of $W$ to equivalences induces an equivalence of bicategories $$\widetilde{F} \colon B[W^{-1}] \xrightarrow{\sim} D$$ if the following conditions hold
1. $F$ is essentially surjective,
2. For every 1-cell $f \in D_1$ there are 1-cells $w \in W$ and $g\in B_1$ such that $Fg \stackrel{\sim}{\Rightarrow} f \circ Fw$,
3. $F$ is locally fully faithful.
Thanks are due to Matthieu Dupont for pointing out (in personal communication) that proposition \[comparison\_thm\] actually only holds in the one direction, not in both, as claimed in *loc. cit.*
The following is useful in showing a weak 2-functor sends weak equivalences to equivalences, because this condition only needs to be checked on a class that is in some sense cofinal in the weak equivalences.
\[inverting\_special\_we\] Let $V \subset W$ be two classes of 1-cells in a bicategory $B$ such that for all $w\in W$, there exists $v\in V$ and $s\in W$ and an invertible 2-cell $$\xymatrix{
&& a \ar[dd]^w \\
& & \\
b \ar[rr]_v^{\ }="t1" \ar[uurr]^s_{\ }="s1" && c\; .
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"^{\simeq}
}$$ Then a weak 2-functor $F\colon B \to D$ that sends elements of $V$ to equivalences also sends elements of $W$ to equivalences.
In the following the coherence arrows will be present, but unlabelled. It is enough to prove that if in a bicategory $D$ with a class of maps $M$ (in our case $M=F(W)$) such that for all $w\in M$ there is an equivalence $v$ and an isomorphism $\alpha$, $$\xymatrix{
&& a \ar[dd]^w \\
& & \\
b \ar[rr]_v^{\ }="t1" \ar[uurr]^s_{\ }="s1" && c
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"^{\simeq}_\alpha
}$$ where $s\in M$, then all elements of $M$ are also equivalences.
Let $\bar v$ be a pseudoinverse for $v$ and let $j = s \circ \bar v$. Then there is sequence of isomorphisms $$w\circ j \Rightarrow (w\circ s)\circ \bar v \Rightarrow v \circ \bar v
\Rightarrow I.$$
Since $s\in M$, there is an equivalence $u$, $t\in M$ and an isomorphism $\beta$ giving the following diagram $$\xymatrix{
d \ar[dd]_{t} \ar[rr]^{u}_{\ }="s2" && a \ar[dd]^w \\
& & \\
b \ar[rr]_v^{\ }="t1" \ar[uurr]^s="t2"_{\ }="s1" && c \; .
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"^\alpha
\ar@{=>}"s2";"t2"_\beta
}$$ Let $\bar u$ be a pseudoinverse of $u$. We know from the first part of the proof that we have a pseudosection $k = t\circ \bar u$ of $s$, with an isomorphism $s \circ k \Rightarrow I$. We then have the following sequence of isomorphisms: $$j\circ w
= (s\circ \bar v) \circ w
\Rightarrow ((s\circ \bar v) \circ w) \circ (s \circ k)
\Rightarrow s \circ ((\bar v \circ v) \circ (t\circ \bar u))
\Rightarrow (s\circ t) \circ u
\Rightarrow \bar u \circ u
\Rightarrow I.$$ Thus all elements of $M$ are equivalences.
2-categories of internal categories admit bicategories of fractions {#main}
===================================================================
In this section we prove the result that $C{\hookrightarrow}\Cat(S)$ admits a calculus of fractions for the $J$-equivalences, where $J$ is a singleton pretopology on $S$.
The following is the first main theorem of the paper, and subsumes a number of other, similar theorems throughout the literature (see section \[examples\] for details).
\[bicat\_frac\_exists\] Let $S$ be a category with a singleton pretopology $J$. Assume the full sub-2-category $C {\hookrightarrow}\Cat(S)$ admits base change along maps in $J$. Then $C$ admits a right calculus of fractions for the class $W_J$ of $J$-equivalences.
We show the conditions of definition \[bicat\_fracs\] hold.
- An internal equivalence is clearly $J$-locally split. Lemma \[rep\_ff\_functors\_closed\_under\_iso\] gives us the rest.
- - That the composition of fully faithful functors is again fully faithful is trivial. Consider the composition $g\circ f$ of two $J$-locally split functors, $$\xymatrix{
Y[U] \ar[d] \ar@/^.5pc/[dr]_{\ }="s1"^{u}&Z[V] \ar[d]\ar@/^.5pc/[dr]_(.5){\ }="s2"^{v}& \\
X\ar[r]_{f}^(.33){\ }="t1"&Y \ar[r]_{g}^(.33){\ }="t2" & Z
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"
\ar@{=>}"s2";"t2"
}$$ By lemma \[strict\_pullbacks\_triv\_J\_fibrations\] the functor $u$ pulls back to a functor $Z[U\times_{Y_0}V] \to Z[V]$. The composite $Z[U\times_{Y_0}V] \to Z$ is fully faithful with object component in $J$, hence $g\circ f$ is $J$-locally split.
- Lemma \[rep\_ff\_functors\_closed\_under\_iso\] tells us that fully faithful functors are closed under isomorphism, so we just need to show $J$-locally split functors are closed under isomorphism.
Let $w,f\colon X\to Y$ be functors and $a\colon w \Rightarrow f$ be a natural isomorphism. First, let $w$ be $J$-locally split. It is immediate from the diagram $$\xymatrix{
Y[U] \ar[dd] \ar@/^.7pc/[ddrr]_{\ }="s1"^{u} \\
\\
X\ar@/^1pc/[rr]^{w}="t1"_{\ }="s2" \ar@/_1pc/[rr]_{f}^{\ }="t2"
&&Y
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"
\ar@{=>}"s2";"t2"^{a}
}$$ that $f$ is also $J$-locally split.
- Let $w\colon X\to Y$ be a $J$-equivalence, and let $f\colon Z\to Y$ be a functor. From the definition of $J$-locally split, we have the diagram $$\xymatrix{
Y[U] \ar[d] \ar@/^.5pc/[dr]_{\ }="s1"^{u}& \\
X\ar[r]_{w}^(.33){\ }="t1"&Y
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"
}$$ We can use lemma \[strict\_pullbacks\_triv\_J\_fibrations\] to pull $u$ back along $f$ to get a 2-commuting diagram $$\xymatrix{
& Z[U\times_{Y_0} Z_0] \ar[dr]^{v} \ar[dl] \\
Y[U] \ar[d] \ar@/^.5pc/[dr]_{\ }="s1"^{u}& &Z \ar[dl]^f\\
X\ar[r]_{w}^(.33){\ }="t1"&Y
\ar@{=>}"s1";"t1"
}$$ with $v\in W_J$ as required.
- Since $J$-equivalences are representably fully faithful, given $$\xymatrix{
&Y \ar[dr]^w \\
X \ar[ur]^f \ar[dr]_g & \Downarrow a & Z\\
& Y \ar[ur]_w
}$$ where $w\in W_J$, there is a unique $a'\colon f
\Rightarrow g$ such that $$\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&Y \ar[dr]^w \\
X \ar[ur]^f \ar[dr]_g & \Downarrow a & Z\\
& Y \ar[ur]_w
}
}
{\hspace{10pt}=\hspace{10pt}}\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&&\\
X \ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^f \ar@/_1.5pc/[rr]_g&\Downarrow a'& Y \ar[r]^w & Z
\,.
}
}$$ The existence of $a'$ is the first half of 2CF4, where $v=\id_X$. Note that if $a$ is an isomorphism, so if $a'$, since $w$ is representably fully faithful. Given $v'\colon W\to X \in W_J$ such that there is a transformation $$\xymatrix{
&X \ar[dr]^f \\
W \ar[ur]^{v'} \ar[dr]_{v'} & \Downarrow b & Y\\
& X \ar[ur]_g
}$$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{antiwhisker_eqn}
\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&X \ar[dr]^f \\
W \ar[ur]^{v'} \ar[dr]_{v'} & \Downarrow b & Y \ar[r]^w & Z\\
& X \ar[ur]_g
}
}
{\hspace{10pt}=\hspace{10pt}}&
\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&&Y \ar[dr]^w \\
W \ar[r]^{v'} &X \ar[ur]^f \ar[dr]_g & \Downarrow a & Z\\
&& Y \ar[ur]_w
}
} \nonumber \\
{\hspace{10pt}=\hspace{10pt}}&
\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&&\\
W\ar[r]^{v'}&X \ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^f \ar@/_1.5pc/[rr]_g &\Downarrow a'&
Y \ar[r]^w & Z
}
}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ then uniqueness of $a'$, together with equation (\[antiwhisker\_eqn\]) gives us $$\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&X \ar[dr]^f \\
W \ar[ur]^{v'} \ar[dr]_{v'} & \Downarrow b & Y \\
& X \ar[ur]_g
}
}
{\hspace{10pt}=\hspace{10pt}}\raisebox{36pt}{
\xymatrix{
&&\\
W\ar[r]^{v'}&X \ar@/^1.5pc/[rr]^f \ar@/_1.5pc/[rr]_g
&\Downarrow a'
& Y
}
}\, .$$ This is precisely the diagram (\[2cf4.diag\]) with $v=\id_X$, $u=v'$, $u'=\id_W$ and $\epsilon$ the identity 2-arrow. Hence 2CF4 holds.
The proof of theorem \[bicat\_frac\_exists\] is written using only the language of 2-categories, so can be generalised from $C$ to other 2-categories. This approach will be taken up in [@Roberts2].
The second main result of the paper is that we want to know when this bicategory of fractions is equivalent to a bicategory of anafunctors, as the latter bicategory has a much simpler construction.
\[anafunctors\_localise\] Let $(S,J)$ be a subcanonical unary site and let the full sub-2-category $C{\hookrightarrow}\Cat(S)$ admit base change along arrows in $J$. Then there is an equivalence of bicategories $$C_\ana(J) \simeq C[W_J^{-1}]$$ under $C$.
Let us show the conditions in proposition \[comparison\_thm\] hold. To begin with, the 2-functor $\alpha_J\colon C \to C_{ana}(J)$ sends $J$-equivalences to equivalences by proposition \[W-inverting\_alpha\].
- $\alpha_J$ is the identity on 0-cells, and hence surjective on objects.
- This is equivalent to showing that for any anafunctor $(U,f)\colon X{-\!\!\!\mapsto}Y$ there are functors $w,g$ such that $w$ is in $W_J$ and $$(U,f) \stackrel{\sim}{\Rightarrow} \alpha_J(g)\circ\alpha_J(w)^{-1}$$ where $\alpha_J(w)^{-1}$ is some pseudoinverse for $\alpha_J(w)$.
Let $w$ be the functor $X[U] \to X$ and let $g=f\colon X[U] \to Y$. First, note that $$\xymatrix{
& \ar[dl] X[U] \ar[dr]^= &\\
X && X[U]
}$$ is a pseudoinverse for $$\alpha_J(w)
{\hspace{10pt}=\hspace{10pt}}\left(\raisebox{24pt}{
\xymatrix{
& \ar[dl]_{=} X[U][U] \ar[dr] &\\
X[U] && X
}
}\right)\,.$$ Then the composition $ \alpha_J(f)\circ\alpha_J(w)^{-1}$ is $$\xymatrix{
& \ar[dl] X[U\times_U U \times_U U]\ar[dr]\\
X && Y\; ,
}$$ which is just $(U,f)$ (recall we have the equality $U\times_U U \times_U U = U$ by remark \[remark:pullback\_of\_x\_along\_x\]).
- If $a\colon(X_0,f)\Rightarrow(X_0,g)$ is a transformation of anafunctors for functors $f,g\colon X\to Y$, it is given by a natural transformation $$f \Rightarrow g\colon X = X[X_0 \times_{X_0} X_0] \to Y.$$ Hence we get a unique natural transformation $a\colon f\Rightarrow g$ such that $a$ is the image of $a'$ under $\alpha_J$.
We now give a series of results following from this theorem, using basic properties of pretopologies from section \[sites\_categories\].
\[equivalent\_anafunctors\] When $J$ and $K$ are two subcanonical singleton pretopologies on $S$ such that $J_{un}=K_{un}$, for example $J$ cofinal in $K$, there is an equivalence of bicategories $$C_\ana(J) \simeq C_\ana(K).$$
The class of maps in $\Top$ of the form $\coprod U_i \to X$ for an open cover $\{U_i\}$ of $X$ form a singleton pretopology. This is because $\mathcal{O}$ is a *superextensive* pretopology (see the appendix). Given a site with a superextensive pretopology $J$, we have the following result which is useful when $J$ is not a singleton pretopology (the *singleton* pretopology $\amalg J$ is defined analogously to the case of $\Top$, details are in the appendix).
Let $(S,J)$ be a superextensive site where $J$ is a subcanonical pretopology. Then $$C[W_{J_{un}}^{-1}] \simeq C_\ana(\amalg J).$$
This essentially follows by lemma \[J-coprodJ-epis\].
Obviously this can be combined with previous results, for example if $K$ is cofinal in $\amalg J$, for $J$ a non-singleton pretopology, $K$-anafunctors localise $C$ at the class of $J_{un}$-equivalences.
Finally, given WISC we have a bound on the size of the hom-categories, up to equivalence.
Let $(S,J)$ be a subcanonical unary site satisfying WISC with $S$ locally small and let $C{\hookrightarrow}\Cat(S)$ admit base change along arrows in $J$. Then any localisation $C[W_J^{-1}]$ is locally essentially small.
Recall that this localisation can be chosen such that the class of objects is the same as the class of objects of $C$, and so it is not necessary to consider additional set-theoretic mechanisms for dealing with large (2-)categories here.
We note that the issue of size of localisations is not touched on in [@Pronk_96]. even though such issues are commonly addressed in localisation of 1-categories. If we have a specified bound on the hom-sets of $S$ and also know that some WISC${}_\kappa$ holds, then we can put specific bounds on the size of the hom-categories of the localisation. This is important if examining fine size requirements or implications for localisation theorems such as these, for example higher versions of locally presentable categories.
Examples
========
The simplest example is when we take the trivial singleton pretopology $triv$, where covering families are just single isomorphisms: $triv$-equivalences are internal equivalences and, up to equivalence, localisation at $W_{triv}$ does nothing. It is worth pointing out that if we localise at $W_{triv_{un}}$, which is equivalent to considering anafunctors with source leg having a split epimorphism for its object component, then by corollary \[equivalent\_anafunctors\] this is equivalent to localising at $W_{triv}$, so $C_{ana}(triv_{un}) \simeq C_{ana}(triv)\simeq C$.
The first non-trivial case is that of a regular category with the canonical singleton pretopology ${\underline{c}}$. This is the setting of [@Bunge-Pare_79]. Recall that $W_J^{BP}$ is the class of Bunge-Paré $J$-equivalences (definition \[def:PB\_weak\_equiv\]). For now, let $C$ denote either $\Cat(S)$ or $\Gpd(S)$.
Let $(S,J)$ be a finitely complete unary site with $J$ saturated. Then we have $$C[(W_J^{BP})^{-1}] \simeq C[W_J^{-1}]$$
This is merely a restatement of the fact Bunge-Paré $J$-equivalences and ordinary $J$-equivalences coincide in this case.
\[PB\_are\_the\_same\_weak\_equivs\] The canonical singleton pretopology ${\underline{c}}$ on a finitely complete category $S$ is saturated. Hence $W_{{\underline{c}}}^{BP} = W_{{\underline{c}}}$ for this site, and $$C[(W_{{\underline{c}}}^{BP})^{-1}] \simeq C[W_{{\underline{c}}}^{-1}]\simeq C_\ana({\underline{c}})$$
We can combine this corollary with corollary \[equivalent\_anafunctors\] so that the localisation of either $\Cat(S)$ or $\Gpd(S)$ at the Bunge-Paré weak equivalences can be calculated using $J$-anafunctors for $J$ cofinal in ${\underline{c}}$. We note that ${\underline{c}}$ does not satisfy WISC in general (see proposition \[U-small\_G-sets\] and the comments following), so the localisation might not be locally essentially small.
The previous corollaries deal with the case when we are interested in the 2-categories consisting of all of the internal categories or groupoids in a site. However, for many applications of internal categories/groupoids it is not sufficient to take all of $\Cat(S)$ or $\Gpd(S)$. One widely used example is that of Lie groupoids, which are groupoids internal to the category of (finite-dimensional) smooth manifolds such that source and target maps are submersions (more on these below). Other examples are used in the theory of algebraic stacks, namely groupoids internal to schemes or algebraic spaces. Other types of such *presentable* stacks use groupoids internal to some site with specified conditions on the source and target maps. Although it is not covered explicitly in the literature, it is possible to consider presentable stacks of categories, and this will be taken up in future work [@Roberts1].
We thus need to furnish examples of sub-2-categories $C$, specified by restricting the sort of maps that are allowed for source and target, that admit base change along some class of arrows. The following lemma gives a sufficiency condition for this to be so.
\[lemma:existence\_of\_base\_change\] Let $\Cat^\mathcal{M}(S)$ be defined as the full sub-2-category of $\Cat(S)$ with objects those categories such that the source and target maps belong to a singleton pretopology $\mathcal{M}$. Then $\Cat^\mathcal{M}(S)$ admits base change along arrows in $\mathcal{M}$, as does the corresponding 2-category $\Gpd^\mathcal{M}(S)$ of groupoids.
Let $X$ be an object of $\Cat^\mathcal{M}(S)$ and $f\colon M\to X_0 \in \mathcal{M}$. In the following diagram, all the squares are pullbacks and all arrows are in $\mathcal{M}$. $$\SelectTips {cm}{}\xymatrix{
X[M]_1 \ar[d] \ar[r] \ar @/_2.4pc/ [dd]_{s'} \ar @/^1pc/[rr]^{t'} & X_1\times_{X_0} M \ar[r] \ar[d] & M \ar[d] \\
M\times_{X_0} X_1 \ar[d] \ar[r] & X_1 \ar[r] \ar[d] & X_0 \\
M \ar[r] & X_0
}$$ The maps marked $s',t'$ are the source and target maps for the base change along $f$, so $X[M]$ is in $\Cat^\mathcal{M}(S)$. The same argument holds for groupoids verbatim.
In practice one often only wants base change along a subclass of $\mathcal{M}$, such as the class of open covers sitting inside the class of open maps in $\Top$. We can then apply theoerems \[bicat\_frac\_exists\] and \[anafunctors\_localise\] to the 2-categories $\Cat^\mathcal{M}(S)$ and $\Gpd^\mathcal{M}(S)$ with the classes of $\mathcal{M}$-equivalences, and indeed to sub-2-categories of these, as we shall in the examples below.
We shall focus of a few concrete cases to show how the results of this paper subsume similar results in the literature proved for specific sites. The category of smooth manifolds is not finitely complete so the localisation results in this section so far do not apply to it. There are two ways around this. The first is to expand the category of manifolds to a category of smooth spaces which *is* finitely complete (or even cartesian closed). In that case all the results one has for finitely complete sites can be applied. The other is to take careful note of which finite limits are actually needed, and show that all constructions work in the original category of manifolds. There is then a hybrid approach, which is to work in the expanded category, but point out which results/constructions actually fall inside the original category of manifolds. Here we shall take the second approach. First, let us pin down some definitions.
Let $\Diff$ be the category of smooth, finite-dimensional manifolds. A *Lie category* is a category internal to $\Diff$ where the source and target maps are submersions (and hence the required pullbacks exist). A *Lie groupoid* is a Lie category which is a groupoid. A *proper* Lie groupoid is one where the map $(s,t)\colon X_1 \to X_0 \times X_0$ is proper. An *étale* Lie groupoid is one where the source and target maps are local diffeomorphisms.
By lemma \[lemma:existence\_of\_base\_change\] the 2-categories of Lie categories, Lie groupoids and proper Lie groupoids admit base change along any of the following classes of maps: open covers ($\amalg\mathcal{O}$), surjective local diffeomorphisms ($\acute{e}t$), surjective submersions ($Subm$). The 2-categories of étale Lie groupoids and proper étale Lie groupoids admit base change along arrows in $\acute{e}t$ and $Subm$. We should note that we have $\amalg\mathcal{O}$ cofinal in $\acute{e}t$, which is cofinal in $Subm$.
We can thus apply the main results of this paper to the sites $(\Diff,\mathcal{O})$, $(\Diff,\amalg\mathcal{O})$, $(\Diff,\acute{e}t)$ and $(\Diff,Subm)$ and the 2-categories of Lie categories, Lie groupoids, proper Lie goupoids and so on. However, the definition of weak equivalence we have here, involving $J$-locally split functors, is not one that apppears in the Lie groupoid literature, which is actually Bunge-Paré $Subm$-equivalence. However, we have the following result:
\[Subm-equiv\_are\_BP-equiv\] A functor $f\colon X\to Y$ between Lie categories is a $Subm$-equivalence if and only if it is a Bunge-Paré $Subm$-equivalence.
Before we prove this, we need a lemma proved by Ehresmann.
[[@Ehresmann_59]]{} For any Lie category $X$, the subset of invertible arrows, $X_1^{iso} {\hookrightarrow}X_1$ is an open submanifold.
Hence there is a Lie groupoid $X^{iso}$ and an identity-on-objects functor $X^{iso} \to X$ which is universal for functors from Lie groupoids. In particular, a natural isomorphism between functors with codomain $X$ is given by a component map that factors through $X_1^{iso}$, and the induced source and target maps $X_1^{iso} \to X_0$ are submersions.
(proposition \[Subm-equiv\_are\_BP-equiv\]) Full faithfulness is the same for both definitions, so we just need to show that $f$ is $Subm$-locally split if and only if it is essentially $Subm$-surjective. We first show the forward implication.
The special case of a $\amalg\mathcal{O}$-equivalence between Lie groupoids is a small generalisation of the proof of proposition 5.5 in [@Moerdijk-Mrcun_03], which states than an internal equivalence of Lie groupoids is a Bunge-Paré $Subm$-equivalence. Since $\amalg\mathcal{O}$ is cofinal in $Subm$, a $Subm$-equivalence is a $\amalg\mathcal{O}$-equivalence, hence a Bunge-Paré $Subm$-equivalence.
For the case when $X$ and $Y$ are Lie categories, we use the fact that we can define $X_0\times_{Y_0}Y_1^{iso}$ and that the local sections constructed in Moerdijk-Mrčun’s proof factor through this manifold to set up the proof as in the groupoid case.
For the reverse implication, the construction in the first half of the proof of proposition \[BP\_equiv\_iff\_weak\_equiv\] goes through verbatim, as all the pullbacks used involve submersions.
The need to localise the category of Lie groupoids at $W_{Subm}$ was perhaps first noted in [@Pradines_89], where it was noted that something other than the standard construction of a category of fractions was needed. However Pradines lacked the necessary 2-categorical localisation results. Pronk considered the sub-2-category of étale Lie groupoids, also localised at $W_{Subm}$, in order to relate these groupoids to differentiable étendues [@Pronk_96]. Lerman discusses the 2-category of orbifolds *qua* stacks [@Lerman_10] and argues that it should be a localisation of the 2-category of proper étale Lie groupoids (again at $W_{Subm}$). These three cases use different constructions of the 2-categorical localisation: Pradines used what he called *meromorphisms*, which are equivalence classes of butterfly-like diagrams and are related to Hilsum-Skandalis morphisms, Pronk introduces the techniques outlined in this paper, and Lerman uses Hilsum-Skandalis morphisms, also known as right principal bibundles.
Interestingly, [@Colman_10] considers this localisation of the 2-category of Lie groupoids then considers a further localisation, not given by the results of this paper.[^2] Colman in essence shows that the full sub-2-category of topologically discrete groupoids, i.e. ordinary small groupoids, is a localisation at those internal functors which induce an equivalence on fundamental groupoids.
Our next example is that of topological groupoids, which correspond to various flavours of stacks on the category $\Top$. The idea of weak equivalences of topological groupoids predates the case of Lie groupoids, and [@Pradines_89] credits it to Haefliger, van Est, and [@Hilsum-Skandalis_87]. In particular the first two were ultimately interested in defining the fundamental group of a foliation, that is to say, of the topological groupoid associated to a foliation, considered up to weak eqivalence.
However more recent examples have focussed on topological stacks, or variants thereon. In particular, in parallel with the algebraic and differentiable cases, the topological stacks for which there is a good theory correspond to those topological groupoids with conditions on their source and target maps. Aside from étale topological groupoids (which were considered by [@Pronk_96] in relation to étendues), the real advances here have come from work of Noohi, starting with [@Noohi_05a], who axiomatised the concept of *local fibration* and asked that the source and target maps of topological groupoids are local fibrations.
A singleton pretopology $LF$ in $\Top$ is called a class of *local fibrations* if the following conditions hold:[^3]
1. $LF$ contains the open embeddings
2. $LF$ is stable under coproducts, in the sense that $\coprod_{i\in I} X_i \to Y$ is in $LF$ if each $X_i\to Y$ is in $LF$
3. $LF$ is local on the target for the open cover pretopology. That is, if the pullback of a map $f\colon X\to Y$ along an open cover of $Y$ is in $LF$, then $f$ is in $LF$.
Conditions 1. and 2. tell us that $\amalg\mathcal{O} \subset LF$, and that $LF$ is $\amalg J$ for some superextensive pretopology $J$ containing the open embeddings as singleton ‘covering’ families (beware the misleading terminology here: covering families are not assumed to be jointly surjective). Note that $LF$ will not be subcanonical, by condition 1. As an example, given any of the following pretopologies $K$:
- Serre fibrations,
- Hurewicz fibrations,
- open maps,
- split maps,
- projections out of a cartesian product,
- isomorphisms;
one can define a class of local fibrations by choosing those maps which are in $K$ on pulling back to an open cover of the codomain. Such maps are then called *local $K$*. As an example of the usefulness of this concept, the topological stacks corresponding to topological groupoids with local Hurewicz fibrations as source and target have a nicely behaved homotopy theory. The case of étale groupoids corresponds to the last named class of maps, which give us local isomorphisms, i.e. étale maps. We can then apply lemma \[lemma:existence\_of\_base\_change\] and theorem \[bicat\_frac\_exists\] to the 2-category $\Grp^{LF}(\Top)$ to localise at the class $W_{\amalg \mathcal{O}}$ (as $\amalg \mathcal{O} \subset LF$), or any other singleton pretopology contained in $LF$, using anafunctors whenever this pretopology is subcanonical. Note that if $C$ satisfies WISC, so will the corresponding $LF$, although this is probably not necessary to consider in the presence of full AC.
A slightly different approach is taken in [@Carchedi_12], where the author introduces a new pretopology on the category $CGH$ of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces. We give a definition equivalent to the one in *loc cit*.
A (not necessarily open) cover $\{V_i{\hookrightarrow}X\}_{i\in I}$ is called a $\mathcal{CG}$-cover if for any map $K\to X$ from a compact space $K$, there is a finite open cover $\{U_j {\hookrightarrow}K\}$ which refines the cover $\{V_i\times_X K\to K\}_{i\in I}$. $\mathcal{CG}$-covers form a pretopology $\mathcal{CG}$ on $CGH$.
Compactly generated stacks then correspond to groupoids in $CGH$ such that source and target maps are in the pretopology $\mathcal{CG}_{un}$. Again, we can localise $\Gpd^{\mathcal{CG}}(CGH)$ at $W_{\mathcal{CG}_{un}}$ using lemma \[lemma:existence\_of\_base\_change\] and theorem \[bicat\_frac\_exists\], and anafunctors can be again pressed into service.
We now arrive at the more involved case of algebraic stacks (cf. the continually growing [@StacksProj] for the extent of the theory of algebraic stacks), which were the first presentable stacks to be defined. There are some subtleties about the site of definition for algebraic stacks, and powerful representability theorems, but we can restrict to three main cases: groupoids in the category of affine schemes $\Aff = \Ring^{op}$; groupoids in the category $\Sch$ of schemes; and groupoids in the category $\AlgSp$ of algebraic spaces. Algebraic spaces reduce to algebraic stacks on $\Sch$ represented by groupoids with trivial automorphism groups, and the category of schemes is a subcategory of $Sh(\Aff)$, so we shall just consider the case when our ambient category is $\Aff$. In any case, all the special properties of classes of maps in all three sites are ultimately defined in terms of properties of ring homomorphisms. Note that groupoids in $\Aff$ are exactly the same thing as cogroupoid objects in $\Ring$, which are more commonly known as *Hopf algebroids*.
Despite the possibly unfamiliar language used by algebraic geometry, algebraic stacks reduce to the following semiformal definition. We fix three singleton pretopologies on our site $\Aff$: $J$, $E$ and $D$ such that $E$ and $D$ are local on the target for the pretopology $J$. An algebraic stack then is a stack on $\Aff$ for the pretopology $J$ which ‘corresponds’ to a groupoid $X$ in $\Aff$ such that source and target maps belong to $E$ and $(s,t)\colon X_1 \to X_0^2$ belongs to $D$. We recover the algebraic stacks by localising the 2-category of such groupoids at $W_E$ (this claim of course needs substantiating, something we will not do here for reasons of space, referring rather to [@Pronk_96; @Schappi_12] and the forthcoming [@Roberts1]).
In practice, $D$ can be something like closed maps (to recover Hausdorff-like conditions) or all maps, and $E$ consists of either smooth or étale maps, corresponding to Artin and Deligne-Mumford stacks respectively. $J$ is then something like the étale topology (or rather, the singleton pretopology associated to it, as the étale topology is superextensive), and we can apply lemma \[lemma:existence\_of\_base\_change\] to see that base change exists along $J$, along with the fact that asking for $(s,t) \in D$ is automatically stable under forming the base change. In practice, a variety of combinations of $J,E$ and $D$ are used, as well as passing from $\Aff$ to $\Sch$ and $\AlgSp$, so there are various compatibilities to check in order to know one can apply theorem \[bicat\_frac\_exists\].
A final application we shall consider is when our ambient category consists of algebraic objects. As mentioned in section 2, a number of authors have considered localising groupoids in Mal’tsev, or Barr-exact, or protomodular, or semi-abelian categories, which are hallmarks of categories of algebraic objects rather than spatial ones, as we have been considering so far.
In the case of groupoids in $\Grp$ (which, as in any Mal’tsev category, coincide with the internal categories) it is a well-known result that they can be described using *crossed modules*.
A *crossed module* (in $\Grp$) is a homomorphism $t\colon G\to H$ together with a homomorphism $\alpha\colon H\to \Aut(G)$ such that $t$ is $H$-equivariant (using the conjugation action of $H$ on itself), and such that the composition $\alpha\circ t\colon G\to\Aut(G)$ is the action of $G$ on itself by conjugation. A crossed module is often denoted, when no confusion will arise, by $(G\to H)$. A morphism $(G \to H) \to (K\to L)$ of crossed modules is a pair of maps $G\to K$ and $H\to L$ making the obvious square commute, and commuting with all the action maps.
Similar definitions hold for groups internal to cartesian closed categories, and even just finite-product categories if one replaces $H\to \Aut(G)$ with its transpose $H\times G\to G$. Ultimately of course there is a definition for crossed modules in semiabelian categories (e.g. [@AMMV_10]), but we shall consider just groups. There is a natural definition of 2-arrow between maps of crossed modules, but the specifics are not important for the present purposes, so we refer to [@Noohi_05c definition 8.5] for details. The 2-categories of groupoids internal to $\Grp$ and crossed modules are equivalent, so we shall just work with the terminology of the latter.
Given the result that crossed modules correspond to pointed, connected homotopy 2-types, it is natural to ask if all maps of such arise from maps between crossed modules. The answer is, perhaps unsurprisingly, no, as one needs maps which only *weakly* preserve the group structure. One can either write down the definition of some generalised form of map ([@Noohi_05c definition 8.4]), or localise the 2-category of crossed modules ([@Noohi_05c] considers a model structure on the category of crossed modules). To localise the 2-category of crossed modules we can consider the singleton pretopology $epi$ on $\Grp$ consisting of the epimorphisms, and localise $\Gpd(\Grp)$ at $W_{epi}$.
There are potentially interesting sub-2-categories of crossed modules that one might want to consider, for example, the one corresponding to *nilpotent* pointed connected 2-types. These are crossed modules $t\colon G \to H$ where the cokernel of $t$ is a nilpotent group and the (canonical) action of $\coker t$ on $\ker t$ is nilpotent. The correspondence between such crossed modules and the corresponding internal groupoids is a nice exercise, as well as seeing that this 2-category admits base change for the pretopology $epi$.
Superextensive sites
====================
The usual sites of topological spaces, manifolds and schemes all share a common property: one can (generally) take coproducts of covering families and end up with a cover. In this appendix we gather some results that generalise this fact, none of which are especially deep, but help provide examples of bicategories of anafunctors. Another reference for superextensive sites is [@Shulman_12].
[[@Carboni-Lack-Walters_93]]{} A *finitary* (resp. *infinitary*) *extensive* category is a category with finite (resp. small) coproducts such that the following condition holds: let $I$ be a a finite set (resp. any set), then, given a collection of commuting diagrams $$\xymatrix{
X_i \ar[r] \ar[d] &Z \ar[d] \\
A_i \ar[r] & \coprod_{i\in I} A_i\;,
}$$ one for each $i\in I$, the squares are all pullbacks if and only if the collection $\{X_i
\to Z\}_{i\in I}$ forms a coproduct diagram.
In such a category there is a strict initial object: given a map $A \to 0$ with $0$ initial, we have $A \simeq 0$.
$\Top$ is infinitary extensive. $\Ring^{op}$, the category of affine schemes, is finitary extensive.
In $\Top$ we can take an open cover $\{U_i\}_I$ of a space $X$ and replace it with the single map $\coprod_I U_i \to X$, and work just as before using this new sort of cover, using the fact $\Top$ is extensive. The sort of sites that mimic this behaviour are called *superextensive*.
[(Bartels-Shulman)]{} A *superextensive site* is an extensive category $S$ equipped with a pretopology $J$ containing the families $$(U_i \to \coprod_I U_i)_{i\in I}$$ and such that all covering families are bounded; this means that for a finitely extensive site, the families are finite, and for an infinitary site, the families are small. The pretopology in this instance will also be called superextensive.
Given an extensive category $S$, the *extensive pretopology* has as covering families the bounded collections $(U_i \to \coprod_I U_i)_{i\in I}$. The pretopology on any superextensive site contains the extensive pretopology.
The category $\Top$ with its usual pretopology of open covers is a superextensive site.
An elementary topos with the coherent pretopology is finitary superextensive, and a Grothendieck topos with the canonical pretopology is infinitary superextensive.
Given a superextensive site $(S,J)$, one can form the class $\amalg J$ of arrows of the form $\coprod_I U_i \to A$ for covering families $\{U_i \to A\}_{i\in I}$ in $J$ (more precisely, all arrows isomorphic in $S/A$ to such arrows).
The class $\amalg J$ is a singleton pretopology, and is subcanonical if and only if $J$ is.
Since isomorphisms are covers for $J$ they are covers for $\amalg J$. The pullback of a $\amalg J$-cover $\coprod_I U_i \to A$ along $B \to A$ is a $\amalg J$-cover as coproducts and pullbacks commute by definition of an extensive category. Now for the third condition we use the fact that in an extensive category a map $$f\colon B \to \coprod_I A_i$$ implies that $B\simeq \coprod_I B_i$ and $f=\coprod_i f_i$. Given $\amalg J$-covers $\coprod_I U_i \to A$ and $\coprod_J V_j \to (\coprod_I U_i)$, we see that $\coprod_J V_j \simeq \coprod_I W_i$ for some objects $W_i$. By the previous point, the pullback $$\coprod_I U_k \times_{\coprod_I U_{i'}} W_i$$ is a $\amalg J$-cover of $U_i$, and hence $(U_k \times_{\coprod_I U_{i'}} W_i \to U_k)_{i\in I}$ is a $J$-covering family for each $k\in I$. Thus $$(U_k \times_{\coprod_I U_{i'}} W_i \to A)_{i,k\in I}$$ is a $J$-covering family, and so $$\coprod_J V_j \simeq \coprod_{k\in I} \left( \coprod_{i\in I} U_k \times_{\coprod_I U_{i'}}
W_i\right) \to A$$ is a $\amalg J$-cover.\
The map $\coprod_I U_i \to A$ is the coequaliser of $\coprod_{I\times I} U_i \times_A
U_j {\rightrightarrows}\coprod_I U_i$ if and only if $A$ is the colimit of the diagram in definition \[defn:effective\_cov\_fam\]. Hence $(\coprod_I U_i \to A)$ is effective if and only if $
(U_i \to A)_{i\in I}$ is effective
Notice that the original superextensive pretopology $J$ is generated by the union of $\amalg J$ and the extensive pretopology.
One reason we are interested in superextensive sites is the following.
\[J-coprodJ-epis\] In a superextensive site $(S,J)$, we have $J_{un} = (\amalg J)_{un}$.
This means we can replace the singleton pretopology $J_{un}$ (e.g. local-section-admitting maps of topological spaces) with the singleton pretopology $\amalg J$ (e.g. disjoint unions of open covers) when defining anafunctors. This makes for much smaller pretopologies in practice.
One class of extensive categories which are of particular interest is those that also have finite/small limits. These are called *lextensive*. For example, $\Top$ is infinitary lextensive, as is a Grothendieck topos. In contrast, an elementary topos is in general only finitary lextensive. We end with a lemma about WISC.
If $(S,J)$ is a superextensive site, $(S,J)$ satisfies WISC if and only if $(S,\amalg J)$ does.
One reason for why superextensive sites are so useful is the following result from [@Schappi_12].
Let $(S,J)$ be a superextensive site, and $F$ a stack for the extensive topology on $S$. Then the associated stack $\widetilde{F}$ on the site $(S,\amalg J)$ is also the associated stack for the site $(S,J)$.
As a corollary, since every weak 2-functor $F\colon S\to \Gpd$ for extensive $S$ represented by an internal groupoid is automatically a stack for the extensive topology, we see that we only need to stackify $F$ with respect to a singleton pretopology on $S$. This will be applied in [@Roberts1].
O. Abbad, S. Mantovani, G. Metere, and E.M. Vitale, *Butterflies are fractions of weak equivalences*, preprint (2010). Available from <http://users.mat.unimi.it/users/metere/>.
P. Aczel, *The type theoretic interpretation of constructive set theory*, Logic Colloquium ’77, Stud. Logic Foundations Math., vol. 96, North-Holland, 1978, pp 55–66.
E. Aldrovandi, B. Noohi, *Butterflies I: Morphisms of 2-group stacks*, Adv. Math., **221**, issue 3 (2009), pp 687–773, \[arXiv:0808.3627\].
E. Aldrovandi, B. Noohi, *Butterflies II: Torsors for 2-group stacks*, Adv. Math., **225**, issue 2 (2010), pp 922–976, \[arXiv:0909.3350\].
T. Bartels, *[Higher gauge theory I: 2-Bundles]{}*, Ph.D. thesis, University of California Riverside, 2006, \[arXiv:math.CT/0410328\].
J. Baez and A. Lauda, *Higher dimensional algebra [V]{}: 2-groups*, Theory and Application of Categories **12** (2004), no. 14, pp 423–491.
J. Baez and M. Makkai, *Correspondence on the category theory mailing list, January 1997*, available at <http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/catlist/1999/anafunctors>.
J. B[é]{}nabou, *Les distributeurs*, rapport 33, Universit[é]{} Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Math[é]{}matique Pure et Appliqu[é]{}e, 1973.
J. B[é]{}nabou, *Théories relatives à un corpus*, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A-B **281** (1975), no. 20, Ai, A831–A834.
J. B[é]{}nabou, *Some remarks on 2-categorical algebra*, Bulletin de la Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de Belgique **41** (1989), pp 127–194.
J. B[é]{}nabou, *Anafunctors versus distributors*, email to Michael Shulman, posted on the category theory mailing list 22 January 2011, available from <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/6485>.
B. van den Berg, *Predicative toposes*, preprint (2012), \[arXiv:1207.0959\].
M. Breckes, *Abelian metamorphosis of anafunctors in butterflies*, preprint (2009).
M. Bunge and R. Par[é]{}, *Stacks and equivalence of indexed categories*, Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. **20** (1979), no. 4, pp 373–399.
A. Carboni, S. Lack, and R. F. C. Walters, *Introduction to extensive and distributive categories*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **84** (1993), pp 145–158.
D. Carchedi, *Compactly generated stacks: a cartesian-closed theory of topological stacks*, Adv. Math. **229** (2012), no. 6, pp 3339–33397, \[arXiv:0907.3925\]
H. Colman, *On the homotopy 1-type of [L]{}ie groupoids*, Appl. Categ. Structures **19**, Issue 1 (2010), pp 393–423, \[arXiv:math/0612257\].
H. Colman and C. Costoya, *A [Q]{}uillen model structure for orbifolds*, preprint (2009). Available from <http://faculty.ccc.edu/hcolman/>.
W. G. Dwyer and D. M. Kan, *Simplicial localizations of categories*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **17** (1980), no. 3, pp 267–284. A. Dold, *Partitions of unity in the theory of fibrations*, Ann. Math. **78** (1963), no. 2, pp 223–255.
C. Ehresmann, *Catégories topologiques et catégories différentiables*, Colloque Géom. Diff. Globale (Bruxelles, 1958), Centre Belge Rech. Math., Louvain, 1959, pp 137–150.
C. Ehresmann, *Catégories structurées*, Annales de l’Ecole Normale et Superieure **80** (1963), pp 349–426.
T. Everaert, R.W. Kieboom, and T. van der Linden, *Model structures for homotopy of internal categories*, Theory and Application of Categories **15** (2005), no. 3, pp 66–94.
P. Gabriel and M. Zisman, *Calculus of fractions and homotopy theory*, Springer-Verlag, 1967.
M. Hilsum and G. Skandalis, *Morphismes-orient[é]{}s d‘epsaces de feuilles et fonctorialit[è]{} en th[é]{}orie de [K]{}asparov (d’apr[è]{}s une conjecture d’[A]{}. [C]{}onnes)*, Ann. Sci. [É]{}cole Norm. Sup. **20** (1987), pp 325–390.
P. Johnstone, *Sketches of an elephant, a topos theory compendium*, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 43 and 44, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, 2002.
A. Joyal and M. Tierney, *Strong stacks and classifying spaces*, Category theory ([C]{}omo, 1990), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1488, Springer, 1991, pp 213–236.
A. Karaglia, *Embedding posets into cardinals with $DC_{\kappa}$*, preprint (2012), \[arXiv:1212.4396\].
G. M. Kelly, *Complete functors in homology. I. Chain maps and endomorphisms* Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. **60** (1964), pp 721–735.
E. Lerman, *Orbifolds as stacks?*, L’Enseign Math. (2) **56** (2010), no. 3-4, pp 315–363, \[arXiv:0806.4160\].
J. Lurie, *Higher Topos Theory*, Annals of Mathematics Studies **170**, Princeton University Press, 2009. Available from <http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/>.
S. MacLane and I. Moerdijk, *Sheaves in geometry and logic*, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
M. Makkai, *Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **108** (1996), pp 109–173. Available from <http://www.math.mcgill.ca/makkai/>.
S. Mantovani, G. Metere and E. M. Vitale, *Profunctors in Mal’cev categories and fractions of functors*, preprint (2012). Available from <http://perso.uclouvain.be/enrico.vitale/research.html>.
I. Moerdijk and J. Mr[č]{}un, *Introduction to foliations and lie groupoids*, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, vol. 91, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
J. Mrčun, *The Hopf algebroids of functions on étale groupoids and their principal Morita equivalence*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **160** (2001), no. 2-3, pp 249–262.
B. Noohi, *Foundations of topological stacks [I]{}*, preprint (2005), \[arXiv:math.AG/0503247\].
B. Noohi, *On weak maps between 2-groups*, preprint (2005), \[arXiv:math/0506313\].
B. Noohi, *Notes on 2-groupoids, 2-groups and crossed-modules*, preprint (2005) \[arXiv:math/0512106\].
J. Pradines, *Morphisms between spaces of leaves viewed as fractions*, Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég. **30** (1989), no. 3, pp 229–246, \[arXiv:0803.4209\].
D. Pronk, *Etendues and stacks as bicategories of fractions*, Compositio Math. **102** (1996), no. 3, pp 243–303.
D. M. Roberts, *Con(ZF+ $\neg$WISC)*, preprint, (2013).
D. M. Roberts, *All presentable stacks are stacks of anafunctors*, forthcoming (A).
D. M. Roberts, *Strict 2-sites, $J$-spans and localisations*, forthcoming (B).
D. Schäppi, *A characterization of categories of coherent sheaves of certain algebraic stacks*, preprint (2012), \[arXiv:1206.2764\].
M. Shulman, *Exact completions and small sheaves*, Theory and Application of Categories, **27** (2012), no. 7, pp 97–173.
The Stacks project authors, *Stacks project*, <http://stacks.math.columbia.edu>.
R. Street, *Fibrations in bicategories*, Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég. **21** (1980), pp 111–160.
J.-L. Tu, P. Xu and C. Laurent-Gengoux *Twisted K-theory of differentiable stacks*, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) **37** (2004), no. 6, pp 841–910, \[arXiv:math/0306138\].
E. M. Vitale, *Bipullbacks and calculus of fractions*, Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég. **51** (2010), no. 2, pp 83–113. Available from <http://perso.uclouvain.be/enrico.vitale/>.
[^1]: Anafunctors were so named by Makkai, on the suggestion of Pavlovic, after profunctors, in analogy with the pair of terms anaphase/prophase from biology. For more on the relationship between anafunctors and profunctors, see below.
[^2]: In fact this is the only 2-categorical localisation result involving internal categories or groupoids known to the author to *not* be covered by theorem \[bicat\_frac\_exists\] or its sequel [@Roberts2].
[^3]: We have packaged the conditions in a way slightly different to [@Noohi_05a], but the definition is in fact identical.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper contains the material discussed in the series of three lectures that I gave during the workshop of the ICRA 2018 in Prague. I will introduce the reader to some of the techniques used in the study of the geometry of quiver Grassmannians. The notes are quite elementary and thought for phd students or young researchers. I assume that the reader is familiar with the representation theory of quivers.'
address: 'Via Antonio Scarpa 10, 00163, Roma (ITALY)'
author:
- Giovanni Cerulli Irelli
date: 12th August 2018
title: Three lectures on Quiver Grassmannians
---
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Given a finite quiver $Q$ and a finite dimensional $Q$–representation $M$, the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is the projective variety of $Q$–subrepresentations $N\subseteq M$ of dimension vector $\mathbf{dim}\,N=\mathbf{e}$. Quiver Grassmannians were considered in the seminal paper of Schofield [@S] for the study of general representations of $Q$. It is shown there that a general representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$ admits a subrepresentation of dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$ if and only if the minimal value of the dimension of the extension space between a representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$ and one of dimension vector $\mathbf{d-e}$ is zero. This is shown by considering a universal family $$\pi_\mathbf{e,d}:\mathcal{Y}_\mathbf{e,d}\rightarrow R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$$ over the representation space $R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ of $Q$–representations of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$ whose fiber over a point $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ is ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$. This is a proper family whose total space is smooth and irreducible. It is nowadays called the universal quiver Grassmannian.
Quiver Grassmannians then appeared in the Fomin and Zelevinsky theory of cluster algebras ([@FZI; @FZII; @FZIV]), by work of Caldero-Chapoton [@CC], Caldero-Keller [@CK1; @CK2] and Derksen-Weyman-Zelevinsky [@DWZ2]. In those papers it is shown that for any (non-initial) generator $u$ of the cluster algebra $\mathcal{A}_Q$ associated with $Q$ there exists a $Q$–representation $M$ such that $u$ has the following form $$\label{Eq:CC-Formula}
u=\mathbf{x}^{\mathbf{g}_M}\left(\sum_\mathbf{e}\chi({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M))\mathbf{x}^{B\mathbf{e}}\right)$$ where $\mathbf{g}_M$ is the index of $M$ and $\chi$ denotes the Euler characteristic (see section \[Sec:CCMap\]). This is a remarkable fact, because the generators of the cluster algebra $\mathcal{A}_Q$ are defined recursively, starting from the initial seed $(B_Q,\mathbf{x})$. Thus, formula is a solution of this complicated recurrence relation and it is given in terms of quiver Grassmannians. It is then a natural question to see if a better understanding of the geometry of the projective variety ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ can provide useful information about the cluster algebra $\mathcal{A}_Q$. This turned out to be true in the affine type $A$: in [@CEsp] and [@CeDEsp] it is shown that by considering only the smooth part of ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ in the formula one gets the elements of the atomic basis of $\mathcal{A}_Q$. The atomic basis is a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–basis such that its positive span coincides with the set of elements of $\mathcal{A}_Q$ which have positive coefficients with respect to any cluster. Nowadays it is known that an atomic basis exists only in very particular cases.
When the quiver is acyclic, in formula the $Q$–representation $M$ is rigid, i.e. ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(M,M)=0$. The positivity conjecture of Fomin and Zelevinky hence implies that the Euler characteristic of the quiver Grassmannians associated with a rigid $Q$-representation is non-negative. This was proved by Nakajima [@Naka]. Caldero-Keller and others conjectured that much more is true, namely that those quiver Grassmannians admit a cellular decomposition. This conjecture is still open. In [@CEFR] it is proved a little less: namely that those quiver Grassmannians have property (S), i.e. no odd homology, no torsion in even homology, and the cycle map is an isomorphism. This refines the proof of Nakajima. For Dynkin and affine quivers much more is true: for Dynkin quivers every quiver Grassmannian admits a cellular decomposition and for affine quivers, every quiver Grassmannian associated with a representation $M$ whose regular part is rigid, admits a cellular decomposition. See section \[Sec:CellDec\].
Apart from this motivation, the geometry of quiver Grassmannians is an interesting object of study, due to the fact that many geometric properties can be studied via the representation theory of quivers. But one has to be careful here: Reineke showed that every projective variety can be realized as a quiver Grassmannian in an elementary way and Ringel straightened considerably this result by showing that every projective variety arises as a quiver Grassmannian of every wild quiver. See section \[Sec:EveryProj\] for this, and for some examples.
It is then natural to restrict attention to particular quivers and dimension vectors. The most fruitful restriction is when $Q$ is an equioriented quiver of type $A_n$, $\mathbf{d}=(n+1,\cdots, n+1)$ and $\mathbf{e}=(1,2,\cdots, n)$. In this case the generic fiber of the universal quiver Grassmannian is the complete flag variety for $SL_{n+1}$ and the other fibers can be hence considered as “linear” degenerations of the complete flag variety. Among all fibers one is of particular interest: the Feigin degenerate flag variety. In [@CFR; @CFR2; @CFR3; @CFR4], we have studied degenerate flag varieties (and more general quiver Grassmannians of Dynkin type) from this point of view and get interesting new results and new proofs of known results. In [@CFFFR] we have explored the universal quiver Grassmannian for the special case mentioned above, and find a very interesting variety which is a flat degeneration of the complete flag variety and having the n-th Catalan number of irreducible components. See Section \[Sec:TypeA\] for details concerning quiver Grassmannians of type $A$, linear degenerations of flag varieties and quiver Grassmannians of Dynkin type.
In the last section \[Sec:Exercises\] a collection of exercises is provided. The exercises are divided according to the different sections of the paper and they are thought to provide a better understanding of the techniques mentioned in the main body of the paper. I encourage the reader to solve the exercises corresponding to a given section during the study of the section.
I would like to thank the organizers of the ICRA 2018 for inviting me to give a series of lectures on this topic. I also want to thank the Ph.D. students who asked several questions during the lectures; I hope that this paper can serve to them as a handy guide into this subject. I am indebted to all my coauthors, in particular Markus Reineke and Evgeny Feigin, on whose work most of this paper is based on. Finally, I sincerely thank the anonymous referee and Alex Puntz for a careful reading of a previous version of this paper and for many helpful suggestions.
The final version of this manuscript will appear in the proceedings of ICRA 2018, that will be published by AMS in Contemporary Mathematics.
Notations {#Sec:1}
=========
Let $Q$ be a finite acyclic and connected quiver. We denote by $Q_0$ the finite set of vertices (whose cardinality is always denoted with the letter $n$), by $Q_1$ the finite set of edges, and the two functions $s,t: Q_1\rightarrow Q_0$ provide an orientation of the edges. For an oriented edge $\alpha$ we write $\alpha:s(\alpha)\rightarrow t(\alpha)$. The base field is the field of complex numbers, denoted either by $K$ or with the usual symbol ${\mathbb{C}}$. We denote by $\textrm{Rep}(Q)$ the category of finite-dimensional complex representations of $Q$. Recall that the objects of $\textrm{Rep}(Q)$ are tuples $M=((M_i)_{i\in Q_0}, (M_\alpha)_{\alpha\in Q_1})$ where $M_i$ is a (finite-dimensional) vector space and $M_\alpha:M_{s(\alpha)}\rightarrow M_{t(\alpha)}$ is a linear map. A $Q$–morphism $\psi:M\rightarrow N$ between two $Q$–representations is a collections $(\psi_i:M_i\rightarrow N_i)_{i\in Q_0}$ of linear maps such that the following square $$\xymatrix{
M_{s(\alpha)}\ar^{M_{\alpha}}[r]\ar_{\psi_{s(\alpha)}}[d]&M_{t(\alpha)}\ar^{\psi_{t(\alpha)}}[d]\\
N_{s(\alpha)}\ar^{N_{\alpha}}[r]&N_{t(\alpha)}
}$$ commutes for every arrow $\alpha$ of $Q$. We denote by ${\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(M,N)$ the vector space of $Q$–morphisms between the two $Q$–representations $M$ and $N$. We denote its dimension by $$[M,N]:=\textrm{dim}\,{\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(M,N).$$ To a quiver $Q$ is associated its (complex) path-algebra $A=KQ$, which is the algebra formed by concatenation of arrows. The category $\textrm{Rep}_K(Q)$ is equivalent to the category $A$–mod of $KQ$–modules. Notice that $KQ$ is finite–dimensional since the quiver $Q$ is acyclic, i.e. it does not have oriented cycles (even if its underlying graph can have a cycle). The category $\textrm{Rep}_K(Q)$ is abelian and Krull-Schmidt, moreover it is hereditary, i.e. ${\operatorname{Ext}}^{\geq 2}_Q(-,-)=0$. We use the standard notation $$[M,N]^1:=\textrm{dim}\,{\operatorname{Ext}}^1_Q(M,N).$$
The set $\{e_i\}_{i\in Q_0}$ of paths of length zero form a complete set of pairwise orthogonal idempotents of $A$. Since $Q$ is acyclic, and hence the path algebra $A=KQ$ is finite-dimensional, there are only finitely many simple $A$–modules parametrized by the vertices of $Q$. We denote by $S_k$ the simple corresponding to vertex $k$, by $P_k$ its projective cover and by $I_k$ it injective hull. Recall that as $Q$–representation, $P_k$ is described as follows: the vector space at vertex $i$ has a basis given by paths from vertex $k$ to vertex $i$, and the arrows act by “concatenation”. Notice that if $Q$ is an orientation of a tree (for example if $Q$ is Dynkin), then every projective $P_k$ is thin, which means that the vector space $(P_k)_i$ at every vertex $i$ is at most one–dimensional. Dually, the injective indecomposable (left) $A$–modules are the indecomposable direct summands of $DA$ (viewed as left $A$–module), where $D$ is the standard $K$–duality. As $Q$–representation, $I_k$ has at vertex $j$ a vector space with basis consisting of all the paths of $Q$ starting in $j$ and ending in $k$, and the arrows act by “concatenation”. For a $Q$–representation $M$, the collection $(\dim M_i)_{i\in Q_0}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}_{\geq0}$ of non–negative integers is called the *dimension vector* of $M$, and it is denoted in bold by $\mathbf{dim}\, M$. Once the dimension vector is fixed, a $Q$–representation is determined by linear maps: this leads us to the variety of $Q$–representations. Let $\mathbf{d}=(d_i)_{i\in Q_0}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}_{\geq0}$ be a dimension vector. The vector space $$R_\mathbf{d}:=\bigoplus_{\alpha\in Q_1} {\operatorname{Hom}}_K(K^{d_{s(\alpha)}},K^{d_{t(\alpha)}})$$ is called the variety of $Q$–representations of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$. The group $$G_\mathbf{d}:=\prod_{i\in Q_0}\textrm{GL}_{d_i}(K)$$ acts on $R_\mathbf{d}$ by base change: $
(g_i)_i\cdot (V_\alpha)_\alpha:=(g_{t(\alpha)}V_\alpha g_{s(\alpha)}^{-1})_\alpha
$ and $G_\mathbf{d}$–orbits are in bijection with isoclasses of $Q$–representations. The stabilizer of a point $M\in R_\mathbf{d}$ is $$\textrm{Stab}_{G_\mathbf{d}}(M)=\textrm{Aut}_Q(M)$$ where $\textrm{Aut}_Q(M)$ denotes the open subvariety of ${\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(M,M)$ consisting of invertible $Q$-morphisms. In particular, $\textrm{dim }\textrm{Aut}_Q(M)=\textrm{dim }{\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(M,M)$. Given another dimension vector $\mathbf{e}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}_{\geq0}$ we consider the vector space of (“degree zero”) $K$–morphisms $${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})=\bigoplus_{i\in Q_0} {\operatorname{Hom}}_K(K^{e_i},K^{d_i})$$ and the vector space of (“degree one”) $K$–morphisms $${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1])=\bigoplus_{\alpha \in Q_1} {\operatorname{Hom}}_K(K^{e_{s(\alpha)}},K^{d_{t(\alpha)}}).$$ In particular, if $\mathbf{d}$ is a dimension vector we get $$\label{Eq:DimRd}
\dim {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{d},\mathbf{d}[1])=\dim R_\mathbf{d}.$$
Given $N\in R_\mathbf{e}$ and $M\in R_\mathbf{d}$ we consider the map $$\Phi^M_N:{\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})\rightarrow {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1]):\;(f_i)_{i\in Q_0}\mapsto (M_\alpha\circ f_{s(\alpha)}-f_{t(\alpha)}\circ N_\alpha)_{\alpha\in Q_1}$$ This is a linear map between finite dimensional vector spaces and one can show quite easily (see e.g. [@R], [@ASS]): $$\begin{array}{cc}
{\operatorname{Ker}}\Phi_N^M={\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(N,M),&\textrm{CoKer}\, \Phi_N^M\simeq {\operatorname{Ext}}^1_Q(N,M).
\end{array}$$ From these formulas we immediately get: $$\label{Eq:Euler}
[N,M]- [N,M]^1=\dim {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})-\dim{\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1]).$$ We have that $\dim {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})=\sum_{i\in Q_0}\!\!e_id_i$ and $\dim{\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1])=\sum_{\alpha\in Q_1}\!\!e_{s(\alpha)}d_{t(\alpha)}$. Given two arbitrary integer vectors $\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}$ the Euler form of $Q$ is the integral bilinear form $\langle-,-\rangle_Q:{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}\times{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}\rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$ given by $$\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}\rangle:=\sum_{i\in Q_0}e_id_i-\sum_{\alpha\in Q_1}e_{s(\alpha)}d_{t(\alpha)}.$$ From above, we immediately get $$\label{Eq:EulForm}
\dim {\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(N,M)- \dim {\operatorname{Ext}}^1_Q(N,M)=\langle\mathbf{dim}\,N,\mathbf{dim}\,M\rangle.$$ Formula is called the homological interpretation of the Euler form.
In view of and , we have $$\textrm{codim}_{R_\mathbf{d}}\,(G_\mathbf{d}\cdot M)=\textrm{dim}\,R_\mathbf{d}-\textrm{dim Stab}_{G_\mathbf{d}}(M)=\textrm{dim}\,{\operatorname{Ext}}^1_Q(M,M).$$ We conclude that the orbit of $M$ is dense in $R_\mathbf{d}$ if and only if ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1_Q(M,M)=0$. A representation $M$ such that ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1_Q(M,M)=0$ is called *rigid*.
A famous theorem of P. Gabriel [@Gabriel] (see also [@BGP] for a different proof and [@ASS Section VII.5] for a survey) states that a quiver $Q$ admits only a finite number of isoclasses of indecomposable representations if and only if $Q$ is a Dynkin quiver i.e. it is an orientation of a simply-laced Dynkin diagram of type $A,D,E$. The quiver $Q$ is called tame or affine if it is an acyclic orientation of a simply-laced extended Dynkin diagram of type $ADE$. A quiver which is neither Dynkin nor affine is called wild. The classification of the indecomposable $Q$–representations is possible if and only if $Q$ is either Dynkin or tame and this explains the terminology. Table \[Fig:ExtendedDynkinDiagrams\] shows the Dynkin and the extended Dynkin diagrams.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textrm{Type}&\textrm{Dynkin}&\textrm{Extended Dynkin}\\\hline
\hline
\xymatrix@R=10pt{\\A}
&
\xymatrix@C=8pt@R=8pt{&&&&\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[rr]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\cdots\ar@{-}[r] &\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet
}
&
\xymatrix@C=8pt@R=8pt{
& &\bullet\ar@{-}[drr] & &\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[urr]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\cdots\ar@{-}[r] &\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet
}
\\\hline
\xymatrix@R=10pt{\\D}&
\xymatrix@C=8pt@R=5pt{
& & & & &\bullet\\
&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\cdots\ar@{-}[r] &\bullet\ar@{-}[ur]\ar@{-}[dr]&\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[ur]& & & & &\bullet
}
&
\xymatrix@C=8pt@R=5pt{
\bullet\ar@{-}[dr]& & & & &\bullet\\
&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\cdots\ar@{-}[r] &\bullet\ar@{-}[ur]\ar@{-}[dr]&\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[ur]& & & & &\bullet
}
\\\hline
\xymatrix@R=10pt{\\E_6}&
\xymatrix@C=10pt@R=10pt{
& &\bullet & &\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[u]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet}
&
\xymatrix@C=10pt@R=10pt{
& \bullet \ar@{-}[r] &\bullet & &\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[u]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet}
\\\hline
\xymatrix@R=10pt{\\E_7}&
\xymatrix@C=10pt@R=10pt{
&& &\bullet & & &\\
&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[u]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet}
&
\xymatrix@C=10pt@R=10pt{
&& &\bullet & & &\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]\ar@{-}[u]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet}
\\\hline\xymatrix@R=10pt{\\E_8}&
\xymatrix@C=8pt@R=10pt{
&&& & & \bullet & &\\
&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet}
&
\xymatrix@C=10pt@R=10pt{
&&& & & \bullet & &\\
\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[u]\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet\ar@{-}[r]&\bullet}
\\\hline
\end{array}$$
If $Q$ is Dynkin, then $R_\mathbf{d}$ consists of finitely many $G_\mathbf{d}$–orbits, and hence, since such orbits are connected and locally closed, there is a unique orbit which is dense. The corresponding representation is hence a generic representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$ and we denote it by $\tilde{M}_\mathbf{d}$. In particular, for Dynkin quivers a representation is generic if and only if it is rigid.
For an arbitrary acyclic quiver $Q$ most dimension vectors do not admit a dense orbit. By Kac’s theorem ([@Kac1 Theorem 1]) there exists an indecompsable representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$ if and only if $\mathbf{d}$ is a positive root for the Kac-Moody algebra associated with the underlying graph of $Q$; in this case $R_\mathbf{d}$ admits a dense orbit if and only if $\mathbf{d}$ is a positive real root.
Almost split sequences
----------------------
We conclude this section by recalling the fundamental notions of *almost split sequence*, *irreducible morphism* and of *Auslander–Reiten quiver* of a quiver $Q$ (see e.g. [@CB2], [@ARS], [@ASS]). A short exact sequence $$\xymatrix{
\delta:&0\ar[r]&N\ar^f[r]&E\ar^g[r]&M\ar[r]&0
}$$ is called *almost split* if it is non–split, both $N$ and $M$ are indecomposable and for any morphism $h:X\rightarrow M$ which is not a split epi (i.e. it does not admit a right inverse), there exists $t:X\rightarrow E$ such that $h=g\circ t$. In particular, if $\delta$ is an almost split sequence, and $M$ is not a direct summand of $X$, then $[X,E]=[X,N\oplus M]$. Dually, it can be shown that $\delta$ is almost split if and only if it is non–split, both $N$ and $M$ are indecomposable and for any morphism $h:N\rightarrow X$ which is not a split mono (i.e. it does not admit a left inverse), there exists $t:E\rightarrow X$ such that $h=t\circ f$. A fundamental result of Auslander and Reiten [@ARS Theorem V.1.15] states that for every indecomposable $M$ which is not projective, there exists an almost split sequence $\delta$ as above (ending in $M$), which is unique up to scalar multiples [@ARS Theorem V.1.16]. Dually, for every indecomposable $N$ which is not injective, there exists an almost split sequence $\delta$ as above (starting from $N$).
One can show that almost split sequences are *rigid*, in the sense that they are uniquely determined (up to scalar multiples as elements of ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N,M)$) by the three modules $N$, $E$ and $M$ [@ARS Proposition V.2.3].
Almost split sequences are closely related to the so-called Auslander-Reiten translate $\tau$ and its quasi-inverse $\tau^-$. In general the definition of $\tau$ and $\tau^-$ is quite involved since they are not functors, but in our situation, which is the case of an hereditary basic and finite dimensional algebra, it reduces to two simple functors: $$\begin{array}{cc}
\tau=D{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(-,A)&\tau^-={\operatorname{Ext}}^1(D(-),A).
\end{array}$$ They are uniquely determined by the Auslander-Reiten formulas: $$\label{ARFormulas}
{\operatorname{Hom}}(M,\tau N)\simeq D{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N,M)\simeq{\operatorname{Hom}}(\tau^-M, N).$$ If there is an amost split sequence $\delta$ as above then $$
[cc]{} N$M$,&M\^-N.
$$
Auslander-Reiten quiver
-----------------------
A morphism $f:M\rightarrow N$ between two indecomposable $Q$–representations $M$ and $N$ is called *irreducible* if $f$ is neither split mono, nor split epi (i.e. it does not admit neither a left nor a right inverse) and whenever there is a factorization $f=f_2\circ f_1$, then either $f_1$ is split mono or $f_2$ is split epi (see [@CB2]). The irreducible morphisms from $M$ to $N$ are parametrized by the quotient space $\textrm{Irr}(M,N)=\textrm{rad}_Q(M,N)/\textrm{rad}^2(M,N)$ (see e.g. [@CB2 Section 1]). Here $\textrm{rad}(M,N)=\{f:M\rightarrow N\textrm{ not an isomorphism}\}$ and $\textrm{rad}^2(M,N)=\{f:M\rightarrow N \textrm{which factor as hg with g not split mono and h not split epi}\}$. The Auslander–Reiten quiver of $Q$ is a quiver denoted by $\Gamma_Q$ whose vertices are isoclasses of indecomposable $Q$–representations, and there are $k$ arrows $[M]\rightarrow [N]$ if the dimension of the quotient space $\textrm{Irr}(M,N)$ has dimension $k$ (see e.g. [@CB2 Section 1] or [@ASS Section IV.4]).
The Auslander-Reiten quiver $\Gamma_Q$ consists of several connected components which can be grouped together to form a decomposition $$\Gamma_Q=\mathcal{P}_Q\amalg \mathcal{R}_Q\amalg \mathcal{I}_Q$$ where $\mathcal{P}_Q$ is the component containg all the indecomposable projectives and dually, $\mathcal{I}_Q$ is the component containg all the indecomposable injectives. The remaining piece $\mathcal{R}_Q$ consists of all connected components which do not contain neither an injective nor a projective module. It is easy to see that both $\mathcal{P}_Q$ and $\mathcal{I}_Q$ are connected components. An indecomposable module $M$ lies in $\mathcal{P}_Q$ (resp. $\mathcal{I}_Q$) if and only if there exists a vertex $k\in Q_0$ and an index $j\geq0$ such that $M\simeq \tau^{-j}P_k$ (resp. $M\simeq \tau^{j}I_k$). Such a module is called preprojective (resp. preinjective). With abuse of notation, we denote by $\mathcal{P}_Q$ (resp. $\mathcal{I}_Q$) the full additive subcategory of $\mathrm{Rep}(Q)$ whose indecomposable objects are preprojectives (resp. preinjectives) and its objects are still called preprojectives (resp. preinjectives). The connected components of $\mathcal{R}_Q$ are called regular and their modules are also called regular.
The components $\mathcal{P}_Q$ and $\mathcal{I}_Q$ are called the preprojective and preinjective component of $\Gamma_Q$, respectively. These components of the quiver $\Gamma_Q$ can be described combinatorially via the knitting algorithm. (I recommend the introductory book [@Ralf] for more details about the construction of AR quivers of Dynkin quivers.)
The main property of the graphs $\mathcal{P}_Q$ and $\mathcal{I}_Q$ is that they encode the information that one needs to understand homomorphisms and extensions between the indecomposable representations corresponding to their vertices. Namely, the dimension of ${\operatorname{Hom}}(M,N)$ is given by counting paths from $[M]$ to $[N]$ modulo mesh relations. To get the extension spaces one uses the Auslander-Reiten formulas . Moreover $\mathcal{P}_Q$ is a directed category, in the sense that given two indecomposables $M,N\in\mathcal{P}_Q$ either $[M,N]^1=0$ or $[N,M]^1=0$. The same holds for $\mathcal{I}_Q$. The regular components encode much less information due to the fact that the infinite radical of the module category contains many maps (if $Q$ is wild). They are described by Ringel [@Ringel:Wild]. They are far from being directed (see [@Kerner]).
Every module $M$ admits a unique split filtration $M'\subseteq M''\subseteq M$ where $M'\in\mathcal{I}_Q$, $M''/M'\in\mathcal{R}_Q$ and $M/M''\in\mathcal{P}_Q$; these are called the preinjective, regular and preprojective parts of $M$, respectively.
Quiver Grassmannians {#Sec:QG}
====================
Let $Q$ be a finite quiver with $n$ vertices and let $A=KQ$ be the associated (complex) path algebra. Given a dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$, an $A$–module $M\in R_\mathbf{d}$ and another dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$ such that $\mathbf{d-e}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}_{\geq0}$, in this section we define the projective variety $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ whose points parametrize submodules of $M$ of dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$. We need to ask ourselves “what is a submodule?”. This question has two answers: first of all, a submodule is a collection $(N_i)_{i\in Q_0}$ of vector subspaces $N_i\subseteq M_i$ such that $M_\alpha(N_i)\subseteq N_j$ for every arrow $\alpha:i\rightarrow j$ of Q. On the other hand, a submodule $N\subset M$ is an $A$–module $N$ endowed with an injective $A$–morphism $\iota: N\rightarrow M$. The two answers provide two different realizations of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$.
First realization: universal quiver Grassmannians
-------------------------------------------------
Schofield noticed that quiver Grassmannians come in families: Let $\mathbf{d}$ and $\mathbf{e}$ be two dimension vector for $Q$ such that $e_i\leq d_i$ for all $i\in Q_0$. Let us consider the product of usual Grassmannians of vector spaces over the field $K$ of complex numbers: $Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d}):=\prod_{i\in Q_0}Gr_{e_i}(K^{d_i})$. Given $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ and a point $N\in Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})$, the condition that $N$ defines a sub-representation of $M$ is $M_\alpha(N_{s(\alpha)})\subseteq N_{t(\alpha)}$. We hence consider the incidence variety inside $Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}$ given by: $$\label{Eq:DefUnivQG}
Gr_{\mathbf{e}}^{Q}(\mathbf{d}):=\{(N,M)\in Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}|\, M_\alpha(N_{s(\alpha)})\subseteq N_{t(\alpha)},\,\forall \alpha\in Q_1\}.$$ The two projections $p_1:Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}\rightarrow Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})$ and $p_2:Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}\rightarrow R_\mathbf{d}$ induce two maps $$\xymatrix{
&Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\ar_{p_\mathbf{e}}@{->}[dl]\ar^{p_\mathbf{e,d}}@{->}[dr]&\\
Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})&&R_\mathbf{d}
}$$ The group $G_\mathbf{d}$ acts diagonally on $Gr_{\mathbf{e}}^{Q}(\mathbf{d})$ (see exercise 9.5) and the two maps $p_\mathbf{e}$ and $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ are $G_\mathbf{d}$–equivariant. The map $p_2$ is proper; moreover $Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})$ is closed in $Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}$ and the closed embedding $Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\rightarrow Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}$ is proper. It follows that the map $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ is proper, being the composition of two proper maps. Its image is the *closed* subset of $R_\mathbf{d}$ consisting of those points $M\in R_\mathbf{d}$ which admit a sub-representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$. The *quiver Grassmannian* $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ associated with a point $M\in R_\mathbf{d}$ is defined as the (scheme-theoretic) fiber of $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ over $M$.
Thus quiver Grassmannians come in families: they are fibers of the proper map $$p_\mathbf{e,d}:Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\rightarrow R_\mathbf{d}$$ which is called the universal quiver Grassmannian. As shown in [@CFR section 2.2], the map $p_\mathbf{e}$ realizes $Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})$ as the total space of an homogeneous vector bundle over $Gr_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})$ of rank $$\sum_{\alpha\in Q_1}d_{s(\alpha)}d_{t(\alpha)}+e_{s(\alpha)}e_{t(\alpha)}-e_{s(\alpha)}d_{t(\alpha)}.$$ In particular, $Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})$ is smooth and irreducible of dimension $$\textrm{dim }Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})=\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}-\mathbf{e}\rangle+\textrm{dim }R_\mathbf{d}.$$ By upper–semicontinuity of the fiber dimension, we see that for any point $M$ in the image of $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ we have $$\label{Eq:IneqDimQuivGrass}
\textrm{dim }Z\geq \textrm{dim }Gr_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})-\textrm{dim }Im(p_\mathbf{e,d})\geq \langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}-\mathbf{e}\rangle.$$ for every irreducible component $Z$ of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$. Let $D:Rep(Q)\rightarrow Rep(Q^{op})$ be the standard duality which associates to a $Q$–representation $M$ its linear dual $DM$. There is an isomorphism of projective varieties $$\label{Eq:DualityGrass}
\zeta:Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)\rightarrow Gr_{\mathbf{d}-\mathbf{e}}(DM):\, L\mapsto \textrm{Ann}_M(L):=\{\varphi\in DM|\, \varphi(L)=0\}.$$
Second realization: quiver Grassmannians as geometric quotients and stratification {#Sec:Stratification}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Caldero and Reineke [@CR], one can realize quiver Grassmannians as geometric quotients. Recall the two vector spaces ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$ and ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1])$ of section \[Sec:1\] and the linear map $\Phi_L^M:{\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})\rightarrow {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1])$ associated with $L\in R_\mathbf{e}(Q)$ and $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$. Let us assume that $e_i\leq d_i$ for all $i\in Q_0$. Given $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ the algebraic map $$\Phi^M: R_\mathbf{e}\times {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})\rightarrow {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}[1]): (L,f)\mapsto \Phi^M_L(f)$$ is used to define the following closed subvariety of $R_\mathbf{e}\times {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$: $${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},M):=\{(L,f)\in R_\mathbf{e}\times {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})|\, \Phi^M_L(f)=0\}.$$ Inside ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$ there is the open (and dense) subvariety ${\operatorname{Hom}}^0(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$ consisting of collections of injective linear maps; the induced open subvariety ${\operatorname{Hom}}^0(\mathbf{e},M):={\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},M)\cap \left(R_\mathbf{e}\times {\operatorname{Hom}}^0(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})\right)$ is of particular importance for us. Indeed the map $$\phi: {\operatorname{Hom}}^0(\mathbf{e},M)\rightarrow Gr_\mathbf{e}(M):\, (L,f)\mapsto f(L)$$ is surjective and each fiber of $\phi$ is a free orbit for the algebraic group $G_\mathbf{e}=\prod_{i\in Q_0}GL(e_i)$ (see [@CR Lemma 2]). This implies that the quiver Grassmannian $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is a geometric quotient: $$\label{Eq:QuotQuivGrass}
Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)\simeq {\operatorname{Hom}}^0(\mathbf{e},M)/G_\mathbf{e}.$$ With this formulation, a point $p$ of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is represented (up to the $G_\mathbf{e}$–action) by a pair $(L,\iota)$ where $L\in R_\mathbf{e}(Q)$ and $\iota:L\rightarrow M$ is an injective homomorphism of $Q$–representations; in this case we use the notation $p=[(L,\iota)]$. As shown by Caldero and Reineke, formula implies the following description of the (scheme-theoretic) tangent space $T_{p}(Gr_\mathbf{e}(M))$ at a point $p$ of the quiver Grassmannian.
\[Thm:TangentSpace\] Given $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ and a point $p=[(L,\iota)]\in Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$, the tangent space $T_{p}(Gr_\mathbf{e}(M))$ at $p$ is isomorphic to ${\operatorname{Hom}}_Q(L,M/\iota(L))$.
The tangent space formula only holds at level of schemes. The usual example in this sense is given by considering a regular (indecomposable) representation $R_2$ of the Kronecker quiver of quasi–length 2 whose dimension vector is $(2,2)$. The quiver Grassmannian $Gr_{(1,1)}(R_2)$ is a point, but the tangent space has dimension one.
\[Prop:RigidQGSmooth\] A non-empty quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ associated with a rigid representation $M$ is smooth of dimension $\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{dim}\,M-\mathbf{e}\rangle$.
For every subrepresentation $N\subseteq M$ we have surjective morphisms $\xymatrix@1@C=20pt{{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(M,M)\ar@{->>}[r]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N,M)\ar@{->>}[r]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N,M/N)}$. This proves that if $[M,M]^1=0$ then $[N,M/N]^1=0$ and hence, by , the tangent space $T_{N}(Gr_\mathbf{e}(M))$ has dimension $\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{dim}\,M-\mathbf{e}\rangle$. This shows that ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is smooth. The dimension is computed by using .
As a consequence of the tangent space formula Schofield proved the following.
[@S Theorem 3.3]\[Thm:Schofield\] The universal quiver Grassmannian $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ is surjective if and only if there exist $N\in R_\mathbf{e}$ and $R\in R_\mathbf{d-e}$ such that $[N,R]^1=0$.
The realization of a quiver Grassmannian as a geometric quotient allows to define a stratification of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ as follows (see [@CFR Section 2.3] for more details): let $p$ be the projection from ${\operatorname{Hom}}^0_Q(\mathbf{e},M)$ to $R_\mathbf{e}$; its fiber over a point $N\in R_\mathbf{e}$ is the space of injective linear maps ${\operatorname{Hom}}^0_Q(N,M)$. For each isoclass $[N]$ in $R_\mathbf{e}$ we can consider the subset $\mathcal{S}_{[N]}$ of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ corresponding under the previous isomorphism to $p^{-1}(G_\mathbf{e}\cdot N)/G_\mathbf{e}$. The locally closed subset $\mathcal{S}_{[N]}$ is sometimes called an iso-stratum of the quiver Grassmannian. In [@CFR Lemma 2.4] it is shown that $\mathcal{S}_{[N]}$ is a locally closed subset of dimension $$\textrm{dim }\mathcal{S}_{[N]}=[N,M]-[N,N].$$ In particular, a quiver Grassmannian $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ admits a stratification $$Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)=\coprod_{[N]}\mathcal{S}_{[N]}.$$ In case $M$ is preprojective this stratification is finite. In this case, the irreducible components of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ are hence closures of some strata which we called the *generic sub–representation types* of $Gr_\mathbf{e}(M)$ (see [@CFR3]). See [@Hubery] for a description of the irreducible components of Grassmannians of submodules of a module over an algebra. In case of rigid modules the following holds
[[@CEFR Prop. 37]]{} A quiver Grassmannian associated with a rigid quiver representation is irreducible.
Degeneration of –representations: Bongartz’s theorem and applications to quiver Grassmannians {#Sec:Degeneration}
=============================================================================================
Given $M,N\in R_\mathbf{d}$, $M$ is said to *degenerate* to $N$ and in this case it is customary to write $M\leq_{\textrm{deg}} N$, if the closure of the orbit of $M$ contains $N$: $$M{\leq_{\textrm{deg}}}N\;\;\;\stackrel{def}{\Longleftrightarrow}\;\;\; \overline{G_\mathbf{d}\cdot M}\supseteq G_\mathbf{d}\cdot N.$$ For arbitrary finite–dimensional algebras, it is a hard problem to control such a notion. On the other hand, for algebras of finite representation type (i.e. admitting a finite number of indecomposable modules) the following very useful characterization holds: $$\label{Eq:DegZwara}
\begin{array}{ccccc}
M{\leq_{\textrm{deg}}}N&\Longleftrightarrow&[X,M]\leq [X,N]&\Longleftrightarrow&[M,X]\leq [N,X].\\
&&\forall\;X\in\textrm{Rep}(Q)&&\forall\;X\in\textrm{Rep}(Q)
\end{array}$$ For Dynkin quivers this result was obtained by Bongartz [@B] (partial results were obtained by Riedtmann [@Ried], Abeasis-Del Fra [@AdF1; @AdF2; @AdF3]). The surprising generalization to any algebra of finite representation type was obtained by Zwara [@Z] (the second equivalence follows from Auslander–Reiten theory [@Z section 2.2], [@AR85]). For general quivers, not necessarily Dynkin, the equivalence holds true in case both $M$ and $N$ are preprojective or preinjective [@B].
In the analysis of the geometry of quiver Grassmannians the following result of Bongartz can be useful. In order to formulate it we need to recall the notion of a generic quotient from Bongartz’s paper [@B Section 2.4]. Suppose that $U\in R_\mathbf{e}$ and $M\in R_\mathbf{d}$ are given, and also that there exists a monomorphism $\iota:U\rightarrow M$; in particular $\mathbf{d-e}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}_{\geq0}$ is a dimension vector. The set of all possible quotients of $M$ by $U$ is an irreducible constructible subset of $R_{\mathbf{d}-\mathbf{e}}$ which is $G_{\mathbf{d}-\mathbf{e}}$–invariant. If this set is the closure of the orbit of a point $S$ then $S$ is called the *generic quotient* of $M$ by $U$. In general, generic quotients may not exist. They exist for Dynkin quivers, or if $M$ is preinjective or if $M$ is regular over an affine quiver, since there are only finitely many isoclasses of quotients.
\[Thm:Bongartz\]([@B Theorem 2.4]) Let $M,N\in R_\mathbf{d}$ such that $M{\leq_{\textrm{deg}}}N$. Let $U$ be a representation such that $[U,M]=[U,N]$ then the following holds:
1. if $U$ embeds into $N$, it embeds into $M$ too;
2. in this case every quotient of $N$ by $U$ is a degeneration of the generic quotient of $M$ by U, in case it exists.
Bongartz’s theorem \[Thm:Bongartz\] can be used to prove that a certain quiver Grassmannian is non-empty. For example it can be used to prove Schofield’s theorem \[Thm:Schofield\]. For Dynkin quivers, an interesting homological criterion that guarantees the non–emptiness of a quiver Grassmannian associated with an arbitrary representation can be found in [@MR].
Examples of quiver Grassmannians
================================
In this section we collect examples of quiver Grassmannians.
Example 1: The Grassmannian
---------------------------
Let $Q=\cdot$ be the quiver with one vertex and no arrows. A $Q$–representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}=(d)\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq0}$ is a vector space $M=K^d$. Let $\mathbf{e}=(e)$ be a subdimension vector, i.e. $0\leq e\leq d$. The quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is an ordinary Grassmannian of vector subspaces of $M$: $${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)=\{W\subseteq {\mathbb{C}}^d|\,\textrm{dim}\,W=e\}.$$ Choosing a basis $\{w_1,\cdots, w_e\}$ of a point $W\in{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ defines a $e\times d$-matrix $$A_W=\left(\begin{array}{c}w_1\\\hline w_2\\\hline\vdots\\\hline w_e\end{array}\right)$$ of maximal rank $e$ whose rows are the elements of the chosen basis. On the other hand every $e\times d$-matrix $A$ of maximal rank $e$ defines a point $W_A\in {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ which is the span of the rows of $A$. This defines a surjective map $$\xymatrix{
\mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}\ar@{->>}[r]&{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M):A\ar@{|->}[r]&W_A
}$$ where $\mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}$ is the open subset of maximal rank $e\times d$–matrices. The group $\mathrm{GL}_e$ acts freely on $\mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}$ by left multiplication and does not change the span of the rows. The Grassmannian is hence a geometric quotient $${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}({\mathbb{C}}^d)\simeq \mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}/\mathrm{GL}_e.$$ The quotient map $\xymatrix{
\mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}\ar@{->>}[r]&{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)
}
$ can be (locally) trivialized as follows: given $A\in \mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}$ there exists column indices $1\leq j_1<j_2<\cdots<j_e\leq d$ such that the $e\times e$-submatrix $A^J$ supported on the columns $J=(j_1,\cdots, j_e)$ of $A$ is invertible. Define $$\Delta_J(A):=\mathrm{det}(A^J)\neq0.$$ For every $J=(j_1<\cdots< j_e)$ define $$\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_J=\left\{A\in\mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}|\,\Delta_J(A)\neq0\right\}\subset \mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}.$$ This is an open subset. Given $A\in U_J$ we can multiply on the left by the inverse of $A^J$ and we get a matrix $\overline{A}$ such that $\overline{A}^J=\mathbf{1}_e$. We hence see that the restriction of the quotient map to $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_J$ provides a trivial quotient $$\xymatrix{
\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_J\ar@{->>}[r]&\mathcal{U}_J=\left\{W_A|\,A^J=\mathbf{1}_e\right\}\simeq\mathbb{A}^{e(d-e)}}: A\mapsto W_A$$ so that $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}_J\simeq \mathcal{U}_J\times\mathrm{GL}_e$. This provides ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ with the structure of an $e(d-e)$–manifold. The Grasssmannian is covered by the affine spaces $\mathcal{U}_J$: $${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)=\bigcup_J\,\mathcal{U}_J$$ an hence $\{\mathcal{U}_J\}$ is an affine covering of the Grassmannian, called the standard affine covering.
The standard affine covering for ${\textrm{Gr}}_2({\mathbb{C}}^4)$ is formed by $$\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{U}_{(1,2)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&\ast&\ast\\0&1&\ast&\ast\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
&
\mathcal{U}_{(1,3)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}1&\ast&0&\ast\\0&\ast&1&\ast\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
\\
&\\
\mathcal{U}_{(1,4)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}1&\ast&\ast&0\\0&\ast&\ast&1\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
&
\mathcal{U}_{(2,3)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}\ast&1&0&\ast\\\ast&0&1&\ast\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
\\
&\\
\mathcal{U}_{(2,4)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}\ast&1&\ast&0\\\ast&0&\ast&1\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
&
\mathcal{U}_{(3,4)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}\ast&\ast&1&0\\\ast&\ast&0&1\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
\end{array}$$ where $\ast$ denotes an arbitrary complex number and $\langle A\rangle$ denotes the span of the rows of $A$.
It is well-known (see e.g. [@Harris Example 6.6]) that the Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d)$ is a smooth, projective and irreducible algebraic variety of dimension $$\label{Eq:DimGrass}
\textrm{dim}\,{\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d)=e(d-e).$$ The tangent space at $W\in{\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d)$ is $$T_W({\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d))\simeq{\operatorname{Hom}}_{\mathbb{C}}(W,{\mathbb{C}}^d/W).$$ We notice that $M={\mathbb{C}}^d$ is a rigid $Q$–representation (cf. Proposition \[Prop:RigidQGSmooth\]).
We now highlight another fundamental property of ${\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d)$: it admits a *cellular decomposition*. We say that two matrices $A$ and $B$ of the same size are row-equivalent if there exists an invertible matrix $C$ (of the appropriate size) such that $B=CA$. Since invertible matrices are products of elementary matrices, we see that this happens if and only if $A$ can be transformed into $B$ via Gaussian elimination. It is not hard to prove that every matrix $A\in \mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}$ is row equivalent to a matrix, denoted rref(A), with the following properties: 1) The zero rows are at the bottom; 2) The pivot of every (non-zero) row is one; 3) the columns containg the pivots have only the pivots as non-zero elements; 4) the pivot of the $i$-th row is on the left of the pivot of the $(i+1)$-th row. The matrix rref(A) is called the row reduced echelon form of $A$ (and this explains the notation). The columns of rref(A) containing the pivots are called dominants. We hence get a partition (i.e. a disjoint union) $$\label{Eq:CellDedGrass}
{\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d)=\amalg_J \mathcal{C}_J$$ where $J=(1\leq j_1<\cdots<j_e\leq d)$ is an $e$-set of column indices and $\mathcal{C}_J$ has the following equivalent definitions $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\mathcal{C}_J&=&\left\{W_A|\,\textrm{rref(A) has dominant columns J}\right\}\\
&=&\left\{W\subseteq_{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{C}}^d|\,\textrm{dim}\,W_k=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\textrm{dim}\,W_{k-1}&\textrm{ if }k\not\in I\\\textrm{dim}\,W_{k-1}+1&\textrm{ if }k\in J\end{array}\right.\right\}
\end{array}$$ where $e_i=(0,\cdots,0,1,0,\cdots,0)$ is the $i$–th row of the identity matrix $\mathbf{1}_d$ and $W_k:=W\cap\langle e_k,\cdots, e_n\rangle$ (notice that we identify ${\mathbb{C}}^d$ with the row matrices). It is clear that $\mathcal{C}_J$ is an affine space (i.e. a *cell*). To make this more explicit we consider the subgroup $\textrm{U}\subset \textrm{GL}_d$ of unipotent upper triangular $d\times d$ matrices (i.e. its elements are upper triangular matrices with $1$ on the diagonal). This group acts on $\mathrm{Mat}_{e\times d}^{\mathrm{max}}$ to the right, i.e. it acts on the columns. We immediately get $$\mathcal{C}_J=\langle e_j|\, j\in J\rangle \textrm{U}.$$ This has the following interesting consequence: the closure of a cell is a union of cells of smaller dimension $$\label{Eq:CellDecGrassClosure}
\overline{\mathcal{C}_J}=\amalg_I \mathcal{C}_I$$ where $I$ varies on a subset of index-sets that can be explicitely described. Conditions and imply at once the following properties of $X={\textrm{Gr}}_e(M)$:
1. $H_i(X)=0$ if $i$ is odd, and it is torsion-free if $i$ is even.
2. The cycle map $A_{\bullet}(X)\rightarrow H_\bullet(X)$ is an isomorphism.
Varieties having those two properties are said to have property (S). The cellular decomposition depends on the choice of an ordering of the standard basis vectors of ${\mathbb{C}}^d$. It is sometimes called the standard cellular decomposition of the Grassmannian.
The standard cells of ${\textrm{Gr}}_2({\mathbb{C}}^4)$ are $$\begin{array}{cc}
\mathcal{C}_{(1,2)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}1&0&\ast&\ast\\0&1&\ast&\ast\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
&
\mathcal{C}_{(1,3)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}1&\ast&0&\ast\\0&0&1&\ast\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
\\
&\\
\mathcal{C}_{(1,4)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}1&\ast&\ast&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
&
\mathcal{C}_{(2,3)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}0&1&0&\ast\\0&0&1&\ast\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
\\
&\\
\mathcal{C}_{(2,4)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}0&1&\ast&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
&
\mathcal{C}_{(3,4)}=\left\{\left\langle\begin{array}{cccc}0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{array}
\right\rangle\right\},
\end{array}$$ The Hasse diagram of the closure relation is the following: $$\xymatrix{
&\mathcal{C}_{12}\ar@{-}[d]&\\
&\mathcal{C}_{13}\ar@{-}[dl]\ar@{-}[dr]&\\
\mathcal{C}_{14}\ar@{-}[dr]&&\mathcal{C}_{23}\ar@{-}[dl]\\
&\mathcal{C}_{24}\ar@{-}[d]&\\
&\mathcal{C}_{34}&
}$$
Another useful way to describe the cells is via torus action. Let us consider the following action of the one-dimensional torus $T={\mathbb{C}}^\ast$ on ${\textrm{Gr}}_e(M)$: for every $\lambda\in T$ we rescal the standard basis vectors as $\lambda\cdot e_i=\lambda^{i-1}e_i$. This defines a linear automorphism of the vector space $K^d$ and hence descends to an action on ${\textrm{Gr}}_e(M)$. Notice that this action depends on the ordering of the standard basis. It is hence immediate to see that $$\mathcal{C}_J=\{W\in{\textrm{Gr}}_e({\mathbb{C}}^d)|\,\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0}\lambda\cdot W=\langle e_j|\,j\in J\rangle\}.$$ For example, $\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0}\lambda\cdot\langle e_1+e_2\rangle=\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow0}\langle e_1+\lambda e_2\rangle=\langle e_1\rangle$.
Example 2: The complete flag variety {#Sec:FlagVar}
------------------------------------
The complete flag variety is $$\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}=\left\{U_1\subset U_2\subset\cdots\subset U_n\subset{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}|\,\textrm{dim}\,U_i=i\right\}.$$ This is naturally a quiver Grassmannian: Let $$\label{Eq:TypeAQuiver}
\xymatrix{
Q:1\ar[r]&2\ar[r]&\cdots\ar[r]&n-1\ar[r]&n}$$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$; let $$\xymatrix{
M=P_1^{n+1}:{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\ar^(.7){\mathbf{1}_{n+1}}[r]&{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\ar^{\mathbf{1}_{n+1}}[r]&\cdots\ar[r]&{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}\ar^{\mathbf{1}_{n+1}}[r]&{\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}}$$ and let $\mathbf{e}=(1,2,3,\cdots, n)$. Then $$\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}\simeq {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M).$$ The complete flag variety is smooth, irreducibile of minimal dimension $$\textrm{dim}\,\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}=\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{dim}\,M-\mathbf{e}\rangle.$$ We notice that $M$ is indeed a rigid $Q$–representation (cf. Proposition \[Prop:RigidQGSmooth\])
Example 3: The complete degenerate flag variety {#Sec:DegFlagVar}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $V={\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}$ with standard basis $\{e_1,\cdots, e_{n+1}\}$. For every $k=1, \cdots, n+1$ consider the projection along $e_k$: $$pr_k:V\rightarrow V:\,\sum_i x_i e_i\mapsto\sum_{i\neq k}x_ie_i.$$ Motivated by the study of abelian degenerations of simple Lie algebras, E. Feigin introduced the projective variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}^a$ called the (complete) $sl_n$-degenerate flag variety [@F1; @F2; @FF]. He showed that it has a realization in terms of linear algebra as follows $$\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}^a\simeq\{(U_1,\cdots, U_n)\in\prod_{k=1}^n{\textrm{Gr}}_k(V)|\, pr_{k+1}(U_k)\subseteq U_{k+1}\}$$ and he proved that this projective variety has marvellous properties: it is a (typically) singular, irreducible projective variety of dimension $$\textrm{dim}\,\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}^a=\textrm{dim}\,\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$ which is a flat degeneration of the complete flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}$; moreover, it is a normal, locally complete intersection variety which admits a cellular decomposition. Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$. Let $A=KQ$ be its path algebra. As a $Q$–representation $A=\oplus_{i=1}^nP_i$ is the direct sum of all the indecomposable projectives and hence $\mathbf{dim}\,A=(1,2,\cdots, n)$. Dually, $DA=\oplus_{k=1}^nI_k$ is the sum of all the indecomposable injectives and $\mathbf{dim}\,DA=(n, n-1, n-2,\cdots, 1)$. We notice that $$\mathbf{dim}\,(A\oplus DA)=(n+1,n+1,\cdots, n+1)=\mathbf{dim}\,P_1^{n+1}.$$ From the definition it is immediate to check that $$\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}^a= {\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,A}(A\oplus DA).$$
Example 4: Singular quiver Grassmannians {#Ex4}
----------------------------------------
We give two easy examples of singular quiver Grassmannians. Let $Q:1\rightarrow 2$ be an $A_2$ quiver.
The easiest example of a non-smooth quiver Grassmannian is the following: let $$\xymatrix@C=50pt{
M={\mathbb{C}}^2\ar^(.4){\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&0\end{array}\right)}[r]&{\mathbb{C}}^2\simeq S_1\oplus P_1\oplus S_2
}$$ and let $\mathbf{e}=(1,1)$. Then ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is the union of two ${\textbf{P}}^1$’s crossing in one point. Thus ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is a connected, equidimensional curve of dimension one with two irreducible components and one singular point.
An easy example of a singular non-equidimensional quiver Grassmannian is the following: let $$\xymatrix@C=50pt{
M={\mathbb{C}}^2\ar^(.4){\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&0\\0&0\end{array}\right)}[r]&{\mathbb{C}}^3\simeq S_1\oplus P_1\oplus S_2^2
}$$ and let $\mathbf{e}=(1,1)$. Then ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is the union of a ${\textbf{P}}^2$ and a ${\textbf{P}}^1$ crossing in one point. Thus ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is a connected projective variety of dimension two with two irreducible components (one of dimension $1$ and one of dimension $2$) and one singular point.
Example 5: A non–connected quiver Grassmannian
----------------------------------------------
Let us give an easy example of a non–connected quiver Grassmannian. Let $\xymatrix{Q:1\ar[r]\ar@<1ex>[r]&2}$ be the Kronecker quiver. Let $A$ be a $2\times 2$ complex matrix with distinct eigenvalues. Let us consider the $Q$-representation $$\xymatrix{
M={\mathbb{C}}^2\ar@<1ex>^(.6){\mathbf{1}_2}[r]\ar_(.6){A}[r]&{\mathbb{C}}^2}$$ and let $\mathbf{e}=(1,1)$. Then ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ consists of two distinct points (the two eigenspaces). The tangent space at those two points is zero dimensional and hence ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is a reduced projective variety of dimension $0$ with two connected components.
Example 6: a smooth quiver Grassmannian with negative Euler characteristic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We borrow this example from Derksen-Weyman-Zelevinsky’s paper [@DWZ2 Example 3.6]. Let $\xymatrix{Q:1\ar[r]\ar@<0.5ex>[r]\ar@<1ex>[r]\ar@<1.5ex>[r]&2}$ be the $4$-Kronecker quiver. Let $\mathbf{d}=(3,4)$ and let $\mathbf{e}=(1,3)$. We notice that $\langle\mathbf{e,d-e}\rangle=1$. It is easy to construct representations $N\in R_\mathbf{e}$ and $R\in R_\mathbf{d-e}$ such that $[N,R]=1=\langle\mathbf{e,d-e}\rangle$ and hence $[N,R]^1=0$. By Theorem \[Thm:Schofield\], the universal quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\rightarrow R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ is surjective. Thus, there exists an open and dense subset $U$ of $R_\mathbf{d}$ such that the fiber ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ over a point $M\in U$ is smooth of minimal dimension $\langle\mathbf{e,d-e}\rangle=1>0$. Let $X={\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ be a generic fiber (i.e. $M\in U$). Then $X$ is a smooth curve of degree $4$ and genus $3$. It hence follows that its Euler characteristic is negative: $
\chi({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M))=-4<0.
$ Notice that since $\langle\mathbf{d,d}\rangle=-11<0$, $U$ does not contain an open orbit, i.e. there is no rigid representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$.
Every projective variety is a quiver Grassmannian {#Sec:EveryProj}
-------------------------------------------------
It is well known that every projective variety can be realized as the intersection of a Veronese variety with a linear space (see [@Harris Example 2.9]). Markus Reineke noticed that this construction can be used in a straightforward way to realize every projective variety as a quiver Grassmannian [@REveryProj]. In the next section \[Sec:LeBruynExample\] it is shown how this works in an example. In this costruction, the quiver and the quiver representation depends on the chosen projective variety. Surprisingly, Ringel proved that the choice of the quiver does not depend on the variety, as long as the quiver is *wild*.
[@RingEveryProj] Let $X$ be a projective variety and let $Q$ be a *wild* quiver. Then there exists a $Q$–representation $M$ and a dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$ such that $$X\simeq {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M).$$
Realization of an elliptic curve as a quiver Grassmannian {#Sec:LeBruynExample}
---------------------------------------------------------
Following Reineke [@REveryProj], in this section we realize an elliptic curve as a quiver Grassmannian. This example appeared in the blog of Le Bruyn [@LeBruynBlog]. Let us consider the elliptic curve $$\mathcal{E}=\{[x:y:z]\in{\textbf{P}}^2|\, y^2z=x^3+z^3\}.$$ We fix the complex vector space $V={\mathbb{C}}^3$ with standard basis $\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$ and its linear dual $V^\ast$ with dual basis $\{e_1^\ast,e_2^\ast,e_3^\ast\}$. The first thing we need to do is to linearize the equation defining the elliptic curve: we do this using the Veronese embedding $
j:V\rightarrow \textrm{Sym}^3(V):\; v\mapsto v\otimes v\otimes v.
$ Consider the linear form $\varphi= (e_2^\ast)^2e_3^\ast-(e_1^\ast)^3-(e_3^\ast)^3:\textrm{Sym}^3(V)\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}$ then $$\label{Eq:LeBruyn1}
\mathcal{E}=\{[v]\in {\textrm{Gr}}_1(V)|\, \varphi(j(v))=0\}\simeq \{[w]\in {\textrm{Gr}}_1(\textrm{Sym}^3 V)|\, \varphi(w)=0\}$$ where $[v]$ denotes the line generated by a non-zero vector $v$ and the isomorphism is induced by the embedding $j$.
Next, we need to describe the image of the Veronese embedding. Recall that a tensor $\omega\in V^{\otimes n}$ of the form $\omega=v^{\otimes n}$ is called decomposable. Thus, the image of $j$ consists of the decomposable tensors of $V^{\otimes 3}$. For $1\leq i\leq j\leq k\leq 3$ we define $$\begin{array}{cc}
e_ie_j:=e_i\otimes e_j+e_j\otimes e_i,&
e_ie_je_k:=\sum_{\sigma\in S_3}e_{\sigma(i)}\otimes e_{\sigma(j)}\otimes e_{\sigma(k)}.
\end{array}$$ The sets $\{e_ie_j\}$ and $\{e_ie_je_k\}$ form a basis of $\textrm{Sym}^2(V)$ and of $\textrm{Sym}^3(V)$, respectively. It is easy to describe the decomposable vectors of $V\otimes V$: consider the canonical isomorphism $$\zeta_?:V\otimes V\simeq {\operatorname{Hom}}(V^\ast,V): \omega=v\otimes w\mapsto \zeta_\omega=(u\mapsto u(v)w)$$ defined on the decomposable tensors and extended by linearity. It is immediate to verify that $\omega$ is decomposable if and only if $\textrm{rk}(\zeta_\omega)\leq 1$. We use this criterion to detect the decomposable tensors of $V\otimes V\otimes V$: We consider the linear map $$\iota:\textrm{Sym}^3(V)\rightarrow V\otimes\textrm{Sym}^2(V)$$ defined on the basis elements by $
e_ie_je_k\mapsto e_i\otimes e_je_k+e_j\otimes e_ie_k+e_k\otimes e_ie_j.
$ This is the injective linear map compatible with the inclusions $\textrm{Sym}^3(V)\subset V^{\otimes 3}$ and $V\otimes\textrm{Sym}^2(V)\subset V^{\otimes 3}$. In particular, it sends a decomposable vector to a decomposable vector: Indeed $$\iota(\sum_{i\leq j\leq k}\alpha_i\alpha_j\alpha_k\,e_ie_je_k)=(\sum_i\alpha_ie_i)\otimes (\sum_{j\leq k}\alpha_j\alpha_ke_je_k).$$ The standard basis $\{e_1,e_2,e_3\}$ of $V$ determines an isomorphism of vector spaces $V\otimes\textrm{Sym}^2(V)\simeq \textrm{Sym}^2(V)\oplus \textrm{Sym}^2(V)\oplus \textrm{Sym}^2(V)$. Let $$\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3:V\otimes\textrm{Sym}^2(V)\rightarrow \textrm{Sym}^2(V)$$ be the projections onto the three factors, respectively. Thus, by definition, a vector $\omega$ of $V\otimes\textrm{Sym}^2(V)$ is written as $
\omega=e_1\otimes \pi_1(\omega)+e_2\otimes \pi_2(\omega)+e_3\otimes \pi_3(\omega).
$ Let $$\xymatrix@C=40pt{
\psi_1,\psi_2,\psi_3:\textrm{Sym}^3(V)\ar^(.6)\iota[r]&V\otimes\textrm{Sym}^2(V)\ar^{\pi_1,\pi_2,\pi_3}[r]& \textrm{Sym}^2(V)
}$$ be the composite maps $\psi_i=\pi_i\circ \iota$. From the criterion above we see that $\omega$ is decomposable if and only if $\pi_1(\omega)$, $\pi_2(\omega)$ and $\pi_3(\omega)$ are all contained in a same line. We hence have: $$\label{Eq:LeBruyn2}
\xymatrix@C=12pt{
t\in\textrm{Im}\,j\ar@{<=>}[r]&\iota(t)\textrm{ is decomposable}\ar@{<=>}[r]&\textrm{dim Span}\{\psi_1(t), \psi_2(t), \psi_3(t)\}\leq 1.
}$$
We consider the quiver $
\xymatrix{
\bullet &\ar[l]\ar@<1ex>[r]\ar@<-1ex>[r]\ar[r]\bullet&\bullet
}
$ and its representation $$M=\xymatrix@C=40pt{
{\mathbb{C}}&\ar_(.6)\varphi[l]\ar@<1ex>^{\psi_1,\psi_2,\psi_3}[r]\ar@<-1ex>[r]\ar[r]\textrm{Sym}^3(V)&\textrm{Sym}^2(V)
}$$ Then, putting together and , we have $
\mathcal{E}\simeq {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)
$ where $\mathbf{e}=(0,1,1)$.
Quiver Grassmannians of type {#Sec:TypeA}
=============================
In sections and we saw that the complete flag variety and the corresponding degenerate flag variety are quiver Grassmannians attached to representations of the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$. In this section we study some general properties of quiver Grassmannians of this sort, that we briefly call “of type $A$”.
Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$. A $Q$–representation $M=((M_i)_{i=1}^n, (f_i)_{i=1}^{n-1})$ is $$\xymatrix{
M:M_1\ar^{f_1}[r]&M_2\ar^{f_2}[r]&\cdots\ar^{f_{n-2}}[r]&M_{n-1}\ar^{f_{n-1}}[r]&n}.$$ It is an interesting problem of linear algebra to find the normal form of a collection of linear maps $(f_1,\cdots, f_{n-1})$ by base change. It turns out that the indecomposable $Q$–representations are thin and they are supported on connected subgraphs of $Q$. Given $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$ we denote by $U_{i,j}$ the indecomposable supported on the interval $[i,j]$. The projectives are $P_i=U_{i,n}$ and the injectives are $I_k=U_{1,k}$. The AR-translate $\tau U_{i,j}$ of $U_{i,j}$ is $\tau U_{i,j}=U_{i+1,j+1}$ and the AR-quiver is the following (for $n=4$): $$\xymatrix@R=15pt@C=15pt{
&&&U_{1,4}\ar[dr]&&&\\
&&U_{2,4}\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&U_{1,3}\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\\
&U_{3,4}\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&U_{2,3}\ar[ur]\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&U_{1,2}\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&\\
U_{4,4}\ar[ur]&&U_{3,3}\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&U_{2,2}\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&U_{1,1}\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]\\
}$$ The space of homomorphisms (and of extensions) between them are at most one-dimensional and are given as follows $$[U_{ij}, U_{k\ell}]=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1&\textrm{ if }k\leq i\leq \ell\leq j\\0&\textrm{otherwise}\end{array}\right.$$ $$\label{Eq:ExtSpaceTypeA}
[U_{k\ell},U_{ij}]^1=[U_{ij}, U_{k+1\ell+1}]=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}1&\textrm{ if }k+1\leq i\leq \ell+1\leq j\\0&\textrm{otherwise}\end{array}\right.$$
We can order the indecomposable $Q$–representations as $M(1)<M(2)<\cdots<M(N)$ (where $N=\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$) so that $$\label{Eq:OrderTypeA}
\xymatrix{
M(i)<M(\ell)\ar@{=>}[r]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(M(i),M(\ell))=0.
}$$ As shown in [@CFFFR Remark 7], a natural choice is the following (for $n=4$) $$\xymatrix@R=15pt@C=15pt{
&&&M(4)\ar[dr]&&&\\
&&M(3)\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&M(7)\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\\
&M(2)\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&M(6)\ar[ur]\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&M(9)\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&\\
M(1)\ar[ur]&&M(5)\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&M(8)\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&M(10)\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]\\
}$$ To a $Q$-representation $M=((M_i),(f_i))$ we associate the sequence of non-negative integers $\mathbf{r}^M=(r_{i,j}^M|\, 1\leq j\leq n)$ given by the ranks of the composite linear maps $f_i$’s, i.e. $r_{i,j}^M=rk(f_{j-1}\circ\cdots\circ f_i)$ for $i<j$ and $r_{i,i}^M=\textrm{dim}\,M_i$. If $M$ decomposes as direct sum of indecomposables as $M=\oplus_{i,j}U_{i,j}^{m_{i,j}}$, the relation between the rank tuple $\mathbf{r}^M$ and the tuple of multiplicities $(m_{i,j})$ is given by $$\begin{array}{cc}
r_{i,j}^M=\sum_{k\leq i\leq j\leq \ell}m_{k,\ell},&m_{ij}^M=r_{i,j}^M-r_{i-1,j}^M-r_{i,j+1}^M+r_{i-1,j+1}^M.
\end{array}$$ In particular, the sequence $(r_{i,j}^M)$ satisfies the inequalities $$r_{i,j}^M+r_{i-1,j+1}^M\geq r_{i,j+1}^M+ r_{i-1,j}^M.$$ Conversely, let $\mathbf{r}=(r_{i,j}|\, 1\leq i\leq j\leq n)$ be a sequence of non–negative integers which fulfill the inequalities $$\label{Eq:IneqTypeA}
r_{i,j}+r_{i-1,j+1}\geq r_{i,j+1}+r_{i-1,j}$$ for all $1\leq i\leq j\leq n$, with the convention $r_{i,j}=0$ if $i=0$ or $j=n+1$. An easy induction shows that are equivalent to $$\label{Eq:IneqTypeA2}
r_{i,k}+r_{j,\ell}\geq r_{j,\ell}+r_{i,k}$$ for every $1\leq i\leq j\leq k\leq \ell\leq n$. Then one can easily contruct a $Q$-representation $M$ such that $\mathbf{r}^M=\mathbf{r}$. A sequence of non-negative integers $\mathbf{r}=(r_{i,j})$ satisfying the inequalities is called a rank sequence. By the above, $M\simeq N$ if and only if $\mathbf{r}^M=\mathbf{r}^N$, i.e. the isoclasses of $Q$–representations are parametrized by rank sequences. Moreover it is proved in [@AdF1] that $M\leq_{deg}N$ if and only if $r_{ii}^M=r_{ii}^N$ and $r_{ij}^M\geq r_{ij}^N$ for every $i,j$; in this case we briefly write $\mathbf{r}^M\geq \mathbf{r}^N$.
Cellular decomposition
----------------------
Let $M=(M_i,f_i)$ be a $Q$–representation. Decompose $M=\oplus_{k=1}^s M(k)$ as a direct sum of its indecomposable direct summands, so that $[M(i),M(j)]^1=0$ for $i<j$.
For every $\lambda\in{\mathbb{C}}^\ast$ consider the automorphism $f_\lambda:M\rightarrow M$ of $M$ which rescales the $M(k)$’s as follows $$f_\lambda(m)=\lambda^{k-1}m\;\;\;\forall m\in M(k).$$ This gives an action $$T\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)\rightarrow{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M):\;(\lambda,N)\mapsto \lambda\cdot N$$ of the one-dimensional torus $T={\mathbb{C}}^\ast$ on every quiver Grassmannian associated with $M$. This action has finitely many $T$–fixed points which are coordinate subrepresentations: $$\label{Eq:TorusFixedPointsTypeA}
{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)^T=\prod_{\mathbf{f}_1+\cdots+\mathbf{f}_s=\mathbf{e}}{\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}_1}(M(1))\times\cdots\times {\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{f}_s}(M(s))$$ Notice that since the $M(k)$’s are thin, every non-empty quiver Grassmannian associated to them is a point and ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)^T$ is a finite collection of points. For a $T$-fixed point $L$ consider the attracting space $$\mathcal{C}_L=\{N\in{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)|\,\lim_{\lambda\rightarrow 0}\lambda.N=L\}.$$ We can represent the representation $M$ as a collection of strings, ordered from top to bottom, according to . This collection of strings is called the coefficient quiver of $M$. Given a $T$-fixed point $L\in {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)^T$ we colour black the vertices corresponding to $L$ and to compute the dimension of $\mathcal{C}_L$ we only need to count how many white vertices there are below each black *source* of $L$. For example, if $n=3$ and $M=A\oplus DA$, $\mathbf{e}=\mathbf{dim}\,A=(1,2,3)$ the following is coefficient quiver of $M$ together with a $T$-fixed point $L$ highlighted by black vertices $$\xymatrix@R=0.5pt{
&&\bullet&1\\
&\circ\ar[r]&\bullet&2\\
\circ\ar[r]&\bullet\ar[r]&\bullet&3\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ&4\\
\bullet\ar[r]&\bullet&&5\\
\circ&&&6}$$ Then the dimension of $\mathcal{C}_L$ is $4$ (see [@CFFFR Sec. 6.4]). By elementary linear algebra techniques one can prove the following result.
\[Thm:CellDecTypeA\][@CFFFR Thm 12] For every $T$–fixed point $L$, the attrcting set $\mathcal{C}_L$ is an affine space and the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ admits a cellular decomposition $${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)=\coprod_{L\in{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)^T}\mathcal{C}_L.$$ Moreover the points of every cell $\mathcal{C}_L$ are isomorphic to $L$ and hence every iso-stratum $\mathcal{S}_L$ decomposes as union of cells.
The choice of the ordering of the indecomposable direct summands $M(i)$’s of $M$ is necessary to make theorem \[Thm:CellDecTypeA\] working. Indeed, consider the case $n=2$ and the representation $M=S_1\oplus P_1\oplus S_2$ of example 4 with the ordering given by $$\xymatrix@R=3pt{
\bullet&&1\\
\circ\ar[r]&\bullet&2\\
&\circ&3
}$$ and let $L$ be the highlighted point of ${\textrm{Gr}}_{(1,1)}(M)$. One can easily verify that $\mathcal{C}(L)\simeq \{([1:\lambda],[1:\mu])\in{\textbf{P}}^1\times{\textbf{P}}^1|\, \lambda\mu=0\}$ which is not a cell.
Schubert quiver Grassmannians
-----------------------------
Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$ as in the previous section. A $Q$–representation $R=((R_i), (f_i))$ is projective if and only if every linear map $f_i:R_{i}\rightarrow R_{i+1}$ is injective. In other words, $R$ is projective if and only if $R_\bullet$ is a flag in $R_n$. The automorphism group $Aut(R)$ of $R$ consists of those $g\in GL(R_n)$ which fix the flag $R_\bullet$; thus, $Aut(R)$ is a parabolic subgroup of $GL(R_n)$. This implies that the quiver Grassmannians associated with $R$ are Schubert varieties inside the partial flag variety $GL(R_n)/Aut(R)$. Given a $Q$-representation $M$, let us consider its minimal projective resolution $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r]&P\ar^\iota[r]&R\ar^\pi[r]&M\ar[r]&0}.$$ For example if $n=3$ and $M=A\oplus DA$ then the diagram $$\xymatrix@R=1pt{
&&\circ\\
&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\ast\\
\circ\ar[r]&\ast\ar[r]&\ast}$$ describes the minimal projective resolution of $M$: the $\ast$ form (the coefficient-quiver of ) $P$, the whole diagram is (the coefficient-quiver of ) $R$ and the diagram without $\ast$ is (the coefficient-quiver of ) $M$. We can use the surjective morphism $\pi:R\rightarrow M$ to embed a quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ associated with $M$ into the partial flag variety $GL(R_n)/Aut(R)$ (see [@CFR4 Prop. 2.1]): we define the map $$\zeta:{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)\rightarrow{\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{e}+\mathbf{dim}\,P}(R):\; N\mapsto\pi^{-1}(N).$$ This is a closed embedding and we refer to it as the standard embedding of ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ inside a partial flag variety. Let $B\subseteq Aut(R)$ be the Borel subgroup of $GL(R_n)$ contained in the parabolic subgroup $Aut(R)$. It is a natural problem to find conditions on the $Q$–representation $M$ and to the dimension vector $\mathbf{e}$ so that the standard embedding of ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ into a partial flag manifold is stable by $B$. Indeed, if this happens, then the irreducible components of ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ are Schubert varieties. For this reason, we called such varieties Schubert quiver Grassmannians.
In [@CFR4] we studied this problem and found a purely combinatorial solution. To state the result we introduced the following terminology:
\[Def:Catenoid\] We say that a $Q$–representation $M$ is a *catenoid* if the indecomposable direct summands of $M$ lie in an oriented (connected) path of the AR-quiver of $Q$.
To illustrate definition \[Def:Catenoid\] let us consider the case $n=4$; given a $Q$-representation $M$ we highlight with $\bullet$ the vertices of the AR-quiver corresponding to the indecomposable direct summands of $M$. Consider the following two configurations: $$\begin{array}{c|c}
\xymatrix@R=10pt@C=10pt{
&&&\circ\ar[dr]&&&\\
&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&\circ\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\\
&\circ\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\bullet\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&\\
\bullet\ar[ur]&&\circ\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\circ\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]\\
}
&
\xymatrix@R=10pt@C=10pt{
&&&\circ\ar[dr]&&&\\
&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&\circ\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\\
&\circ\ar[ur]\ar[dr]&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\bullet\ar[dr]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&\\
\bullet\ar[ur]&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\bullet\ar[ur]\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]&&\circ\ar@{..>}_\tau[ll]\\
}
\\\textrm{Catenoid}&\textrm{Not a Catenoid}
\end{array}$$ Then a representation whose configuration of its indecomposables is shown on the left is a catenoid, while the one on the right is not a catenoid. Notice that the multiplicities do not play any rôle.
\[Thm:SchubertQuivGrass\] A quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is a Schubert quiver Grassmannian if and only if $M$ is a catenoid.
Theorem \[Thm:SchubertQuivGrass\] has the following interesting corollary.
\[Cor:CL\] Degenerate flag varieties are Schubert varieties.
The complete degenerate flag variety is ${\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,A}(A\oplus DA)$ and the representation $M=A\oplus DA$ is a catenoid. By Theorem \[Thm:SchubertQuivGrass\] its irreducible components are hence Schubert varieties. Since the complete degenerate flag variety is irreducible the result follows.
Corollary \[Cor:CL\] was first proved in collaboration with Martina Lanini [@CL] and it was the starting point for the study of Schubert quiver Grassmannians. It holds for partial degenerate flag varieties, and for symplectic degenerate flag varieties. For a characteristic-free approach see [@CLL].
Linear degeneration of the complete flag variety {#Sec:LinDeg}
------------------------------------------------
Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$ and let $A=KQ$ be its path algebra. The dimension vector $\mathbf{d}=(n+1,n+1,\cdots, n+1)$ is of special intereset. Indeed, both $P_1^{n+1}$ and $A\oplus DA$ have dimension vector equal to $\mathbf{d}$. The complete flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}$ and the degenerate flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}^a$ are hence fibers of the universal quiver Grassmannian $$p_\mathbf{e,d}:{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\rightarrow R_\mathbf{d}$$ where $\mathbf{e}=\mathbf{dim}\,A$. Notice that $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ is surjective because the rigid representation $P_1^{n+1}$ belongs to its image. The family $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ is hence of special interest and it was studied in [@CFFFR]. The main result of [@CFFFR] describes the locus where $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ is flat with irreducible fibers, denoted with $U_{flat,irr}$ and the locus where $p_\mathbf{e,d}$ is flat, denoted with $\mathcal{U}_{flat}$. Since $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}=p_\mathbf{e,d}^{-1}(P_1^{n+1})$ and $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}^a=p_\mathbf{e,d}^{-1}(A\oplus DA)$ are irreducible, both $P_1^{n+1}$ and $A\oplus DA$ lie in $\mathcal{U}_{flat,irr}$. Let us consider the rank sequences $\mathbf{r}^0$, $\mathbf{r}^1$ and $\mathbf{r}^2$ given by $$\begin{array}{ccc}
r_{i,j}^0=n+1,&r_{i,j}^1=n+1-(j-i),&r_{i,j}^2=n-(j-i).
\end{array}$$ We put $M^0=P_1^{n+1}$, $M^1=A\oplus DA$ and notice that $\mathbf{r}^0=\mathbf{r}^{M^0}$ and $\mathbf{r}^{M^1}$. The representation $M^2$ such that $\mathbf{r}^2=\mathbf{r}^{M^2}$ is $$M^2=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n P_i\oplus \bigoplus_{j=1}^{n-1} I_j\oplus\bigoplus_{k=1}^nS_k=A\oplus DA/(\textrm{soc}\,DA)\oplus \textrm{soc}\,DA$$ The following are the coefficient quivers of $M^0$, $M^1$ and $M^2$ respectively, for $n=3$ $$\begin{array}{ccc}
\xymatrix@R=1pt{
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ}
&
\xymatrix@R=1pt{
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ&\circ\\
\circ&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ}
&
\xymatrix@R=1pt{
\circ\ar[r]&\circ&\circ\\
\circ&\circ&\circ\\
\circ&\circ\ar[r]&\circ\\
\circ\ar[r]&\circ\ar[r]&\circ}
\\&&\\
M^0&M^1&M^2
\end{array}$$ The following theorem describes the loci $\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{flat,Irr}}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{ flat}}$ defined above.
\[Thm:CFFFR\][@CFFFR]
1. $\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{flat,Irr}}=\{M\in R_\mathbf{d}|\, M\leq_{deg} M^1\}=\{M\in R_\mathbf{d}|\, \mathbf{r}^M\geq\mathbf{r}^1\}$.
2. $\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{flat}}=\{M\in R_\mathbf{d}|\, M\leq_{deg} M^2\}=\{M\in R_\mathbf{d}|\, \mathbf{r}^M\geq\mathbf{r}^2\}$.
It is worth noting that the irreducible flat locus $\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{flat,Irr}}$ coincides with the normal flat locus, i.e. the locus consisting of points $M$ whose fiber $p_\mathbf{e,d}^{-1}(M)$ is normal and of the same dimension as the complete flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}$.
In view of Theorem \[Thm:CFFFR\] we call ${\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,A}(M^2)$ the most-flat linear degeneration of the complete flag variety, or, in short, mf-linear degeneration of the flag variety. It turns out that the mf-linear degeneration has an interesting geometric structure: it is an equi-dimensional, locally complete intersection variety whose irreducible components are naturally parametrized by non-crossing arc diagrams on $n$ vertices and hence they are in number of $C_n=\frac{1}{n+1}$$\binom{2n}{n}$, the n-th Catalan number.
The flat irreducible locus contains two Schubert varieties, namely the complete flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}$ and the degenerate flag variety $\mathcal{F}l^a_{n+1}$. We call $\mathcal{U}_{PBW}\subset \mathcal{U}_{irr,flat}$ the locus of points whose fiber is a Schubert quiver Grassmannian. In [@CFFFR Section 5] those Schubert quiver Grassmannian are shown to be PBW-degenerations of the complete flag variety, and hence the name. Moreover a complete description of the realization as a Schubert variety is provided.
Quiver Grassmannians of Dynkin type
===================================
In section \[Sec:TypeA\] we saw that even quiver Grassmannians of type A can have a complicated geometric structure. We hence cannot expect to find general results concerning quiver Grassmannians associated with an arbitrary Dynkin quiver. What we can do is to restrict our attention to particular quiver Grassmannians. We have in mind the complete degenerate flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}\simeq {\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,A}(P_1^{n+1})$, and the degenerate flag variety $\mathcal{F}l^a_{n+1}\simeq {\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,A}(A\oplus DA)$, where $A$ is the path algebra of the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$. Those varieties share many nice properties. It is hence natural to consider quiver Grassmannians of the form ${\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,P}(P\oplus I)$ where $P$ is a projective and $I$ is an injective representation of an arbitrary Dynkin quiver. We call such varieties well-behaved quiver Grassmannians [@CFR]. We prove the following result.
\[Thm:WellBehaved\][@CFR] Let $Q$ be a Dynkin quiver. Let $P$ and $I$ be a projective and an injective $Q$-representation, respectively. Let $Z={\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,P}(P\oplus I)$. Then $Z$ is a reduced, irreducible and rational locally complete intersection scheme of minimal dimension $\langle\mathbf{dim}\,P,\mathbf{dim}\,I\rangle$. Moreover $Z$ has normal singularities and it is acted upon by an algebraic group $G\subset \textrm{Aut}(P\oplus I)$ with finitely many orbits.
We can extend a little bit the class of well-behaved quiver Grassmannians by considering varieties of the form $Z={\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,X}(X\oplus Y)$ where $X$ and $Y$ are rigid and such that $[X,Y]^1=0$. In this case the variety $Z$ has the same properties stated in theorem \[Thm:WellBehaved\] but not the group action and the normality. Normality does not hold for such quiver Grassmannians, in general, since they can have singularities in codimension 1 (see example 4 in section \[Ex4\]).
Cell decomposition and property (S) {#Sec:CellDec}
===================================
A finite partition $(X_i)$ of a complex algebraic variety $X$ is said to be an *$\alpha$–partition* if $$\label{Eq:DefAlphaPart}
X_1\amalg\cdots\amalg X_i\textrm{ is closed in }X\textrm{ for every }i.$$ Clearly, every piece of an $\alpha$–partition is locally closed. Property can be reformulated by $$\label{Eq:DefAlphaPart2}
\overline{X}_i\subseteq X_1\amalg\cdots\amalg X_{i-1}$$ for every $i$. A *cellular decomposition* of $X$ is an $\alpha$–partition whose parts $X_i$ are (complex) affine spaces. By and we see that the Grassmannian admits an $\alpha$-partition into affine spaces; more precisely the standard cells of the Grassmannian form an $\alpha$-partition with the stronger property that in the equality holds. The following is an example of a variety admitting a partition into affine spaces which do not admit a cellular decomposition.
\[Ex:NotAlphaPart\] Let $X=\{[x:y:z]\in{\textbf{P}}^2|\, xyz=0\}$ be the union of three ${\textbf{P}}^1$’s crossing in the three distinct points $[1:0:0]$, $[0:1:0]$ and $[0:0:1]$. We can represent $X$ as a triangle: $$\xymatrix{
&\bullet\ar@{-}^{[0:1:z]}[dr]\ar@{}|(-.18){[0:1:0]}[d]&\\
\bullet\ar@{-}^{[1:y:0]}[ur]&&\bullet\ar@{-}^{[x:0:1]}[ll] \ar@{}^(1.2){[1:0:0]}[ll]\ar@{}^(-0.2){[0:0:1]}[ll]
}$$ Then $X=\mathcal{C}_1\cup \mathcal{C}_2\cup \mathcal{C}_3$ is the disjoint union of three affine lines $\mathbb{A}^1$ given by $\mathcal{C}_1=\{[1:y:0]\}$, $\mathcal{C}_2=\{[1:0:z]\}$, $\mathcal{C}_3=\{[0:1:z]\}$ which do not form an $\alpha$-partition.
The existence of a cellular decomposition for $X$ is rare but when happens it implies wonderful homological properties: we denote by $H_i(X)$ the i–th space of the Borel–Moore homology of $X$ (see [@CG]). Following [@DLP Sec. 1.7] we say that an algebraic variety $X$ has *property (**S**)* if:
- $H_i(X)$ is zero if i is odd and it has no torsion if i is even;
- the cycle map $\varphi_i: A_i(X)\rightarrow H_{2i}(X)$ is an isomorphism for all i.
(Here $A_k(X)$ denotes the Chow group generated by $K$–dimensional irreducible subvarieties modulo rational equivalences (see [@Fu Sec. 1.3])). It is easy to prove (see e.g. [@DLP Section 1.10]) that $$\xymatrix{
\textrm{Cell decompositon}\ar@{=>}[r]&\textrm{Property (S)}
}$$ but the opposite is not true. A counter-example for the reverse implication was communicated to me by Antonio Rapagnetta: it is the first example of an irrational surface with trivial $H^1$ [@Barlow]. Those surfaces have property (S) but they cannot admit a cellular decomposition, since cellular decomposition implies rationality. The variety $X$ of example \[Ex:NotAlphaPart\] has non-trivial $H_1$ and hence it cannot admit a cellular decomposition.
If $X$ is a smooth complex algebraic variety, we can formulate property (S) equivalently in terms of singular cohomology as: 1) the odd cohomology groups $H^{2i+1}(X)$ vanish and 2) the cycle map $A^i(X)\rightarrow H^{2i}(X)$ is an isomorphism.
By [@DLP Lemma 1.9], if $f:X\rightarrow Y$ is a locally-trivial affine bundle, and $Y$ has property (S) (resp. admits a cellular decomposition) then $X$ has property (S) (resp. admits a cellular decomposition) too. If $X$ admits an $\alpha$-partition into pieces having property (S) (resp. admitting a cellular decomposition) then $X$ has property (S) (resp. admits a cellular decomposition).
In [@DLP] it is shown that Springer fibers for classical groups admit a cellular decomposition and the Springer fibers for exceptional groups have property (S). It is conjectured that cell decomposition exists also for the exceptional groups.
We say that a quiver representation $M$ has property $(C)$ (resp. (S)) if every quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ associated with $M$ admits a cellular decomposition (resp. has property (S)). In [@CEFR] the following result is proved.
[@CEFR]\[Thm:CEFR\] Let $Q$ be a connected quiver and $M$ a $Q$–representation.
1. If $Q$ is Dynkin, then $M$ has property (C).
2. If $Q$ is affine and $M$ has indecomposable or rigid regular part, then $M$ has property (C).
3. If $Q$ is arbitrary and $M$ is rigid, then $M$ has property (S).
It is conjectured that every rigid quiver representation has property (C). For quivers with two vertices this has been proved in [@RW]. For quivers of type $\tilde{D}$, theorem \[Thm:CEFR\] was partially proved in [@LW1] and [@LW2]. It is not clear to us if the restrictions assumed in part (2) of Theorem \[Thm:CEFR\] on the regular part of $M$ for an affine quiver are necessary. At the moment, our proof only works for those cases. The proof of part $(3)$ is based on a general theorem of Ellingsrund and Strømme [@ES] concerning the decomposition of the diagonal in the Chow group.
Decomposition induced by short exact sequences
----------------------------------------------
In this section we illustrate the idea of the proof of part (1) and part (2) of theorem \[Thm:CEFR\]. Let $Q$ be an acyclic quiver and let $$\eta:\xymatrix{0\ar[r]&M'\ar^\iota[r]&M\ar^\pi[r]&M''\ar[r]&0}$$ be a short exact sequence in Rep($Q$). This induces the map $$\Psi^\eta: {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)\rightarrow \coprod_{\mathbf{f+g=e}}{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(M')\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(M''):\; N\mapsto (\iota^{-1}N,\pi(N))$$ between quiver Grassmannians. By taking the preimage $\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\eta=(\Psi^{\eta})^{-1}({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(M')\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(M''))$ of each piece, we get the algebraic map $$\Psi^\eta_{\mathbf{f,g}}: \mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\eta\rightarrow {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(M')\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(M''):\; N\mapsto (\iota^{-1}N,\pi(N)).$$ The finite partition $
{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)=\coprod_{\mathbf{f+g=e}}\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\eta
$ is an $\alpha$-partition (see [@CEFR Lemma 20]). It is hence natural to investigate the map $\Psi^\eta_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ in order to deduce nice properties of each piece $\mathcal{S}_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\eta$. The first thing to study is its image. It is basically by definition that the image of $\Psi^\eta_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ consists of those pairs $(N',N'')\in {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(M')\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(M'')$ such that in the commutative diagram $$\label{Eq:CommDiagPsi}
\xymatrix@R=15pt{
{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(M'',M')\ar@{->>}[r]\ar@{->>}[d]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(M'',M'/N')\ar@{->>}[d]\\
{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N'',M')\ar@{->>}[r]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N'',M'/N')
}$$ the element $\eta\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(M'',M')$ is mapped to zero in ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N'',M'/N')$ (see [@CEFR Lemma 21]). For a general $\eta$ the image of $\Psi^\eta_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ is hence difficult to control. Nevertheless, there are some short exact sequences for which this image is under control. They are called generating.
Generating short exact sequences
--------------------------------
An element $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ is *generating* if ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)={\mathbb{C}}\xi$.
In other words $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ is generating if either $[S,X]^1=0$ and $\xi=0$ or $[S,X]^1=1$ and $\xi\neq 0$.
If a generating sequence $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ is split then ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)=0$ and hence the map $\Psi^\xi_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ is surjective by the above description of its image.
If a generating sequence $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ is not split then ${\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)\simeq {\mathbb{C}}$ and hence for every $(N_1,N_2)\in{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(X)\times {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(S)$ the diagram becomes $$\label{Eq:CommDiagPsiGenerating}
\xymatrix{
{\mathbb{C}}\ar@{->>}[r]\ar@{->>}[d]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X/N_1)\ar@{->>}[d]\\
{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N_2,X)\ar@{->>}[r]&{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(N_2,X/N_1)
}$$ forcing $[N_2,X]^1\leq 1$, $[S,X/N_1]^1\leq 1$ and $[N_2,X/N_1]^1\leq 1$. A pair $(N_1,N_2)$ is *not* in the image of $\Psi^\xi_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ if and only if $[N_2,X/N_1]^1=1$. By diagram chasing one shows that a pair $(N_1,N_2)$ is *not* in the image of $\Psi^\xi_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ if and only if $[N_2,X]^1=[S,X/N_1]^1=1$. It turns out [@CEFR Lemma 27] that the following subrepresentations are well–defined $$\begin{array}{cc}
X_S:=\textrm{max}\{N\subset X|\, [S,X/N]^1=1\},& S^X:=\textrm{min}\{N\subset S|\,[N,X]^1=1\}.
\end{array}$$ Let us give a better description of those subrepresentations. The subrepresentation $X_S$ is the maximal subrepresentation of $X$ such that the pushout sequence $$\xymatrix{
\xi:&0\ar[r]&X\ar[r]\ar@{->>}^p[d]&Y\ar[r]\ar@{->>}[d]&S\ar[r]\ar^=[d]&0\\
p_\ast\xi:&0\ar[r]&X/X_S\ar[r]&\overline{Y}\ar[r]&S\ar[r]&0
}$$ does not split. Dually, the subrepresentation $S^X\subseteq S$ is the minimal subrepresentation such that the pull-back sequence $$\xymatrix{
i^\ast\xi:&0\ar[r]&X\ar[r]\ar^=[d]&\tilde{Y}\ar[r]\ar@{^(->}[d]&S^X\ar[r]\ar@{^(->}^i[d]&0\\
\xi:&0\ar[r]&X\ar[r]&Y\ar[r]&S\ar[r]&0
}$$ does not split. If $\xi$ is almost split then this description implies that $S^X=S$ and $X_S=0$. We hence say that a generating extension is a *generalized almost split* sequence if $S^X=S$ and $X_S=0$. It is easy to find examples of generalized almost split sequences which are not almost split (see exercise \[Eser:TypeDGenerating\]). If $\xi\in {\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ is generating and not split, then, by the Auslander-Reiten formula, $[X,\tau S]=[\tau^- X,S]=1$; Let $f:X\rightarrow \tau S$ and $g:\tau^-X\rightarrow S$ be two non-zero maps then $$\label{Eq:XsSx}
\begin{array}{ccc}
X_S=\textrm{Ker}(f)&\textrm{and}
&
S^X=\textrm{Im}\,(g).
\end{array}$$
Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$. Given indices $1\leq i< k<j< \ell\leq n$ let us consider the indecomposable $Q$–representations $X=U_{k,\ell}$ and $S=U_{i,j}$. In view of , $[S,X]^1=1$ and there is a generating extension $
\xi: 0\rightarrow X\rightarrow Y\rightarrow S\rightarrow 0
$ where $Y=U_{i,\ell}\oplus U_{k,j}$. A non-zero map between $X$ and $\tau S$ is injective, and hence, by , $X_S=0$. The image of a non-zero map $\tau^-X=U_{k-1,\ell-1}\rightarrow U_{i,j}$ is $S^X=U_{k-1,\ell-1}$. For quivers of this type the only generalized almost split sequences are the almost split sequences (see exercise \[Eser:TypeAGenerating\]). In general, one can easily find examples of generilized almost split sequences which are not almost split (see exercise \[Eser:TypeDGenerating\]).
Turning back to $\textrm{Im}(\Psi^\xi_{\mathbf{f,g}})$, it follows from the discussion above that $(N_1,N_2)$ is *not* in the image of $\Psi^\xi_{\mathbf{f,g}}$ if and only if $N_1\subseteq X_S$ and $N_2\supseteq S^X$. We hence see that for a non-split generating extension $\xi$ the image of $\Psi^\xi_\mathbf{f,g}$ is given by: $$\label{Eq:ImageNonSplitGenerating}
\textrm{Im}\,\Psi^\xi_\mathbf{f,g}=\left({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(X)\times {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(S)\right)\setminus \left({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(X_S)\times {\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{g-dim}\,S^X}(S/S^X)\right).$$
The following technical result, that we call the “reduction theorem”, provides a way to reduce the problem of checking property (C) or (S) for a $Q$-representation $Y$ which is the center of a generating extension.
\[Thm:RedThm\] Let $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ be a generating extension. Then $\Psi_\mathbf{f,g}^\xi$ is a locally trivial affine bundle over its image of rank $\langle\mathbf{g},\mathbf{dim}\,X-\mathbf{f}\rangle$.
Theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] is called “reduction theorem” because of the following corollary.
\[Cor:RedThm\] Let $\xi:\xymatrix@1@C=15pt{0\ar[r]&X\ar[r]&Y\ar[r]&S\ar[r]&0}$ be a generating extension. If $\textrm{Im}\,\Psi^\xi_\mathbf{f,g}$ admits a cellular decomposition for all $\mathbf{f}$ and $\mathbf{g}$, then $Y$ has property (C). In particular, if $[S,X]^1=0$ and both $X$ and $S$ have property (C) (or (S)) then $Y$ has property (C) (or (S)).
Corollary \[Cor:RedThm\] has the following immediate consequence: if $M$ is a preprojective $Q$–representation and all its indecomposable direct summands have property (S) or (C) then $M$ itself has property (S) or (C). This is because the preprojective component is directed.
In order to prove that every representation of a Dynkin quiver has property (C) it is hence enough to prove it for the indecomposables. This is done by induction using an elementary technique (see [@CEFR Theorem 45]).
If $Q$ is an affine quiver then one can use its well-known representation theory to deduce that every indecomposable preprojective $Y$ fits as the middle term of a generating extension $\xi$. Moreover the subrepresentations $X_S$ and $S^X$ are under control and hence is the image of $\Psi_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\xi$. By corollary \[Cor:RedThm\] one gets the proof of part (2) of theorem \[Thm:CEFR\] by induction. Proving property (C) for preprojective representations of an arbitrary quiver $Q$ seems to be much harder, due to the fact that the reduction theorem only allow us to use generating extensions. This is done in [@RW] for quivers with two vertices by combining the reduction theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] with covering theory.
The proof of theorem \[Thm:CEFR\] has the following easy corollaries.
Given an acyclic quiver $Q$, every $Q$-representation $M$ whose regular part is rigid has property (S).
Decompose $M=M_\mathcal{P}\oplus M_\mathcal{R}\oplus M_\mathcal{I}$ as the sum of a preprojective, a regular and a preinjective $Q$–representation. By theorem \[Thm:CEFR\], every indecomposable direct summand of both $M_\mathcal{P}$, $M_\mathcal{R}$ and $M_\mathcal{I}$ has property (S). By the reduction theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] it follows that $M_\mathcal{P}$, $M_\mathcal{R}$ and $M_\mathcal{I}$ have property (S). Since $[M_\mathcal{P},M_\mathcal{R}\oplus M_\mathcal{I}]^1=[M_\mathcal{R}, M_\mathcal{I}]^1=0$ again by the reduction theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] we get that $M$ has property (S).
[@CEFR Corollary 42] Let $M$ be a rigid representation of a quiver $Q$ and let $\iota: {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)\rightarrow \prod_{i\in Q_0}{\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{e}_i}(M_i)$ be the closed embedding. Then the induced map in cohomology $\iota^\ast:H^\bullet(\prod_{i\in Q_0}{\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{e}_i}(M_i))\rightarrow H^\bullet({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M))$ is surjective.
[@CEFR Corollary 2] Let $M$ be a rigid representation of a quiver $Q$ and let $X={\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ be a quiver Grassmannian attached to it. Then $X$ is defined over ${\mathbb{Z}}$ and it has polynomial point count, i.e. $$\# {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)|_{\mathbf{F}_q}=\sum_i\mathrm{dim}_\mathbb{Q} H^{2i}({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M),\mathbb{Q})q^i.$$
The cluster multiplication formula {#Sec:CCMap}
==================================
In this section we provide an application of the reduction theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] to cluster algebras. Let $Q$ be an acyclic quiver with $n$ vertices and let $M$ be a $Q$-representation. The *F-polynomial* of $M$ is $$F_M(\mathbf{y})=\sum_\mathbf{e}\chi({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M))\mathbf{y}^\mathbf{e}\in{\mathbb{Z}}[y_1,\cdots, y_n]$$ where $\chi$ denotes the Euler-Poincarè characteristic. The *$\mathbf{g}$–vector* or *index* of $M$ is $$\mathbf{g}_M=[I_1^M]-[I^M_0]\in K_0(\textrm{Rep}(Q))\simeq {\mathbb{Z}}^{Q_0}$$ where $0\rightarrow M\rightarrow I_0^M\rightarrow I_1^M\rightarrow 0$ is the minimial injective resolution of $M$. Notice that $(\mathbf{g}_M)_i=-\langle S_i,M\rangle$. The *exhange matrix* $B=(b_{i,j})_{i,j\in Q_0}\in \textrm{Mat}_{n\times n}({\mathbb{Z}})$ of $Q$ is the integer matrix given by $$b_{i,j}=\#\{j\rightarrow i\in Q_1\}-\#\{i\rightarrow j\in Q_1\}.$$ The cluster character of $M$ is the Laurent polynomial $$CC_M(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y})=\sum_\mathbf{e}\chi({\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M))\mathbf{x}^{B\mathbf{e}+\mathbf{g}_M}\mathbf{y}^\mathbf{e}=:CC(M)\in {\mathbb{Z}}[y_1,\cdots, y_n][x_1^{\pm1},\cdots, x_n^{\pm1}].$$ The reduction theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] implies the following multiplication formula. To state the precise result we need to recall that given a generating extension $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ there exists an exact sequence $0\rightarrow X/X_S\rightarrow \tau S^X\rightarrow I\rightarrow 0$ where $I$ is injective.
[@CEFR Theorem 66] Let $\xi:0\rightarrow X\rightarrow Y\rightarrow S\rightarrow 0$ be a generating extension. Then $$\label{Eq:MultForm}
CC(X)CC(S)=CC(Y)+\mathbf{y}^{\mathbf{dim}\,S^X}CC(X_S)CC(S/S^X)\,\mathbf{x}^\mathbf{f}$$ where $I=\oplus_{j\in Q_0}I_j^{f_j}$.
The multiplication formula is a slight generalization of the multiplication formula of Caldero and Keller [@CK2] and it can be interpreted as a categorification of the exchange relations in the cluster algebra associated with $Q$. The apperence of $\mathbf{dim}\,S^X$ in the formula seems to be new and provides a representation theoretic description of the $\mathbf{c}$–vectors.
Exercises {#Sec:Exercises}
=========
We conclude the notes with a list of exercises divided by arguments.
Generalities on quiver Grassmannians
------------------------------------
Recall that the complete flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_{n+1}=\{U_1\subset U_2\subset\cdots\subset U_n\subset {\mathbb{C}}^{n+1}|\, \textrm{dim }U_i=i\}$ can be realized as the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(P_1^{n+1})$, where $P_1$ is the projective cover of the simple $S_1$ for the equioriented type A quiver $Q: 1\rightarrow\cdots\rightarrow n$ and $\mathbf{e}=(1,2,\cdots, n)$. Show that the dimension of $\mathcal{F}l_n$ is $\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d}-\mathbf{e}\rangle$ where $\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{dim}\,P_1^{n+1}$.
Consider the quiver $Q:1\rightarrow 2$ and let $M=P_1\oplus S_1\oplus S_2$. Show that ${\textrm{Gr}}_{(1,1)}(M)$ is isomorphic to two ${\textbf{P}}^1$ crossing in one point.
Given an e-subset $I=(1\leq i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_e\leq n)$ of $[1,n]$, compute the dimension of the affine space $\mathcal{C}_I\subset {\textrm{Gr}}_e(\mathbb{C}^d)$.
Show that the universal quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})$ has dimension $\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d-e}\rangle+\textrm{dim}\,R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$.
Given $g=(g_i)\in G_\mathbf{d}$, $N=(N_i)\in{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})$ and $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ consider the action: $g\cdot N=(g_i(N_i))_{i\in Q_0}$ and $g\cdot M=(g_jM_\alpha g_i^{-1})_{\alpha:i\rightarrow j\in Q_1}$. Show that the universal quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\subset {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{d})\times R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ is invariant under the diagonal $G_\mathbf{d}$ action and that the map $p_\mathbf{d}:{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}^Q(\mathbf{d})\rightarrow R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ is $G_\mathbf{d}$-equivariant.
The group $G_\mathbf{e}$ acts on ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$ by: $g=(g_i)\in G_\mathbf{e}$, $(N,f)\in {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$, $\mathbf{g}\cdot (N,f):=((g_{t(\alpha)}N_\alpha g_{s(\alpha)}^{-1}),(f_ig_i^{-1}))$. Verify that given $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$, ${\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},M)\subset {\operatorname{Hom}}(\mathbf{e},\mathbf{d})$ is $G_\mathbf{e}$-stable. Prove that $G_\mathbf{e}$ acts freely on ${\operatorname{Hom}}^0(\mathbf{e},M)$.
Let $M$ be a rigid quiver representation. Using the tangent space formula, show that every non-empty quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ attached to $M$ is smooth of minimal dimension $\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{dim}\,M-\mathbf{e}\rangle$.
Let $M$ be a rigid quiver representation of dimension vector $\mathbf{d}$. Show that ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is non–empty if and only if ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M')$ is non–empty for every $M'\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$.
Consider the quiver $Q:1\rightarrow 2$ and let $M^1=P_1\oplus P_2\oplus I_1\oplus I_2$. Find the generic subrepresentation type of the degenerate flag variety ${\textrm{Gr}}_{(1,2)}(M^1)$.
\[Es:GEnExt\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be rigid representations of an acyclic quiver $Q$ such that $[X,Y]^1=0$ and let $M$ be a $Q$–representation such that $M\leq_{deg}X\oplus Y$. Use Bongartz’s theorem \[Thm:Bongartz\] to show that there exists a short exact sequence $0\rightarrow X\rightarrow M\rightarrow Y\rightarrow 0$.
Consider the quiver $Q:1\rightarrow 2$ and let $M^2=P_1\oplus S_1^2\oplus S_2^2$. Find all iso-strata of the mf-liner degeneration of the flag variety ${\textrm{Gr}}_{(1,2)}(M)$ and show that there are two generic subpresentation types. \[Hint: compute the dimension of the iso-strata\]
Let $Q$ be an acyclic quiver and let $M=P\oplus I$ where $P$ is projective and $I$ is injective. Consider the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{e}}(M)$ where $\mathbf{e}=\mathbf{dim}\,P$. Let $N\in{\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,P}(M)$. Show that the iso-stratum $\mathcal{S}_{[N]}$ has dimension less or equal than $\langle\mathbf{e},\mathbf{dim}\,M-\mathbf{e}\rangle$. Using Bongartz’s theorem, show that the only generic iso-stratum is $\mathcal{S}_{[P]}$. Conclude that ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ is irreducible of minimal dimension.
Quiver Grassmannians of type $A$
--------------------------------
Find a normal form for pairs of matrices $(A,B)\in\mathrm{Mat}_{m\times k}\times\rm{Mat}_{k\times n}$ by base change. In other words, find the decomposition of a representation $V$ of $Q:1\rightarrow 2\rightarrow 3$ as direct sum of indecomposable $Q$–representations.
Let $Q=1\rightarrow 2$ and let $M=S_2\oplus P_1\oplus S_1\in \textrm{Rep}(Q)$. Order the indecomposable direct summands of $M$ as $M(1)=S_1$, $M(2)=P_1$ and $M(3)=S_2$. Consider the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_{(1,1)}(M)$ and the $\mathbb{C}^\ast$-action given by $\lambda\cdot m=\lambda^{k-1}m$ for every $m\in M(k)$. Prove that there is a torus fixed point $L$ such that its attracting set $\mathcal{C}_L$ is not an affine space.
Let $Q$ be a Dynkin quiver, and let $X$ and $Y$ be two rigid $Q$–representations such that $[X,Y]^1=0$. Show that the dimension of each isostratum $\mathcal{S}_{[N]}$ of a quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,X}(X\oplus Y)$ satisfies: $$\textrm{dim}\,\mathcal{S}_{[N]}\leq \langle\mathbf{dim}\,X,\mathbf{dim}\, Y\rangle.$$ and equality holds if and only if $N\simeq X$. (\[HINT: use the fact that the degeneration order for Dynkin quivers is equivalent to the Hom-order: $M\leq_{deg} M'$ if and only if $[M,L]\leq [M',L]$, for every $L$\]). Conclude that ${\textrm{Gr}}_{\mathbf{dim}\,X}(X\oplus Y)$ is irreducible of minimal dimension.
Realize the degenerate flag variety $\mathcal{F}l_4^a$ as a Schubert variety.
Let $Q:1\rightarrow 2\rightarrow 3$ and $M=P_3\oplus P_2^2\oplus S_2\oplus I_2\oplus I_1$. Verify that $M$ is catenoid and describe the natural embedding of ${\textrm{Gr}}_{(1,2,1)}(M)$ inside a partial flag manifold. Show that there are two irreducible components.
Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$, and let $A=KQ$ be its path algebra. Put $\mathbf{e}=\mathbf{dim}\,A$ and $\mathbf{d}=\mathbf{dim}\,(A\oplus DA)$ as in section \[Sec:LinDeg\]. Use theorem \[Thm:CFFFR\] and exercise \[Es:GEnExt\] to show that a point $M\in R_\mathbf{d}(Q)$ belongs to $\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{flat,Irr}}$ if and only if there exists a short exact sequence $0\rightarrow A\rightarrow M\rightarrow DA\rightarrow 0$.
Cellular decomposition of quiver Grassmannians
----------------------------------------------
Let $\eta:\xymatrix{0\ar[r]&\tau S\ar^\iota[r]&Y\ar^\pi[r]&S\ar[r]&0}$ be an almost split sequence. Describe the image of the map $$\xymatrix@R=3pt{
\Psi_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\eta:&{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(E)\ar[r]& {\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(\tau S)\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(S)\\
&N\ar@{|->}[r]&(N\cap \iota(\tau S), \pi(N))
}$$
Show that if $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ is generating then $$\textrm{Im}(\Psi_{\mathbf{f,g}}^\xi)=\{(N_1,N_2)\in{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{f}(X)\times{\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{g}(S)|\, [N_2,X/N_1]^1=0\}.$$
Let $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(S,X)$ be a non–split generating extension. Prove that $X_S$ and $S^X$ are well-defined as follows. (For $X_S$) for every $N,N'\subset X$ such that $[S, X/N]^1=[S,X/N']^1=1$, one has $[S, X/(N+N')]^1=1$. Dually (for $S^X$) for every $N,N'\subset S$ such that $[N, X]^1=[N',X]^1=1$, one has $[N\cap N', X]^1=1$.
\[Eser:TypeDGenerating\] Prove that an almost split sequence $\xi\in{\operatorname{Ext}}^1(X,\tau X)$ ending in a *brick* $X$ (i.e. a $Q$–representation such that $[X,X]=1$) is generalized almost split. Find an example of a generalized almost split which is not almost split. (Hint: look among the representations of a quiver of type $D_4$.)
\[Eser:TypeAGenerating\] Let $Q$ be the equioriented quiver of type $A_n$. Prove that a non-split generating extension (between two indecomposable $Q$-representations) is generalized almost split if and only if it is almost split.
Prove the equalities in .
Let $X$ and $Y$ be indecomposable preprojectives, such that ${\operatorname{Hom}}(X,Y)={\mathbb{C}}\iota$ with $\iota:X\rightarrow Y$ an irreducible monomorphism. Let $S=Coker(\iota)$. Show that the short exact sequence $$\xi:\,\xymatrix{0\ar[r]&X\ar^\iota[r]&Y\ar^\pi[r]&S\ar[r]&0}$$ induced by $\iota$ is generating and $S^X=S$.
A short exact sequence $$\xymatrix@C=30pt{0\ar[r]&A\ar^(.4){f=(f_1,f_2)^t}[r]&B_1\oplus B_2\ar^(.6){g=(g_2,g_1)}[r]&C\ar[r]&0}$$ gives rise to a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
&B_1\ar^{g_2}[dr]&\\
A\ar^{f_1}[ur]\ar_{-f_2}[dr]&&C\\
&B_2\ar_{g_1}[ur]&
}$$ which is both a push–out and a pull-back square. Prove that $$\begin{array}{ccc}
Ker(g_i)\simeq Ker(f_i),& Coker(g_i)\simeq Coker(f_i)&(i=1,2).
\end{array}$$
Let $Q$ be the following quiver of type $\tilde{A}_2$:$$\xymatrix{&2\ar^\beta[dr]&\\1\ar^\alpha[ur]\ar_\gamma[rr]&&3}$$ Let $M$ be the indecomposable $Q$ representation of dimension vector $(3,3,4)$. Using the construction seen during the lecture, find a cellular decomposition of the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$ for $\mathbf{e}=(1,2,3)$.
Let $Q$ be the following quiver of type $\tilde{D}_4$: $$\xymatrix@R=3pt{
&1\\
&2\\
0\ar[uur]\ar[ur]\ar[dr]\ar[ddr]&\\
&3\\
&4
}$$ and let $M$ be the indecomposable preprojective $Q$–representation of dimension vector $(3,2,2,2,2)$. Let $\mathbf{e}=(1,1,1,1,1)$. Find a cellular decomposition of the quiver Grassmannian ${\textrm{Gr}}_\mathbf{e}(M)$, using the techniques seen at the lecture. Find a geometric interpretation.
Let $X$ be a rigid brick (i.e. $[X,X]=1$ and $[X,X]^1=0$) which is not projective and let $\xi: 0\rightarrow \tau X\rightarrow E\rightarrow X\rightarrow 0$ be the almost split sequence ending in $X$. Show that $E$ is rigid and $[X\oplus \tau X,E]^1=[E,X\oplus \tau X]^1=0$. Show that $\xi$ is generalized almost split.
Let $\xi:0\rightarrow X\rightarrow Y\rightarrow S\rightarrow 0$ be a generating extension. Prove that the reduction theorem \[Thm:RedThm\] implies the following multiplication formula of $F$-polynomials $
F_XF_S=F_Y+\mathbf{y}^{\mathbf{dim}S^X}F_{X_S}F_{S/S^X}.
$
[99]{}
S. Abeasis and A. Del Fra, *Degenerations for the representations of an equioriented quiver of type $A_m$*, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. Suppl., (1984), no. 2, 81–172.
S. Abeasis and A. Del Fra, *Degenerations for the representations of quiver of type $A_m$*, J. Algebra, **93** (1985), no. 2, 376–412.
S. Abeasis and A. Del Fra, *Degenerations for the representations of an equioriented quiver of type $D_m$*, Adv. Math **52** (1984), no. 2, 81–172.
I. Assem, D. Simson, A. Skowronski, *Elements of the representation theory of associative algebras. Vol. 1. Techniques of representation theory.* London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 65. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
M. Auslander, I. Reiten, *Modules determined by their composition factors*, Illinois Journal of Mathematics **29** (1985), no. 2, 280–301.
M. Auslander, I. Reiten, and S. Smalo, *Representation theory of Artin algebras*, **36** Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. 1997.
R. Barlow, *A simply connected surface of general type with $p_g= 0$*, Invent. Math. **79** (1985), no. 2, 293-301.
I. N. Bernstein, I. M. Gel’fand, and V. A. Ponomarev, *Coxeter Functors and Gabriel’s Theorem*, Russian Math. Surveys **28** (1973), no. 2, 17–32.
K. Bongartz, *On Degenerations and Extensions of Finite Dimensional Modules*, Adv. Math. **121** (1996), 245–287.
W. Crawley-Boevey, *Lectures on representations of quivers*. Preprint 1992. Available at the author’s webpage.
W. Crawley-Boevey, *More lectures on representations of quivers*. Preprint 1992. Available at the author’s webpage.
P. Caldero and F. Chapoton, *Cluster algebras as [H]{}all algebras of quiver representations*, Comment. Math. Helv. **81** (2006), no. 3, 595–616. P. Caldero and B. Keller, *From Triangulated categories to cluster algebras*, Inv. Math. **172** (2008), 169–211. P. Caldero and B. Keller, *From triangulated categories to cluster algebras II*, Ann. Scient. Èc. Norm. Sup. **39** (2006), 983–1009.
P. Caldero and M. Reineke, *On the quiver [G]{}rassmannian in the acyclic case*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **212** (2008), no. 11, 2369–2380.
G Cerulli Irelli, F. Esposito, H. Franzen, M. Reineke, *Cellular decomposition and algebraicity of cohomology for quiver Grassmannians*, arXiv: 1804.07736.
G. Cerulli Irelli and F. Esposito, *Geometry of quiver Grassmannians of Kronecker type and applications to cluster algebras*, ANT **5** (2011), no. 6, 777–801.
G. Cerulli Irelli, G. Dupont and F. Esposito, *A homological interpretation of the transverse quiver Grassmannians*, ART **16** (2013), 437–444.
G. Cerulli Irelli, X. Fang, E. Feigin, G. Fourier, M. Reineke, *Linear degeneration of flag varieties*. Math. Z. (2017).
G. Cerulli Irelli, E. Feigin, M. Reineke, *Quiver Grassmannians and degenerate flag varieties*, Algebra & Number Theory **6** (2012), no. 1, 165–194. arXiv: 1106.2399.
G. Cerulli Irelli, E. Feigin, M. Reineke, *Degenerate flag varieties: moment graphs and Schröder numbers*, J. Algebraic Combin. **38** (2013), no. 1. arXiv:1206.4178.
G. Cerulli Irelli, E. Feigin, M. Reineke, *Desingularization of quiver Grassmannians for Dynkin quivers*. Adv. Math. **245** (2013), 182–207. arXiv:1209.3960.
G. Cerulli Irelli, E. Feigin, M. Reineke, *Schubert Quiver Grassmannians*, Algebras and Representation Theory. (2016).
G. Cerulli Irelli, M. Lanini. *Degenerate flag varieties of type A and C are Schubert varieties*, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2015), no 15, 6353–6374.
G. Cerulli Irelli, M. Lanini, and P. Littelmann. *Degenerate flag varieties and Schubert varieties: a characteristic free approach*. Pacific J. Math. **284** (2016), no. 2, 283–308.
N. Chriss and V. Ginzburg, *Representation theory and complex geometry*, Birkhäuser Boston Inc.(1997).
C. De Concini, G. Lusztig, C. Procesi, *Homology of the zero-set of a nilpotent vector field on a flag manifold*, JAMS **1** (1988), no.1. 15–34.
H. Derksen, J. Weyman, A. Zelevinsky, *Quivers with potentials and their representations II: Applications to cluster algebras*. J. AMS **23** (2010), 749–790.
G. Ellingsrud, S. A. Strømme, *Towards the Chow ring of the Hilbert scheme of ${\textbf{P}}^2$* . J. Reine Angew. Math., **441** (1993).
E. Feigin, *${\mathbb G}_a^M$ degeneration of flag varieties*, arXiv:1007.0646.
E. Feigin, *Degenerate flag varieties and the median Genocchi numbers*, arXiv:1101.1898.
E.Feigin and M.Finkelberg, *Degenerate flag varieties of type A: Frobenius splitting and BWB theorem*, arXiv:1103.1491.
S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky, *Cluster algebras I: Foundations*. JAMS **15** (2002), no. 2, 497-529. S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky, *Cluster algebras II: Finite type classification*. Inv. Math. **154** (2003), no. 1, 63-121.
S. Fomin, A. Zelevinsky, *Cluster algebras IV: Coefficients*. Compos. Math. **143** (2007), no. 1, 112-164.
W. Fulton, *Intersection theory*. Springer–Verlag, Berlin and New York (1984).
P. Gabriel, *Unzerlegbare Darstellungen I*, Manuscripta Math., **6** (1972), 71–103.
Harris, Joe, *Algebraic geometry: a first course*. Graduate text in mathematics **133**. Springer-Verlag (1992).
A. Hubery, *Irreducible components of quiver Grassmannians*, Trans. AMS, **369**, no. 2, 1395-1458.
V. Kac, *Infinite root systems, representations of graphs and invariant theory*, Inv. Math., **56**, 57-92 (1980).
V. Kac, *Infinite root systems, representations of graphs and invariant theory, II*, J. Algebra, **78**, 141-162 (1982).
O. Kerner, *Exceptional components of wild hereditary algebras*, Journal of Algebra, **152**, 184–206 (1992).
B. Iversen, *A fixed point formula for action of tori on algebraic varieties*. Inv. Math. **16** (1972). 229–236.
L. Le Bruyn, *Neverending books*. <http://web.archive.org/web/20120918072747/http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php/quiver-grassmannians-can-be-anything.html>
O. Lorscheid, T. Weist, *Quiver Grassmannians of extended Dynkin type D- Part 1: Schubert systems and decompositions into affine spaces*. Preprint (2015). arXiv: 1507.00392.
O. Lorscheid, T. Weist, *Quiver Grassmannians of extended Dynkin type D- Part 2: Schubert decompositions and F-polynomials*. Preprint (2015). arXiv: 1507.00395.
K. Möllenhoff, M. Reineke, *Embeddings of representations*, Algebr Represent Theory **18** (2015), 977–987.
H. Nakajima, *Quiver varieties and cluster algebras*. Kyoto J. Math. **1** (2011). 71–126.
F. Qin, *Quantum cluster variables via Serre polynomials. With an appendix by Bernhard Keller*. J. Reine Angew. Math. **668** (2012). 149–190.
M. Reineke, *Every projective variety is a quiver Grassmannian*. ART **16** (2013), 1313–1314.
C. Riedtmann, *Degenerations for representations of quivers with relations*, Ann. Sc. ENS **2** (1986), 275–301.
C. M. Ringel, *Quiver Grassmannians for wild acyclic quivers*. Proc. AMS **146** (2018), no. 5, 1873–1877.
C. M. Ringel *Tame algebras and integral quadratic forms*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics **1099** (1984).
C. M. Ringel *Distinguished bases of exceptional modules*. Algebras, quivers and representations, Abel Symp. **8** (2013). 253–274.
C. M. Ringel *Finite dimensional hereditary algebras of wild representation type*. Math. Z. **161** (1978). 235–255.
D. Rupel, T. Weist, *Cell decomposition for rank two quiver Grassmannians*. Preprint (2018). arXiv: 1803.06590
A. Schofield, *General representations of quivers*, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) **65** (1992), no. 1, 46–64.
R. Schiffler, *Quiver Representations*, CMS Books in Mathematics (2014). Springer.
G. Zwara, *Degenerations for modules over representation–finite algebras*. Proc. AMS **127** (1999). 1313–1322.
[^1]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We introduce a slave-fermion formulation in which to study the charge dynamics of the half-filled Hubbard model on the square lattice. In this description, the charge degrees of freedom are represented by fermionic holons and doublons and the Mott-insulating characteristics of the ground state are the consequence of holon-doublon bound-state formation. The bosonic spin degrees of freedom are described by the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, yielding long-ranged (Néel) magnetic order at zero temperature. Within this framework and in the self-consistent Born approximation, we perform systematic calculations of the average double occupancy, the electronic density of states, the spectral function and the optical conductivity. Qualitatively, our method reproduces the lower and upper Hubbard bands, the spectral-weight transfer into a coherent quasiparticle band at their lower edges and the renormalisation of the Mott gap, which is associated with holon-doublon binding, due to the interactions of both quasiparticle species with the magnons. The zeros of the Green function at the chemical potential give the Luttinger volume, the poles of the self-energy reflect the underlying quasiparticle dispersion with a spin-renormalised hopping parameter and the optical gap is directly related to the Mott gap. Quantitatively, the square-lattice Hubbard model is one of the best-characterised problems in correlated condensed matter and many numerical calculations, all with different strengths and weaknesses, exist with which to benchmark our approach. From the semi-quantitative accuracy of our results for all but the weakest interaction strengths, we conclude that a self-consistent treatment of the spin fluctuation effects on the charge degrees of freedom captures all the essential physics of the antiferromagnetic Mott-Hubbard insulator. We remark in addition that an analytical approximation with these properties serves a vital function in developing a full understanding of the fundamental physics of the Mott state, both in the antiferromagnetic insulator and at finite temperatures and dopings.'
address:
- '$^1$Institute of Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, People’s Republic of China'
- '$^2$LCP, Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, Beijing 100088, People’s Republic of China'
- '$^3$Software Center for High Performance Numerical Simulation, Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics, Beijing 100088, People’s Republic of China'
- '$^4$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, People’s Republic of China'
- '$^5$Department of Physics, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, People’s Republic of China'
- '$^6$Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter, Beijing 100190, People’s Republic of China'
author:
- 'Xing-Jie Han,$^1$ Yu Liu,$^2$$^,$$^3$ Zhi-Yuan Liu,$^4$ Xin Li,$^1$ Jing Chen,$^1$ Hai-Jun Liao,$^1$ Zhi-Yuan Xie,$^5$ B. Normand$^5$ and Tao Xiang$^1$$^,$$^6$'
title: Charge dynamics of the antiferromagnetically ordered Mott insulator
---
[*Keywords*]{}: Hubbard model, Mott insulator, holon-doublon binding, spin fluctuations
Introduction {#Sec1}
============
The mechanism underlying the Mott metal-insulator transition [@Imada-1998] stands as a fundamental theoretical challenge in condensed matter physics. In 1937, de Boer and Verwey [@Boer-1937] reported that a class of transition-metal oxides with partially filled bands, specifically NiO and MnO, are semiconductors or insulators in direct contradiction to predictions by conventional band theory. This motivated Mott and Peierls [@Mott-1937] to point out the importance of the electrostatic interaction between the electrons, and Mott later introduced the concept of the metal-insulator transition that bears his name [@Mott-1949; @Mott-1956] to describe insulating behaviour arising as a result of strong electron-electron correlations. The discovery of high-$T_c$ superconductivity in a class of doped antiferromagnetic Mott insulators [@Bednorz-1986] revived an enormous and lasting interest in understanding the Mott phase and the associated metal-insulator transition.
The Hubbard model [@Hubbard-1963] is the minimal model describing the competition between the kinetic energy of the electrons and their on-site Coulomb interaction. It captures many characteristic features of strongly correlated systems and thus serves as a paradigm for numerous phenomena in condensed matter physics. It is believed that the Hubbard model contains all the basic physics of the Mott metal-insulator transition and, in some quarters, that it may reveal the mechanism of high-$T_c$ superconductivity. However, despite the simplicity of the Hubbard model, exact results can be obtained only from the Bethe Ansatz [@Lieb-1968] in one dimension and from Dynamical Mean-Field Theory (DMFT) [@Metzner-1989; @Georges-1996] in infinite dimensions.
There exist many proposals for the primary mechanism driving the Mott transition. Hubbard’s equation-of-motion methods [@Hubbard-1963; @Hubbard-19642; @Hubbard-19643; @Hubbard-19654; @Hubbard-19675] attribute the charge gap to the formation of the incoherent lower and upper Hubbard bands. These provided the first example for a metal-insulator transition in which the insulating behaviour is not accompanied by the onset of magnetic order. Brinkman and Rice [@Brinkman-19702] applied the Gutzwiller variational method [@Gutzwiller-1965] to treat the metal-insulator transition out of the Fermi-liquid metallic phase, and ascribed the transition to the vanishing of the quasiparticle residue, $Z$, and the divergence of the quasiparticle effective mass, $m^{\ast}$. The Hubbard approximation captures the incoherent part of the physics while the Brinkman-Rice approximation captures the coherent part. However, neither approximation takes the effect of spin fluctuations into account.
For the half-filled single-band Hubbard model on the square lattice, quantum Monte Carlo simulations [@Hirsh-1985; @White-1989] have shown that the ground state is an antiferromagnetic insulator, although by the Mermin-Wagner theorem its Néel temperature is zero. In the weak-coupling limit, Fermi-surface nesting and the proximity to a van Hove singularity in the density of states act to induce a spin-density-wave state and thus to produce a gap [@Hirsh-1985]. An asymptotically exact weak-coupling solution for the Hubbard model was given in reference [@Raghu-2010]. In the strong-coupling regime, it is the large on-site Coulomb repulsion energy, $U$, for double site occupancy that suppresses electron mobility and determines the Mott gap.
For the intermediate-coupling regime, where no well-controlled theoretical solution exists, many numerical methods have been applied to the two-dimensional (2D) Hubbard model, including exact diagonalisation [@Dagotto-1992; @Leung-1992; @Feng-1992; @Dagotto-1994; @Eder-2011], quantum Monte Carlo [@White-1991; @Bulut-1994; @Preuss-1995; @Hanke-2000; @Varney-2009; @Baeriswyl-2009; @Yanagisawa-2013; @Vitali-2016], cluster perturbation theory [@Senechal-2000; @Senechal-2002; @Senechal-2004; @Kohno-2012; @Kohno-2014; @Wang-2015], the variational cluster approximation [@Potthoff-2003; @Dahnken-2004; @Tremblay-2005; @Hanke-2007; @Schafer-2015] and cluster DMFT [@Kotliar-2001; @Stanescu-2006; @Park-2008; @Gull-2011; @Sentef-2011; @Sordi-2012]. A detailed review, including further results from density-matrix renormalisation-group (DMRG) calculations, may be found in reference [@LeBlanc-2015]. However, all of these methods suffer from different intrinsic limitations. Cluster perturbation theory provides an approximate lattice Green function for a continuous wave-vector space but is not self-consistent and cannot describe broken-symmetry states, which are known to be present for the half-filled square lattice. The variational cluster approximation can be viewed as an extension of cluster perturbation theory, which allows for broken symmetries by introducing Weiss fields, but remains limited by the cluster size. In cluster DMFT, the quantum impurity model can be solved by quantum Monte Carlo or exact diagonalisation. The former operates at finite temperature and imaginary time, requiring extrapolation to recover zero-temperature information and analytic continuation methods to obtain real-frequency results, neither of which is well controlled; further, the ubiquitous fermion sign problem affecting quantum Monte Carlo methods becomes severe when the system is doped. The latter is implemented at zero temperature and gives direct real-frequency dynamical information, but can access only small cluster sizes. DMRG is inherently 1D in nature and can be applied only on a narrow cylinder; the ongoing development of higher-dimensional analogues based on tensor-network states has progressed to the point where an infinite projected entangled-pair state (iPEPS) method has been used very recently to obtain very competitive ground-state energies [@Corboz-2016]. Anderson [@Anderson-1997] has argued that the half-filled 2D Hubbard model is fundamentally nonperturbative in nature, in the same way as the 1D case, with a Mott gap present for all $U > 0$ and robust against temperature. Thus despite all of the theoretical and numerical progress made to date, the nature of the Mott gap at half-filling and the properties of the 2D Hubbard model remain as challenging open questions.
In the strong-coupling limit, below half-filling the dominant on-site Coulomb repulsion implies the absolute exclusion of doubly occupied sites. In this case, the Hubbard model can be mapped to the $t$–$J$ model at the level of second-order perturbation theory [@Auerbach-1994]. At half-filling, no empty sites remain and this model reduces to the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model with only spin-fluctuation degrees of freedom. As $U$ decreases, charge fluctuations play an increasingly important role in the Hubbard model [@Castellani-1979; @Kaplan-1982], and in the half-filled case the elementary charge excitations are holons (empty sites) and doublons (doubly occupied sites), in equal numbers. However, even at weak coupling, insulating behavior remains guaranteed if the holons and doublons have a tendency to form bound states, which results in the presence of a charge gap. Variational Monte Carlo results [@Capello-2005; @Capello-2006; @Yokoyama-2006; @Miyagawa-2011; @Miya-2011] have shown that a variational wave function including holon-doublon binding effects can lower the ground-state energy and that the Mott transition can be characterised as an unbinding transition of holons and doublons. Several theoretical proposals for the mechanism of Mott physics contain holon-doublon binding as an important element, including the “hidden charge-2e boson” mechanism [@Leigh-2007; @Leigh-2009; @Phillips-2010], the reconstruction of poles and zeros of the Green function [@Dzyaloshinskii-2003; @Sakai-2009; @Sakai-2010], composite fermion theory [@Yamaji-2011] and the Kotliar-Ruckenstein slave-boson theory [@Zhou-2014]. The zeros of the Green function at the chemical potential in momentum space can be taken to define the “Luttinger surface,” which is closely connected to the non-interacting Fermi surface [@Stanescu-2007].
The motion of a single hole in an antiferromagnetic background has been studied extensively within the self-consistent Born approximation (SCBA) [@Rink-1988; @Kane-1989; @Marsiglio-1991; @Martinez-1991; @Zaanen-1995; @Xiang-1996], where the neglect of Feynman diagrams with crossing propagators is equivalent to neglecting the distortion of the spin background caused by the presence of the hole. This formulation is similar to the retraceable path (Brinkman-Rice) approximation [@Brinkman-1970] and the resulting single-hole spectral function is composed of two components, a sharp peak corresponding to coherent quasiparticle motion and an incoherent background. The coherent peak arises from the coupling between the hole and the spin excitations. Recent experiments have shown that the SCBA yields excellent agreement with resonant inelastic X-ray scattering measurements performed on the quasi-2D spin-$1/2$ antiferromagnet Sr$_{2}$IrO$_{4}$ [@Kim-2014].
To make a meaningful contribution to such a complex and deeply studied problem, here we aim to provide an analytical framework which captures the essential features of the charge dynamics of the single-band Hubbard model. To introduce this framework, we restrict our considerations to the square-lattice model with only nearest-neighbour coupling, to half-filling, and to zero temperature. While it is unrealistic to expect to find much new physics in this most generic situation, our goals are to demonstrate the qualitative power of a suitably chosen mean-field description, to establish the semi-quantitative accuracy of our results by benchmarking against the plethora of available numerical studies, and to lay a foundation for development in the more experimentally relevant directions of finite temperatures, extended bandstructures and finite dopings.
An accurate description of the Mott insulator is based on the strong-coupling limit, where its properties are robust. As we discuss in more detail below, this leads to a formalism where the charge degrees of freedom are represented by fermionic holons and doublons and the Mott-insulating state involves the formation of holon-doublon bound states. The spin degrees of freedom, represented by bosonic magnons, order magnetically at zero temperature for any finite interaction strength, but their quantum fluctuations act to renormalise the charge sector. Thus the task at hand is to consider the antiferromagnetically ordered Mott insulator and to describe accurately both the holon-doublon binding process and the spin renormalisation of the charge dynamics.
For specificity, we declare here that we take the on-site interaction to be the origin of Mott physics for all dimensionalities, temperatures or dopings, and antiferromagnetic fluctuations to be one consequence. It is true that this assumption remains unproven for the square lattice (2D) with nearest-neighbour hopping at half-filling: in this somewhat pathological case, the perfect Fermi-surface nesting means that a gap is opened in the charge sector at any finite interaction strength, and in a weak-coupling picture this can be interpreted as a process driven by the onset of antiferromagnetic order, i.e. not by the charge sector but by the spin sector. This result has led to significant confusion over whether an antiferromagnetic insulator can exist independently of a Mott insulator. We use the fact that there is no transition at any finite interaction strength in the model at hand to deduce that the two possible states are different manifestations of the same physics and are connected by a crossover. For practical purposes, here we take the extensive numerical calculations on the half-filled Hubbard model to indicate that the ground state is a magnetically ordered Mott insulator for all intermediate (and experimentally relevant) interaction strengths. The Mott (charge excitation) gap in our framework is a consequence of holon-doublon binding and its presence ensures a finite spectral (single-particle excitation) gap, while the spin excitations are gapless. The same holon-doublon binding mechanism is equally applicable to the Hubbard model at finite temperature or doping, where the spin sector is present only as short-range fluctuations.
Our approach is based on a slave-particle formalism [@Barnes-1976; @Barnes-1977; @Zou-1988; @Yoshioka-1989; @Xiang-2009] in which electron operators are expressed as a combination of “slave” fermionic and bosonic operators preserving the net fermionic statistics, and spin-charge separation is assumed. A degree of arbitrariness exists in ascribing the fermionic statistics to the spin (known as the slave-boson approach) or to the charge degrees of freedom (slave-fermion decomposition). Keeping the importance of spin fluctuations at the forefront of our considerations, we assume that the ground state has Néel order, which is known in the large-$U$ limit, and that the spin degrees of freedom are described by the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model. The ground state of this model on the square lattice for $S = 1/2$ is better described by the Schwinger boson (slave-fermion) formulation [@Yoshioka-1989; @Manousakis-1991]. Of equal importance, for an investigation of the holon-doublon binding mechanism it is physically much more intuitive to ascribe the fermionic statistics to the charge degrees of freedom, in analogy with the electron binding mechanism of Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) superconductivity.
In this slave-fermion framework, antiferromagnetic long-range order corresponds to the condensation of one of the slave bosons on each sublattice in the ground state. On this basis, we treat the spin dynamics within the linear spin-wave approximation [@Auerbach-1994], where the elementary excitations are magnons. Because the motion of holons and doublons distorts the antiferromagnetic background even at half-filling, a consistent account of spin-fluctuation effects is of key importance in describing the charge dynamics. We treat the interactions among holons, doublons and magnons within the SCBA to calculate important physical quantities including the double occupancy, the spectral function, the electronic density of states, the quasiparticle Green function and the optical conductivity. Our results show a non-zero double occupancy for any finite $U$, that the Mott-insulating state results from holon-doublon binding, that spin fluctuations modify the size of the Mott gap and that this gap can be probed accurately by measurements of the optical conductivity.
This paper is organised as follows. In section \[Sec2\] we introduce formally the model and the methods we use to perform our calculations. In section \[Sec3\] we compute the doublon density for all intermediate values of $U$ and in section \[Sec4\] we present the spectral function to discuss the coherent and incoherent components of the charge response, the density of states and the Mott gap. In section \[Sec5\] we calculate the electron Green function and associated Luttinger surface, and deduce the effective quasiparticle bandstructure. Section \[Sec6\] contains our results for and conclusions from the optical conductivity and a summary is provided in section \[Sec7\].
Model and Method {#Sec2}
================
The single-band Hubbard model is defined by the Hamiltonian $$H = - t \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle \sigma} c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger} c_{j\sigma} + U \sum_{i}
(n_{i\uparrow} - 1/2)(n_{i\downarrow} - 1/2), \label{Hamil}%$$ where $c_{i\sigma}$ ($c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$) denotes the annihilation (creation) operator of an electron with spin $\sigma$ on site $i$ of the square lattice and $\langle i,j \rangle$ indicates that we restrict the hopping terms to nearest-neighbour sites $i$ and $j$ only. We set the hopping parameter as $t = 1$ to establish the energy units of our calculations and $U$ represents the on-site Coulomb repulsion.
In the slave-fermion formalism, the electron operator is written as $$c_{i\sigma} = s_{i\overline{\sigma}}^{\dagger} d_{i} + \sigma e_{i}^{\dagger}s_{i\sigma},
\label{Sla}$$ where $d_{i}$ and $e_{i}$ are fermionic operators denoting the charge degrees of freedom and $s_{i\sigma}$ are bosonic operators describing the spin degrees of freedom, with $\sigma = 1$ for spin $\uparrow$ and $-1$ for spin $\downarrow$. The operator $e_{i}^{\dagger}$ creates an empty (unoccupied) site, a holon, at lattice point $i$, $d_{i}^{\dag}$ creates a doubly occupied site, a doublon, and $s_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$ ($s_{i\bar{\sigma}}^{\dagger}$) is the creation operator for a singly occupied site $i$ with spin $\sigma$ ($\bar{\sigma}$). In this formulation, the local Hilbert space is enlarged and the constraint $$d_{i}^{\dagger} d_{i} + e_{i}^{\dagger} e_{i} + \sum_{\sigma} s_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}
s_{i\sigma} = 1
\label{Constraint}$$ should be satisfied to eliminate unphysical states.
Substituting equation (\[Sla\]) into equation (\[Hamil\]) gives the form $$\begin{aligned}
H & = - t \sum_{i,\delta,\sigma} [(d_{i+\delta}^{\dagger} d_{i} - e_{i+\delta}^{\dagger}
e_{i}) s_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger} s_{i+\delta,\sigma} + \rm{H}.\rm{c}.] \nonumber \\
& \quad - t \sum_{i,\delta,\sigma} [(d_{i}^{\dagger} e_{i+\delta}^{\dagger} + e_{i}^{\dagger}
d_{i+\delta}^{\dagger}) \sigma s_{i,\bar{\sigma}} s_{i+\delta,\sigma} + \rm{H}.\rm{c}.]
\nonumber \\ & \quad + {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}} U \sum_{i} (d_{i}^{\dagger}
d_{i} + e_{i}^{\dagger} e_{i} - {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}),
\label{HTU}\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ denotes the lattice vectors $(a,0)$ and $(0,a)$. Here we do not include a Lagrange-multiplier term to enforce the local constraint at a global level (introducing a chemical potential), but instead implement equation (\[Constraint\]) as a self-consistent condition in our treatment. This procedure has the same effect, in that the constraint is satisfied only on average, which is a primary shortcoming of all analytical approaches to locally constrained problems unless gauge fluctuations can be included. Otherwise, the efficacy of this type of approximation is difficult to assess by any means other than comparing the results it yields with numerical calculations where the constraint can be enforced exactly.
From the first line of equation (\[HTU\]), holons and doublons can hop between nearest-neighbour sites with accompanying creation and annihilation of singly-occupied states. This term serves as the starting point for applying the SCBA, which provides a proper treatment of the coupling between the charge degrees of freedom and the spin fluctuations [@Rink-1988; @Kane-1989; @Marsiglio-1991; @Martinez-1991; @Zaanen-1995; @Xiang-1996]. This procedure requires the assumption of a Néel-ordered ground state, which is equivalent to a Bose condensation of the $s_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}$ operators and is discussed in detail below. The second line of equation (\[HTU\]) shows that the kinetic term of the Hubbard model contains a pairing interaction between holons and doublons in the slave-fermion representation. As noted in section \[Sec1\], the analogy with BCS theory motivates both the attribution of fermionic statistics to the charge degrees of freedom and the formation of bosonic bound pairs of fermionic holons and doublons as the process underlying the opening of a charge gap and contributing to the charge dynamics of the Mott insulator. In the last line of equation (\[HTU\]), the Coulomb repulsion, $U$, appears as a mass term for holons and doublons, which gain a dispersive nature both through their pairing and through their interactions with the magnetic background, as described by the SCBA.
As appropriate for a method based on the large-$U$ limit, we assume that the ground state for the spin degrees of freedom is the Néel antiferromagnet, also for finite $U$, and that their fluctuations are described by the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg Hamiltonian, $$H_{S} = J \sum_{\langle i,j \rangle } \mathbf{S}_{i} \cdot \mathbf{S}_{j},$$ with the coupling constant taken for simplicity as $J = 4t^{2}/U$. In the Schwinger boson representation, the spin operators are given by $$\mathbf{S}_{i} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\alpha\beta} s_{i\alpha}^{\dagger}
\bsigma_{\alpha\beta} s_{i\beta},$$ where $\boldsymbol{\sigma} = (\sigma^{x},\sigma^{y},\sigma^{z})$ denotes the Pauli matrices. The Néel antiferromagnetic state corresponds to a Bose-Einstein condensation of one of the two types of bosonic operator on each sublattice [@Hirsch-1989], which we describe by the uniform mean-field assumption $$\begin{aligned}
s_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger}, s_{i\uparrow} & \longrightarrow \langle s_{i\uparrow}
\rangle = \langle s_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger} \rangle = b_{0}, \qquad
i \in A,\nonumber \\
s_{j\downarrow}^{\dagger}, s_{j\downarrow} & \longrightarrow \langle s_{j\downarrow}
\rangle = \langle s_{j\downarrow}^{\dagger} \rangle = b_{0}, \qquad
j \in B,
\label{Condensation}\end{aligned}$$ for the two sublattices $A$ and $B$. The constraint (\[Constraint\]) is then recast as $$b_{0}^{2} = \left\{
\begin{array}[c]{c}
1 - \langle d_{i}^{\dagger} d_{i} \rangle - \langle e_{i}^{\dagger} e_{i} \rangle
- \langle s_{i\downarrow}^{\dagger} s_{i\downarrow} \rangle, \\
1 - \langle d_{i}^{\dagger} d_{i} \rangle - \langle e_{i}^{\dagger} e_{i} \rangle
- \langle s_{j\uparrow}^{\dagger} s_{j\uparrow}\rangle,
\end{array} \right.
\begin{array} [c]{c}
i \in A, \\ j \in B.
\end{array}
\label{Consist}$$ Because there is only one Schwinger boson on each sublattice, henceforth we simplify the notation $s_{i\sigma}$ to $s_{i}$. The revised form (\[Consist\]) of the constraint is the self-consistency condition in our calculation. We include the spin excitations of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model using the straightforward linear spin-wave approximation; although this method is only valid strictly for large spin and high-dimensional lattice geometries, it has been shown [@Manousakis-1991] that physical quantities, including the ground-state energy and sublattice magnetisation, obtained for the $S = 1/2$ square-lattice model within this approximation are qualitatively correct and readily renormalised to the values given by numerical calculations. A more detailed treatment of the Heisenberg model is provided in \[Heisenberg\].
![Feynman diagrams for the SCBA; fermion and magnon propagators are represented respectively by straight and wavy lines.[]{data-label="Feynman"}](FeynmanDiagram.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Within this approximation, equation (\[HTU\]) can be expressed as $$H = \sum_{\mathbf{k}} \psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} \tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}}
\psi_{\mathbf{k}} + \sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}} \psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} M
(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) \psi_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}},
\label{SCBAHubbard}$$ where $\psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} = ( \!\! \begin{array}[c]{cc}
d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}}^{\dagger} & e_{\mathbf{k}} \end{array} \! )$ is the Nambu spinor, which contains the charge degrees of freedom. The explicit forms of $\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}}$ and $M (\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})$ may be found in \[Hubbard\] along with full details of the SCBA for the Hubbard model in this form. The first term of equation (\[SCBAHubbard\]) describes the unperturbed charge dynamics, with holon-doublon binding appearing in the off-diagonal part of the matrix. The second term describes the interaction between the charge and spin degrees of freedom. We define the full charge Matsubara Green function as $$\mathbf{F} (\mathbf{k},\tau) = - \langle T_{\tau} \psi_{\mathbf{k}} (\tau)
\psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} (0) \rangle
\label{emgf}$$ and calculate this at the level of the SCBA. This process includes the coupling between the charge and spin dynamics and is equivalent to the series of Feynman diagrams shown in figure \[Feynman\], where $\mathbf{F}^{(0)}$ and $\mathbf{F}$ are respectively the bare and interacting charge Green functions and $\mathbf{D}$ is the magnon Green function, whose explicit form is given in \[Heisenberg\]. The SCBA has been used to calculate the motion of a single hole in an antiferromagnetic background in the $t$–$J$ model, where a consistent account of the mutual effects of charge motion and spin fluctuations is similarly essential. The results of these studies show that the coupling between the holon and the spin waves induces a quasiparticle-type response often labelled a spin polaron [@Rink-1988; @Kane-1989; @Marsiglio-1991; @Martinez-1991; @Zaanen-1995; @Xiang-1996]. Although a proper treatment of charge and spin fluctuations can be obtained in this way, we comment that the approximation does not include vertex corrections.
The self-consistent Dyson equation for the charge Green function is calculated by standard techniques, which yield $$\mathbf{F} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) = \frac{1}{i\omega_{n} -
\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}} - \mathbf{\Sigma} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n})},
\label{egf}$$ where the self-energy $\mathbf{\Sigma} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n})$ is given in \[Hubbard\]. The retarded charge Green function can be obtained from the Matsubara Green function (\[emgf\]) by analytic continuation through $i\omega_{n} \rightarrow \omega + i\eta$. The effect of the parameter $\eta$ is to provide a finite width to peaks in the density of states.
![Double-occupancy parameter, $D$, shown as a function of on-site Coulomb repulsion, $U$. The solid, red line is our result, calculated for a system size of $48 \times 48$ and with broadening parameter $\eta = 0.08$. For comparison, the dashed lines show analogous results obtained from cluster perturbation theory (CPT, blue, up-pointing triangles) [@Weng-2014], quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) for a $4 \times 4$ lattice at inverse temperature $\beta = 16$ (green, down-pointing triangles) [@White-1989], variational Monte Carlo with different trial wave functions \[$|\psi_{pow} \rangle$ (VMCPow, maroon diamonds) and $|\psi_{B} \rangle$ (VMCB, magenta squares) in the notation of reference [@Miya-2011]\] and DMRG (solid, black line) with extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit [@LeBlanc-2015].[]{data-label="Doublon"}](Doublon.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Double occupancy {#Sec3}
================
We begin the discussion of our results for the Mott-insulating state of the square-lattice Hubbard model by considering the averaged double-occupancy parameter, $D$. For the half-filled system, the average number of doubly occupied sites is equal to the number of empty ones, and is given by $$D = \langle n_d \rangle = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \langle d_{i}^{\dagger}
d_{i}\rangle = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \langle n_{i\uparrow} n_{i\downarrow} \rangle.$$ $D$ is exactly zero only when the on-site Coulomb repulsion, $U$ (\[Hamil\]), is infinite, but charge fluctuations are intrinsic to the Hubbard model for all finite $U$ values, making $D$ finite. It therefore reflects average information about the effects of charge fluctuations and as such can be used to characterise the Mott transition [@Castellani-1979; @Yokoyama-2006; @Brinkman-19702; @Kotliar-2000; @Kaplan-1982; @Miyagawa-2011; @Miya-2011].
The dependence of $D$ on $U$ at zero temperature is shown in figure \[Doublon\], where our results are compared with calculations by quantum Monte Carlo [@White-1989], variational Monte Carlo [@Miya-2011], cluster perturbation theory [@Weng-2014] and DMRG [@LeBlanc-2015]. At the qualitative level, all results lie in the same general range of values and, with the exception of one VMC approach, show a broadly similar functional form. Quantitatively, it is immediately clear that the different numerical results differ from each other quite significantly throughout the regions of weak and intermediate coupling, which may be taken as a signal of how difficult the Hubbard problem is in this regime. We stress that finite-size extrapolation of our results (not shown) confirms that our $48 \times 48$ calculations are fully representative of the infinite system, whereas none of the numerical data shown in figure \[Doublon\] have been extrapolated to the thermodynamic limit other than the DMRG results. However, extrapolated results obtained by a range of methods may be found in a very recent review [@LeBlanc-2015].
![Double occupancy parameter, $D$, shown as a function of $1/U^2$ on logarithmic axes. Red points show our large-$U$ results, calculated for a system size of $48 \times 48$ and with broadening parameter $\eta = 0.08$. Results from CPT, QMC and DMRG, shown in the same colour and symbol scheme as in figure 2, confirm the trend towards the limiting large-$U$ functional form, $D = 2.70/U^2$ (dashed purple line).[]{data-label="DL"}](LogD2.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Only in the strong-coupling regime do the differences in $D$ values obtained from all of these methods become small. Not only is our result in full agreement here, but because it is constructed in the strong-coupling limit, it can be expected to give the correct asymptotic form of $D$ as $U$ becomes large. We have calculated $D$ in the SCBA for a number of large $U$ values up to $U = 64$, which we show in figure \[DL\]. By considering the doublon Green function, $\mathbf{F}^{(0)}_{11} (k,\tau) = \langle d_{-k+Q} (\tau) \,
d_{-k+Q}^\dag (0) \rangle$, in the limit of large $U$ and extracting the zero-temperature doublon occupation from the spectral function according to $\langle d_{-k+Q}^\dag d_{-k+Q} \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^0 d\omega A^{(0)}
(k,\omega)$, one obtains $$D = \frac{4 t^2 b_0^4}{U^2} \frac{1}{N} \sum_k (\cos k_x + \cos k_y)^2 \simeq
\frac{2.70}{U^2}.
\label{edolu}$$ Further details may be found in \[lud\]. This asymptotic form is shown in figure \[DL\], allowing us to conclude that the double occupation function is suppressed at large $U$ according to $D \propto 1/U^2$. The results from a number of independent numerical studies, also shown in figure \[DL\] are fully consistent with $1/U^2$ scaling at large $U$.
At half-filling, the value of $D$ should change monotonically from 0 to $1/4$, which correspond respectively to the fully localised ($U = \infty$) and the completely delocalised cases ($U = 0$). As $U$ decreases, charge fluctuations are enhanced and the on-site Coulomb interaction is screened, making localisation effects smaller and reducing the Mott gap. The result is larger $D$ values for smaller $U$, indicating an increasing mixing of the lower and upper Hubbard bands. Still, it is only at very small values, $U < 2$, of the on-site repulsion that our results begin to indicate the breakdown of the approximation, which benchmarks the limits of its applicability. They do not approach $D = 1/4$ at $U = 0$, which is no surprise because neither the strong-coupling slave-fermion formalism nor the single-mode spin-wave approximation to a Néel antiferromagnetic ground state as a description of the spin dynamics is appropriate in this limit.
In general, it is not true that $D$ should increase continuously with decreasing $U$. In some variational Monte Carlo calculations [@Yokoyama-2006; @Miya-2011], the behaviour of $D$ appears to show an abrupt change at a critical interaction strength, $U_{c}$, which has been interpreted as a first-order Mott transition. However, neither our result nor those obtained from cluster perturbation theory [@Weng-2014], quantum Monte Carlo simulations [@White-1989], or DMRG [@LeBlanc-2015] contain any evidence for a Mott transition at finite $U$. As a consequence of the perfect nesting, the nearest-neighbour square-lattice Hubbard model is a special case where even a weak-coupling treatment gives an insulating state for all $U$, i.e. $U_c = 0$. As noted in section \[Sec1\], this small-$U$ result has led to intense debate over the question of whether insulating behaviour could be driven by antiferromagnetism rather than by the Coulomb interaction, and whether there could be a transition between the two regimes at finite $U$. However, the result that $U_c = 0$ in this model means that all values of $U$ are continuously connected to the strong-coupling limit, where the answers are clear. Indeed, detailed numerical calculations have recently been used to argue [@Schafer-2015] that the model also has no Mott-Hubbard transition at any finite $U$ in the paramagnetic phase at low but finite temperatures, meaning that no other effective terms are generated. We conclude from our calculations of $D$ that the holon-doublon description yields the correct functional form and semi-quantitative accuracy throughout the regime of intermediate and strong coupling (specifically, $U > 2$).
Spectral Function {#Sec4}
=================
Derivation and Calculation
--------------------------
We calculate the spectral function of the original electron operators, $c_{\mathbf{k}\sigma}$, which in the slave-fermion framework are decomposed into convolutions of the holon operator, $e$, the doublon operator, $d$, and the Schwinger boson operator, $s$. The electron Green function is defined by $$G (\mathbf{k},\tau) = - \sum_{\sigma} \langle T_{\tau} c_{\mathbf{k}\sigma} (\tau)
c_{\mathbf{k}\sigma}^{\dagger} (0) \rangle$$ and the spectral function $$A (\mathbf{k},\omega) = - \frac{1}{\pi} \rm{I}\rm{m} G^{R} (\mathbf{k},
\omega + i\eta),$$ the imaginary part of the retarded Green function, contains implicitly all information necessary to describe single-particle excitations. The electron density of states is obtained from the sum over all wavevectors, $$\rho (\omega) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{k}} A (\mathbf{k},\omega).$$
![Electron spectral function, $A (\mathbf{k},\omega)$, of the Hubbard model with $U = 8$, obtained for lattice dimensions $48 \times 48$ and with broadening parameter $\eta = 0.08$. (a) Spectral intensity along the symmetry directions $\Gamma \rightarrow$ M $\rightarrow$ X $\rightarrow \Gamma$ in the first quadrant of the first Brillouin zone. (b) Spectral function $A (\omega)$ for wavevectors $\mathbf{k}$ along the high-symmetry directions X $\rightarrow
\Gamma \rightarrow$ M $\rightarrow$ X $\rightarrow$ S.[]{data-label="Resolved"}](Spectral.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Figure \[Resolved\] shows the single-particle spectral function, $A(\mathbf{k},\omega)$, for some specific high-symmetry directions in the Brillouin zone of the square lattice. These calculations were performed with $U = 8$ on a $48 \times 48$ lattice and we used a broadening parameter $\eta
= 0.08$; we stress again that this system size is effectively in the thermodynamic limit. The particle-hole symmetry of the spectral function, $A(\mathbf{k},\omega) = A(-\mathbf{k+Q},-\omega)$, with $\mathbf{Q} = (\pi,
\pi)$, is preserved. It is clear from the spectral-intensity contour map of figure \[Resolved\](a) that the spectral weight lies in two separate bands, the lower and upper Hubbard bands, which are separated by the Mott gap; this weight appears predominantly in the lower Hubbard band in regions of the Brillouin zone around $(0,0)$, and is transferred to the upper Hubbard band as $\mathbf{k}$ moves towards $(\pi,\pi)$.
We begin our comments on the nature of these results by noting that they are in quantitative agreement with calculations performed by the variational cluster approximation [@Dahnken-2004], in which the authors included long-range antiferromagnetic correlations by adding some Weiss fields. That we obtain the self-consistent interaction effects of the spin fluctuations on the charge degrees of freedom is one of the key qualitative features of our approach and will be discussed further below. The shifting of spectral weight between Hubbard bands signals that the real part of the electron Green function changes sign between $(0,0)$ and $(\pi,\pi)$, which implies that the self-energy diverges and the Green function has a zero surface falling within this region [@Dzyaloshinskii-2003]. The importance of zeros and poles of the Green function has been stressed by many authors [@Eder-2011; @Sakai-2009; @Sakai-2010; @Yamaji-2011; @Zhang-2006; @Dzyaloshinskii-2003] in the discussion of Mott physics, particularly in the context of pseudogap phenomena in the doped system. We defer a discussion of the zero surface of the electron Green function to section \[Sec5\].
Results for the spectral function, $A(\omega)$, are shown in figure \[Resolved\](b) for a sequence of wavevectors $\mathbf{k}$ along the high-symmetry directions of the Brillouin zone. The spectral function is always a multi-peak structure, and the four-peak form reported by references [@Hanke-2000] and [@Dahnken-2004] is not very distinctive in our results. Most of the spectra consist of a peak at low energies, meaning closer to the chemical potential, accompanied by a broad, weak high-energy part. The low-energy peak can be interpreted as the coherent motion of the quasiparticles, which are formed from both holons and doublons and are renormalise by spin fluctuations. The high-energy part originates in incoherent charge excitations and forms the remainder of the Hubbard bands.
Returning to the details of figure \[Resolved\](b), we observe that for $\mathbf{k} = (\pi,0)$ (the X point), the spectral weight is symmetrical about $\omega = 0$. As $\mathbf{k}$ is moved along X $\rightarrow \Gamma$, weight is transferred from the positive- to the negative-$\omega$ regime, i.e. to lower energies, while along X $\rightarrow$ M the opposite happens; this behavior is a reflection of particle-hole symmetry. Because ($\pi,0$) lies on the noninteracting Fermi surface, when $\mathbf{k}$ lies inside this surface, most of the spectral weight has the properties of a particle, while outside it has the properties of a hole. An analogous spectral-weight redistribution is evident as $\mathbf{k}$ is moved from M to $\Gamma$, where the transfer is from positive to negative $\omega$. At $\mathbf{k} = (\pi/2,
\pi/2) \equiv$ S, the distribution is again symmetrical in $\omega$ and the gap takes the minimum value obtained in our approximation. We note that all of these features are very similar to the results of exact diagonalisation [@Dagotto-1992; @Leung-1992; @Feng-1992; @Dagotto-1994] and quantum Monte Carlo calculations [@White-1991; @Bulut-1994; @Preuss-1995; @Hanke-2000] of the Hubbard model at half-filling on the square lattice.
Clearly the leading momentum-dependence of the spectral function is the consequence of the underlying non-interacting electronic bands. Around X $\equiv (\pi,0)$, where this dispersion is rather flat \[figure \[Resolved\](a)\], the high density of states and strong interactions are believed to be the origin of the pseudogap and Fermi-arc phenomena found in doped Hubbard models [@Kohno-2012; @Kohno-2014]. To gauge how much of the momentum-dependence may be caused by the coupling between spin and charge degrees of freedom, we return to the question of the coherent and incoherent response. For the lower Hubbard band, there is an apparent suppression of spectral weight around $\omega \approx - 3.5t$, visible near $\Gamma$, which separates the band into two parts. The “low-energy” part (meaning closer to $\omega = 0$) is a quasiparticle-type band, which disperses from $\Gamma$ to S.
The emergence of a coherent quasiparticle band in the dynamical response is a highly nontrivial consequence of the interactions between the charge and spin sectors in the Hubbard model. In general, hole motion in a Néel ordered state is energetically unfavourable because the movement distorts the antiferromagnetic background. However, many calculations within the SCBA [@Rink-1988; @Kane-1989; @Marsiglio-1991; @Martinez-1991; @Zaanen-1995; @Xiang-1996] have shown that a quasiparticle, named the “spin polaron” [@Martinez-1991; @Zaanen-1995], forms as a result of holon-magnon coupling. The bandwidth of the spin polaron is governed by the spin exchange, $J$, and this feature forms the low-energy part of the lower Hubbard band. For the high-energy part, hole motion is thought to originate from effective three-site hopping processes [@Wang-2015], which allow hole propagation on the same sublattice that does not distort the antiferromagnetic background and therefore is less affected by spin fluctuations. We postpone a more detailed discussion of the Hubbard bands to the next section.
Density of States
-----------------
The density of states, $\rho (\omega)$, obtained by integrating the spectral function is shown in figure \[Spectral\], where we compare the results calculated in the SCBA with those of a simple holon-doublon mean-field approximation. The dominant feature in $\rho (\omega)$ is the strong Mott gap for the values of $U$ illustrated. In the mean-field results, shown in figure \[Spectral\](a), the effects of spin fluctuations are neglected and the Mott gap is $U$. However, in our calculations \[figure \[Spectral\](b)\] this gap is renormalised downwards, quite significantly at intermediate values of $U$. This renormalisation is related directly to the other significant feature of $\rho (\omega)$, the width of the lower and upper Hubbard bands, which clearly broadens (relative to $U$) as the on-site interaction decreases and spin fluctuations strengthen. As we will discuss in section \[Sec5\], the bandwidth reflects the spin-related renormalisation of the underlying quasiparticle bands and may be treated as an effective hopping parameter, $t_{\rm eff}$, which is a fraction of the electron hopping parameter, $t$; by contrast, the Hubbard bands given by the mean-field approximation have a width given only by the spin interaction, $J = 4t^2/U$, and therefore appear much narrower in figure \[Spectral\](a).
![Electronic density of states, $\rho (\omega)$, shown for different values of $U$; data are normalised to $U$ on the frequency axis. A holon-doublon mean-field approximation (a) is compared with the results of the SCBA (b).[]{data-label="Spectral"}](Spectral_Merge.eps){width="60.00000%"}
In the SCBA, only the quasiparticle band remains of width $J$. In general, the spin polaron is a feature of the retraceable path approximation [@Brinkman-1970] and is well-defined in a mean-field treatment with high lattice coordination. The energetics of the Mott gap and the Hubbard bands have been discussed in the DMFT, which is infinite-dimensional, and the same physics of a narrow quasiparticle band, a renormalised Mott gap and broader Hubbard bands is found [@Sangiovanni-2006]. That our 2D holon-doublon description reproduces these features with high accuracy serves both as an indication of the degree to which it captures the key ingredients of Mott physics and as a means to verify the relevance of features observed in numerical calculations with different limitations. In the context of DMFT comparisons, we caution that the small peaks visible around $\omega/U \approx 0.5$ in figure \[Spectral\](b) are size effects, which we can demonstrate by smoothing them away if the broadening factor $\eta$ is set to a larger value.
Although a number of experiments have demonstrated the insulating behaviour of the parent compounds of the high-$T_{c}$ superconductors, it has proven to be very difficult to observe both the lower and upper Hubbard bands. Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy [@Damascelli-2003] probes the occupied states while optical spectroscopy [@Basov-2005; @Basov-2011] gives information concerning two-particle correlations. Measurements by scanning tunnelling spectroscopy (STS) probe the local single-particle density of states for both occupied and unoccupied bands. Only recently was the full electronic spectrum for the undoped Mott insulator Ca$_{2}$CuO$_{2}$Cl$_{2}$ measured by STS [@Wang-2013], showing the Mott-Hubbard gap, and in particular the upper Hubbard band, for the first time. A comparison with the robust features of our results, namely the spin polaron, the renormalised Mott gap (section \[Sec43\]), and the width of the Hubbard bands scaling with $t$, implies that the Hubbard model does in fact capture the essential properties of the undoped Mott insulator measured by STS.
![Mott gap, $\Delta$, normalised to $U$ and shown as a function of $1/U$ to illustrate its asymptotic large-$U$ limit. The purple stars indicate results for $U = 4$, 8 and 40 extracted from the exact diagonalisation (ED) calculations of reference [@Feng-1992].[]{data-label="fmglu"}](Large_U_Mott_Gap2.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Mott Gap in the Large-$U$ Limit {#Sec43}
-------------------------------
We reiterate that the SCBA includes the interaction effects of the holons and doublons with the magnons, causing significant renormalisation effects at intermediate values of $U$. Only in the limit of large $U$ do these effects vanish, causing the Mott gap to tend towards $U$ and the bandwidths to vanish. We define the Mott gap, $\Delta$, from the separation of the peaks in the density of states shown in figure \[Spectral\](b) and present the results in figure \[fmglu\]. We comment that, although this definition is completely valid in the large-$U$ regime, it may be called into question for values of $U/t$ at the far right-hand side of figure \[fmglu\]: for $U/t
= 4$ it is clear in figure \[Spectral\](b) that there is a significant density of states “inside the Mott gap” and a detailed account of its effects could lower the estimate of the effective $\Delta$ [@Vitali-2016]. Spectral information is significantly more difficult to obtain from numerical calculations than are ground-state properties, and in figure \[fmglu\] we show only Mott-gap estimates obtained from exact-diagonalisation studies [@Feng-1992]. These lie very close to our SCBA results at large $U$ and then fall with a similar form, but to values slightly smaller than SCBA, as $U/t$ is decreased through the intermediate-coupling regime.
At the left-hand side of figure \[fmglu\], similar to our extraction of the limiting behaviour of $D$ in section \[Sec3\], we may also investigate analytically the approach of the Mott gap to $U$ as $U$ becomes large. As shown in \[lug\], by neglecting off-diagonal terms ($\mathbf{F}_{12}$ and $\mathbf{F}_{21}$) in the Green function of equation (\[egf\]) and using the bare holon and doublon Green functions to obtain the spectral function, and hence the self-energies, one may construct the full Green function at the level only of the first step in the Born approximation. The Mott gap is simply the minimum of the holon and doublon gaps, which are identical and, on retaining only terms of order unity, are given by $\Delta_{\mathbf{k}} =
U - 2 \sqrt{a_{\mathbf{k}}}$, where $a_{\mathbf{k}} = \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_1^2
(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})$ \[equation (\[gfunc\])\]. Thus one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta & = & {\rm min}|_{\mathbf{k}} [\Delta_{\mathbf{k}}] = {\rm min}|_{\mathbf{k}}
\left[ U - \sqrt{ 2 \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_1^2(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})} \right]
\\ & = & {\rm min}|_{\mathbf{k}} \left[ U - \sqrt{\frac{2 t^2 b_0^2 z^2}{N}
\sum_{\mathbf{q}} (u_{\mathbf{q}} \gamma_{\mathbf{q-k}} + v_{\mathbf{q}}
\gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^2} \right] \nonumber \; \simeq \; U - 3.77, \nonumber
\label{emglu}\end{aligned}$$ where the gap minimum occurs at $\mathbf{k} = (\pi/2,\pi/2) =$ S. We show this function in figure \[fmglu\] in the form $\Delta/U = 1 - 3.77/U$. The agreement is satisfactory, confirming that the limiting form of the approach is indeed $1 - \Delta/U \propto 1/U$, although the constant of proportionality could be computed more accurately by retaining more orders in the Born approximation. We comment that this type of limiting behavior has been suggested in some numerical studies [@Sangiovanni-2006]. It is also worth noting [@Vitali-2016] that the Mott gap obtained in 1D from the Bethe Ansatz has the large-$U$ limit $\Delta/U = 1 - 4/U$ to first order in $1/U$.
In the high-$U$ (atomic) limit, the spectral function is entirely incoherent. The mean-field approximation gives the “unperturbed” charge Green function, meaning in the absence of spin fluctuations, and the two Hubbard bands in figure \[Spectral\](a) are also incoherent. In a self-consistent treatment, the spin fluctuations cause a spectral-weight transfer from the incoherent background into a coherent quasiparticle band, allowing both the (incoherent) lower and upper Hubbard bands and the (coherent) low-energy quasiparticle band to be reconstructed, as shown in figure \[Resolved\](a). These results emphasise again that a consistent inclusion of the spin degrees of freedom is intrinsic to a full understanding of the Mott state.
![Spectral-weight integral \[equation (\[eswic\])\] shown alone (red) and corrected by the average double occupancy, $D$ (blue).[]{data-label="SWI"}](SWI.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Spectral-Weight Integral
------------------------
We comment here that, from the properties of the Green function, the density of states of electrons with both spin orientations should obey the sum rule $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d \omega \rho (\omega) = 1.$$ In our results, because one of the two bosonic operators on each sublattice undergoes Bose-Einstein condensation \[equation (\[Condensation\])\], the sum rule is violated and instead takes the form $$\int_{-\infty }^{\infty } d \omega \rho (\omega) = 1 - D,
\label{eswic}$$ where $D$ is the average double-occupancy parameter calculated in section \[Sec3\]. In figure \[SWI\] we show both the spectral-weight integral and its value corrected by the average double occupancy, for a range of values of $U$. Because our calculation is performed using a finite energy interval, the corrected spectral-weight integral is less than 1, but it is clear that the deviations are very small for all intermediate values of $U$. In the atomic limit, $D = 0$, the sum rule is satisfied by the spectral weight alone, while for finite $U$ the spectral-weight integral violates the sum rule by an amount equivalent to $D$ and approaches $1$ as $U$ increases. For an intermediate interaction strength such as $U = 8$, we observe that the spectral-weight integral is $0.96$, indicating that our strong-coupling approximation remains robust, and capable of capturing the primary physics of the Hubbard model, in this regime. Only at weak coupling, where the spin-wave treatment of the Heisenberg model is not suitable, higher-order perturbations are important and charge fluctuations become strong, does the SCBA fail to reproduce the complex charge dynamics.
Luttinger Volume {#Sec5}
================
Landau’s Fermi-liquid theory is one of the fundamental theories in quantum many-body physics. Its most important single qualitative result is that the Fermi surface still exists, even in the presence of interactions, in all dimensions higher than 1. For the normal metals that can be described as Fermi liquids, the shape of the Fermi surface is essential in determining the thermodynamic and transport properties of the system, because only electrons close to the Fermi surface can be excited at low energies. For a given electron density, regardless of the shape of the Fermi surface, the volume it encloses is invariant even when interactions between particles are taken into consideration. This result, the Luttinger theorem [@Luttinger-1960; @LuttingerW-1960; @Oshikawa-2000], relates the total electron density to the volume in momentum space where the Green function is positive, $$\frac{N}{V} = 2 \int_{G(\mathbf{k},\omega = 0) > 0} \frac{d^{d}k}{(2\pi)^{d}},$$ with $d$ the spatial dimension of the system. Although the original proof by Luttinger was based on perturbation theory, and thus the theorem may in principle be violated by nonperturbative effects, Oshikawa [@Oshikawa-2000] has provided a nonperturbative proof based on topological arguments. In essence, the insensitivity of the result to any interactions should be considered as a quantisation phenomenon [@Oshikawa-2000], and therefore the Luttinger theorem may be the first example of topological quantisation discovered for the quantum many-body problem.
In general, the poles of the electron Green function, $G (\mathbf{k},
\omega)$, determine the band dispersion and define the Fermi surface at the chemical potential, where $\omega = 0$. From the asymptotic behaviour $G(\mathbf{k},\omega \rightarrow \infty) \propto 1/\omega$, it is obvious that the limiting Green function is positive for positive $\omega$ and conversely. For a Fermi liquid, as the frequency approaches the Fermi surface ($\omega = 0$), by definition $G(\mathbf{k},\omega = 0^{+})
\rightarrow + \infty$ while $G(\mathbf{k},\omega = 0^{-}) \rightarrow
- \infty$, implying that the Green function must change sign at the Fermi surface through an infinity in $G(\mathbf{k},0)$ if there are no singularities in any other regions of $\mathbf{k}$ and $\omega$. The Luttinger theorem then concerns precisely the volume enclosed by the surfaces where $G(\mathbf{k},0)$ changes sign.
![Real part of the inverse Green function, $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}
(\mathbf{k},\omega = 0)]$, for the half-filled Hubbard model on the square lattice, calculated for $U = 8$. $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1} (\mathbf{k},\omega = 0)]$ changes sign from a negative to a positive maximum through a diamond-shaped boundary. The sign-change gives the Luttinger surface at $\omega = 0$, and coincides with the locus of solutions of $\cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y} = 0$, marked by the black, dashed line.[]{data-label="ZeroSurface"}](ZeroSurface.eps){width="60.00000%"}
However, this change of sign is not always connected with an infinity. It may also occur through zeros of the Green function [@Eder-2011; @Dzyaloshinskii-2003; @Sakai-2009; @Sakai-2010; @Yamaji-2011; @Zhang-2006], and in fact these are the relevant quantities for insulating systems, where there is no Fermi surface. By contrast, all systems have a Luttinger surface, and this may be defined from the zeros. Examples of this type of physics include the BCS superconductor, where $G(\mathbf{k},0)$ changes sign through the chemical potential in the absence of a Fermi surface, and also the Mott insulator.
For systems with a full gap spanning some energy interval (figures \[Resolved\] and \[Spectral\]), the self-energy inside the gap must be infinite as otherwise spectral features would appear. For the Green function, the divergence of the self-energy implies (\[egf\]) that $G(\mathbf{k},\omega) = 0$ and thus the poles of the self-energy can be used to define the Luttinger surface. Here we use the real part of the inverse Green function to calculate the Luttinger surface, which in terms of $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1} (\mathbf{k},\omega)]$ corresponds to its points of divergence, whereas the band dispersion is given by its zeros. We note that the self-energy can have only one pole, $\xi_{k}$, in an energy regime where a gap is present; a situation with two successive poles, $\xi_{k,1} < \xi_{k,2}$, would give $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}(\mathbf{k},\xi_{k,1} + 0^{+})] \rightarrow
+ \infty$ and $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}(\mathbf{k},\xi_{k,2} + 0^{-})] \rightarrow
- \infty$, which would require a zero of $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}(\mathbf{k},
\omega)]$ in the gap region, contradicting the definition.
In figure \[ZeroSurface\] we show the real part of the inverse Green function in the form of colour contours. The finite broadening factor, $\eta$, in our calculation converts the divergence into a sharp minimum followed by an equally sharp maximum as a function of $|\mathbf{k}|$. It is clear that $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}(\mathbf{k},\omega = 0)]$ changes sign from negative to positive through a diamond-shaped boundary, which therefore marks the zeros of the Green function at $\omega = 0$, i.e. the Luttinger surface. This surface is specified precisely by the condition $\cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y}
= 0$, and therefore we have found that the Luttinger surface is exactly the Fermi surface of non-interacting electrons. This result is a consequence of particle-hole symmetry at half-filling. Although the system is completely gapped in the Mott-insulating phase, the Luttinger theorem remains applicable and for the half-filled Hubbard model can be interpreted as the integral of the region within the Luttinger surface [@Stanescu-2007].
![Real part of the inverse Green function, $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}
(\mathbf{k},\omega)]$, calculated using $U = 8$ for values of $\mathbf{k}$ chosen along the high-symmetry directions. The black, dashed curve shows the function $1.6t (\cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y})$ (see text).[]{data-label="ReGreverse"}](ReGreverse.eps){width="60.00000%"}
To gain more insight into the behaviour of the self-energy, in figure \[ReGreverse\] we show $\textrm{Re} [G^{-1}(\mathbf{k},\omega)]$ calculated with $U = 8$ for the primary high-symmetry directions in momentum space. The divergence of the inverse Green function can be regarded as a dispersion relation defined by the self-energy, and it forms a rather clear quasiparticle band. The black, dashed curve in figure \[ReGreverse\] shows the function $2 t_{\rm eff} (\cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y})$ with $t_{\rm eff} = 0.8 t$, which obviously provides a reasonable, if not perfect, fit to the zeros of the calculated Green function. This form, which resembles an inverted free-electron dispersion with a renormalised hopping parameter, is quite similar to the results obtained by exact diagonalisation [@Eder-2011], except in that the effective hopping is smaller.
To interpret this result, we note first that the inverted nature of the quasiparticle band signifies its holonic origin. From equation (\[Momentum\]), we expect that the doublon band will have the same form as the holon band but with a momentum shift of $\mathbf{Q}$. Thus the poles of the electron self-energy are given directly by the dispersion relation of the quasiparticles, which is in turn connected with the non-interacting dispersion, $2 t (\cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y})$, by a renormalisation factor. Second, from equation (\[edisp\]) one observes that this renormalisation of the effective quasiparticle dispersion, $4 t b_{0}^{2} \gamma _{\mathbf{k}}
= 2 t b_{0}^{2} ( \cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y})$, is related directly to the holon-doublon pairing interaction term, which in turn is determined by the magnetic ordering (condensation) parameter, $b_{0}$. In the limit of large $U$, the Mott gap saturates at $\Delta = U$ (section \[Sec43\]) and, as discussed in \[lum\], magnetic order becomes robust, with an ordered moment of $m_s = 0.321$ and, from equation (\[Consist\]), $b_{0}^{2} = 0.821$ in our calculations. The effective quasiparticle hopping parameter, $t_{\rm eff}$, is shown in figure \[Hopping\], which compares the results extracted from the Green function in a simple mean-field approximation, with only holon-doublon interactions but without spin-fluctuation effects, to the results of the SCBA. Also shown for comparison is the result of a direct determination of $b_0^2$, which allows us to deduce that the effective hopping parameter saturates at $t_{\rm eff} = b_0^2 t = 0.821 t$ as $U \rightarrow \infty$ in the mean-field approximation. However, the effect of the additional spin fluctuations contained in the SCBA is to allow the effective hopping to be stronger than the value constrained by the condensation parameter.
![Effective hopping parameter, $t_{\rm eff}$, defined by the poles of the electron self-energy, $2 t_{\rm eff} (\cos k_{x} + \cos k_{y})$, calculated in a mean-field approximation with no spin-fluctuation effects (blue) and in the SCBA (red); for comparison we show also the condensation parameter, $b_0^2$ (green).[]{data-label="Hopping"}](Hopping.eps){width="60.00000%"}
Away from strong coupling, the departure of the quasiparticle mass from the high-$U$ limit may be taken as a further indication of the effects of charge and spin fluctuations at intermediate $U$, which includes the value $U = 8$ shown in figure \[ReGreverse\]. The reduction of $t_{\rm eff}$ computed in the SCBA with decreasing $U$ is clear in figure \[Hopping\], where again the comparison with the mean-field form and $b_0^2$ allows us to benchmark the effects of spin fluctuations and of self-consistency at intermediate $U$ within our calculation. The Mott gap is effectively the mass term, $U$, in equation (\[edisp\]) and its downward renormalisation with decreasing $U$ is also the consequence of holon-doublon interactions, renormalised at intermediate $U$ by spin fluctuations, as discussed in section \[Sec4\] and shown in figures \[Resolved\] and \[Spectral\]. However, this information is not visible in the inverse Green function, which therefore can be taken as a measure only of the spin-fluctuation renormalisation effect within the SCBA, independently of the Mott-gap scale.
We conclude that the holon-doublon description contains valuable insight into the static and dynamic properties of the charge degrees of freedom. The characteristic feature of the Mott insulator is not the Fermi surface but the Luttinger surface. The Luttinger theorem for the Fermi liquid holds for the half-filled Hubbard model, despite its insulating nature, with the sign-change of the Green function at $\omega = 0$ caused by its zeros instead of its poles. This Luttinger surface appears inside the Mott gap, which separates the lower and upper Hubbard bands, and it defines a quasiparticle band whose renormalisation characterises the effects of spin interactions on the charge sector.
Optical Conductivity {#Sec6}
====================
The final quantity we calculate is the optical conductivity. Optical conductivity measurements [@Basov-2005; @Basov-2011], which reveal the carrier number, the size of the energy gap, the dynamics of quasiparticle excitations and their scattering processes, have played an important role in the study of many classes of correlated electronic materials. For the insulating parent compounds of the high-$T_{c}$ superconductors, optical conductivity measurements performed on La$_{2}$CuO$_{4}$ at a temperature of $300$ K show an excitonic absorption peak at $2$ eV [@Uchida-1991]. This behaviour was ascribed to the strongly correlated but charge-transfer-dominated character of the undoped CuO$_{2}$ plane [@Zaanen-1985]. When holes are doped into the system, optical conductivity measurements show a number of features that deviate strongly from conventional band theory. The most striking phenomenon is the reconstruction of the electronic spectral weight at low doping, which involves the transfer of weight from the charge-transfer excitation regime to a mid-infrared band, centred at approximately $0.5$ eV. This mid-infrared band is consistent with the appearance of in-gap states [@Weng-2014; @Wang-2013] but to date there is no theory for its microscopic origin. As the doping is increased, a Drude-type response develops at far-infrared frequencies and decays much more slowly than band theory would predict. This characteristic spectral-weight transfer is evidently intrinsic to the Mott insulator and cannot be described by a theory ignoring electronic correlations. It has been argued [@Phillips-2010; @Meinders-1993] that this property of the Mott phase can be explained within the Hubbard model, but there is as yet no consensus on the complete dynamics of the weight-transfer phenomenon.
![Real part of the optical conductivity as a function of frequency, shown for a number of $U$ values. The results were calculated on a $48 \times
48$ lattice at zero temperature. The red, dashed line connects the initial peaks on each curve, which determine the optical gap, $\Delta_{\rm Optical}$. The inset compares $\Delta_{\rm Optical}$ with the Mott gap, $\Delta$, determined from the peak separation in figure .[]{data-label="Optical"}](Optical_Merge.eps){width="60.00000%"}
The optical conductivity in the $x$ direction can be calculated from the imaginary part of the current-current correlation function, $$\mathrm{Re} [\sigma_{xx} (\omega)] = - \mathrm{Im} \left[\frac{1}{\omega}
\Pi_{xx}^{R} (\omega) \right],$$ as discussed in detail in \[Opticalconductivity\]. The results we obtain within the slave-particle framework and the SCBA are shown in figure \[Optical\] for a number of $U$ values spanning the intermediate-coupling regime. The optical conductivity has a clear charge-excitation gap, as expected for an insulating system (but in contrast to the Drude peak predicted by conventional band theory). The first peak is expected at the “optical gap,” $\Delta_{\rm Optical}$, which is determined by a two-particle process; as $U$ increases, its location clearly moves to higher energy, even when normalised to $U$, and its peak height drops. This is consistent with experimental results for the optical reflectivity spectra [@Uchida-1991], and with the expectation of a larger quasiparticle gap with increasing $U$ contained in figure \[Spectral\]. The Mott gap is the one-particle charge gap and is determined from the separation of the leading peaks in the lower and upper Hubbard bands, as shown in the spectral function \[figure \[Resolved\](a)\] and the density of states \[figure \[Spectral\](b)\]. The inset of figure \[Optical\] compares the Mott gap with the optical gap obtained in the main panel, and it is clear that the two are almost identical for the Mott insulator.
Exact diagonalisation results [@DagottoE-1992; @Tohyama-2005; @Dagotto-1994] and quantum Monte Carlo calculations [@Bulut-1994] also confirm the insulating character of the undoped Hubbard model. The optical conductivity given by exact diagonalisation [@Tohyama-2005] shows a sharp peak at the Mott-gap edge, which is attributed to spin-polaron formation in the photoexcited state, as also revealed by DMFT [@Taranto-2012]. Although these results suggest a separation of the spin-polaron band from the high-energy feature, we caution that the system sizes used are very small; in our calculations, the spectral function has a continuous and multipeak structure for most wavevectors $\mathbf{k}$, with no clear band separation and thus no discrete peaks in the optical conductivity. We do not attempt a quantitative comparison of our results with other numerical methods because the effect of vertex corrections [@Lin-2009; @Bergeron-2011] cannot be neglected in the calculation of optical conductivity.
As a consequence of fundamental conservation laws, the optical conductivity obeys the sum rule [@Basov-2005; @Basov-2011; @Bergeron-2011] $$\int_{0}^{\infty} d \omega \mathrm{Re} [\sigma_{xx} (\omega)] = - \frac{\pi}{2}
\langle T_{x} \rangle,$$ where $\langle T_{x} \rangle$ is the average kinetic energy in the $x$ direction. In our calculations for the half-filled Hubbard model, the results do not satisfy this sum rule exactly, although the deviation is within $10\%$ for all intermediate $U$ values. This discrepancy is presumably caused by the spectral-weight loss discussed in section \[Sec4\], as well as by our neglect of vertex corrections. The inclusion of the latter, and of higher-order physical processes, may be expected to produce superior results, and to be increasingly important for calculations at lower $U$ or at any finite temperatures.
Summary {#Sec7}
=======
We have used a holon-doublon slave-fermion representation in the self-consistent Born approximation to investigate the charge dynamics of the single-band Hubbard model at half-filling on the square lattice. We show that holon-doublon binding is intrinsic to the Mott-insulating state. As expected in a nearest-neighbour hopping model, the system is always insulating and the monotonically decreasing doublon density shows no critical value, $U_{c}$, where a metal-insulator transition occurs. The electronic density of states we compute has a coherent quasiparticle band accompanied by incoherent lower and upper Hubbard bands. The Mott gap is the excitation gap of the holons and doublons, and so is determined by their binding energy. We calculate the Luttinger surface of the Green function at the chemical potential and demonstrate that, for the Mott insulator, the Luttinger theorem can be interpreted as the integral of the region enclosed by this Luttinger surface rather than a Fermi surface. We show further that the poles of the self-energy define an effective quasiparticle dispersion similar to that of free electrons, but with a renormalised hopping parameter. The optical conductivity displays clearly both the Mott gap and the incoherent Hubbard bands.
In this slave-fermion description, the Mott-gap state is accompanied by the formation of holon-doublon bound states. Holon-doublon binding provides the energy scale of the Mott gap in the half-filled Hubbard model. In greater detail, the pairing interaction of holons and doublons is a $k$-space phenomenon, occurring across the Fermi surface. We comment that both holons and doublons are components of the quasiparticles making up the lower Hubbard band, as they are of the upper, and thus the paired state should not be considered as an exciton; indeed, holon-doublon pairs would remain present at finite doping, when the particle-hole symmetry of the half-filled system is lost. The presence of these bound states, together with the interactions between the charge carriers and the magnons, reflects the fact that the high- and low-energy degrees of freedom in the Hubbard model are intrinsically mixed, with the spin fluctuations playing an essential role in the construction of coherent “spin-polaron” features in the lower and upper Hubbard bands.
Our technique is a strong-coupling approach, valid at large values of $U$, and can be used to obtain the analytical limiting forms of all physical quantities in this regime. At intermediate $U$ values, it provides accurate results for the evolution of the charge dynamics as a consequence of the renormalising effects of spin fluctuations. Only on the approach to the weak-coupling regime do we find systematic discrepancies in the framework, which we may characterise by violations of the spectral sum rule. In this regime, the single-mode approximation to the spin dynamics of the Néel antiferromagnetic ground state begins to break down, the self-consistent Born approximation requires the inclusion of vertex corrections and even the decoupling of electron operators into separate spin and charge parts may no longer be justified. As noted in section \[Sec1\], a degree of confusion exists in the literature over whether the insulating properties of the weakly coupled system can be ascribed to magnetic rather than to electrostatic interactions, and we conclude from the absence of a transition that the two pictures are different sides of the same coin, driven by the same fundamental processes. However, the slave-fermion framework adopted here is clearly not the appropriate method for investigating the crossover from the robustly Mott-insulating regime to the noninteracting limit.
Despite this deficiency far from its regime of validity, we have demonstrated that the holon-doublon representation provides both a full qualitative understanding of the underlying physics of the Mott insulator and a semi-quantitative account of its physical properties across the full range of intermediate and strong interactions. Our results for the Mott state have a transparent origin, not obscured by the complexities of a many-body numerical calculation, and indeed can be used to verify the features and parameter-dependences found in numerical studies. Although one may argue that the half-filled system at zero temperature is already fully characterised, the holon-doublon description we have introduced here provides a valuable foundation for understanding both the charge dynamics of the half-filled Hubbard model at finite temperatures and the evolution of the Mott gap as the system is doped away from half-filling.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank R. Yu for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 10934008, 10874215, and 11174365) and by the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant Nos. 2012CB921704 and 2011CB309703).
Hubbard Hamiltonian {#ahh}
===================
Heisenberg Model {#Heisenberg}
----------------
The spin degrees of freedom are assumed to be governed by the Heisenberg model, which is treated in the linear spin-wave approximation using the condensation assumption of equation (\[Condensation\]). Despite the extreme quantum nature of the $S = 1/2$ spins, a linear spin-wave treatment has been shown [@Auerbach-1994] to provide a good description of the ordered phase with only small, quantitative, and well characterised renormalisation parameters. In momentum space, the Hamiltonian can be expressed as $$H_{S} = {\textstyle \frac{1}{4}} Jzb_{0}^{2} \sum_{\mathbf{k}}(\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
s_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dag} & s_{-\mathbf{k}}
\end{array}
\!) \left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
1 & \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} \\ \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} & 1
\end{array}
\!\!\right) \left(\!\!
\begin{array}
[c]{c}
s_{\mathbf{k}} \\ s_{-\mathbf{k}}^{\dag}
\end{array}
\!\! \right) + C,$$ where $C$ is a constant. The Bogoliubov transformation $$\left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{c}
s_{\mathbf{k}} \\ s_{-\mathbf{k}}^{\dag}%
\end{array}
\!\!\right) = \left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
u_{\mathbf{k}} & v_{\mathbf{k}} \\
v_{\mathbf{k}} & u_{\mathbf{k}}
\end{array}
\!\!\right) \left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{c}
\alpha_{\mathbf{k}} \\ \alpha_{-\mathbf{k}}^{\dag}
\end{array}
\!\!\right) \!,$$ with $$u_{\mathbf{k}}^{2} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2\omega_{\mathbf{k}}}, \; v_{\mathbf{k}}^{2}
= - \frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2\omega_{\mathbf{k}}}, \; u_{\mathbf{k}} v_{\mathbf{k}} =
- \frac{\gamma_{\mathbf{k}}}{2\omega_{\mathbf{k}}}, \; \omega_{\mathbf{k}} = \sqrt{1
- \gamma_{\mathbf{k}}^{2}}
\label{Bogo}$$ and $$\gamma_{\mathbf{k}} = \frac{1}{z} \sum_{\boldsymbol{\delta}}
e^{i\mathbf{k\cdot}\boldsymbol{\delta}},$$ in which $z = 4$ is the coordination number and $\boldsymbol{\delta} = (\pm a,
0)$ and $(0, \pm a)$, yields the form $$H_{S} = \sum_{\mathbf{k}} \Omega_{\mathbf{k}} (\alpha_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dag}
\alpha_{\mathbf{k}} + {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}),$$ where $$\Omega_{\mathbf{k}} = {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}} J z b_{0}^{2} \omega_{\mathbf{k}}$$ is the magnon dispersion relation. In this approximation, the energy of the magnon is reduced by the self-consistent condensation parameter $b_{0}^{2}$, reflecting the renormalisation of the effective Heisenberg coupling constant caused by the on-site interaction, $U$.
The two types of magnon Green function are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
D_{1} \left( \mathbf{q}, \tau \right) & = - \left \langle T_{\tau}
\alpha_{\mathbf{q}} \left( \tau \right) \alpha_{\mathbf{q}}^{\dag} \left(
0 \right) \right \rangle \!, \nonumber \\
D_{2} \left( \mathbf{q}, \tau \right) & = - \left \langle T_{\tau}
\alpha_{\mathbf{q}}^{\dag} \left( \tau \right) \alpha_{\mathbf{q}} \left(
0 \right) \right \rangle \!,\end{aligned}$$ and their Fourier transforms are $$D_{1} \left( \mathbf{q}, i\omega_{n} \right) = \frac{1}{i\omega_{n}
- \Omega_{\mathbf{q}}}, \;\; D_{2} \left( \mathbf{q}, i\omega_{n} \right)
= - \frac{1}{i\omega_{n} + \Omega_{\mathbf{q}}}.$$ In figure \[Feynman\], $\mathbf{D}$ is a $2\times2$ matrix whose explicit form is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}_{11} & = g_{1}^{2} \left( \mathbf{k,q} \right) D_{1} + g_{2}^{2}
\left( \mathbf{k,q} \right) D_{2}, \nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{12} & = - g_{1} \left( \mathbf{k,q} \right) g_{2} \left(
\mathbf{k,q} \right) [D_{1} + D_{2}], \nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{21} & = - g_{1} \left( \mathbf{k,q} \right) g_{2} \left(
\mathbf{k,q} \right) [D_{1} + D_{2}], \nonumber \\
\mathbf{D}_{22} & = g_{2}^{2} \left( \mathbf{k,q} \right) D_{1} + g_{1}^{2}
\left( \mathbf{k,q} \right) D_{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
g_{1} (\mathbf{k,q}) & = {\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}
t b_{0} z (u_{q} \gamma_{q-k} + v_{q} \gamma_{k}), \nonumber \\
g_{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) & = {\textstyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}
t b_{0} z (u_{q} \gamma_{k} + v_{q} \gamma_{k-q}).
\label{gfunc}\end{aligned}$$
Hubbard model {#Hubbard}
-------------
Within the same condensation approximation, the full Hubbard Hamiltonian (\[HTU\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H& ={\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}U\sum_{\mathbf{k}}(d_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger }d_{%
\mathbf{k}}+e_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger }e_{\mathbf{k}}) \nonumber\\
& \quad +4tb_{0}^{2}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}(d_{\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger }e_{%
\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger }\gamma _{\mathbf{k}}+e_{\mathbf{k}}d_{\mathbf{Q}-%
\mathbf{k}}\gamma _{\mathbf{k}}) \nonumber\\
& \quad -\frac{tb_{0}z}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}d_{\mathbf{k}%
}^{\dagger }d_{\mathbf{k-q}}(\gamma _{\mathbf{k}}s_{-\mathbf{q}}^{\dagger
}+\gamma _{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}}s_{\mathbf{q}}) \nonumber\\
& \quad +\frac{tb_{0}z}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}}e_{\mathbf{k}%
}^{\dagger }e_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}}(\gamma _{\mathbf{k}}s_{-\mathbf{q}%
}^{\dagger }+\gamma _{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}}s_{\mathbf{q}}).
\label{Momentum}\end{aligned}$$ The first line expresses a mass term for the holons and doublons, whose pairing interaction, in the second line, gives them a dispersive kinetic term in the unperturbed charge Green function. The factor of $b_{0}^{2}$ contains the renormalisation of the pairing strength due to spin fluctuations. The third and fourth lines of equation (\[Momentum\]) express the fact that the hopping of holons and doublons is coupled with the emission and absorption of magnons, and we treat this three-body scattering interaction by the SCBA.
In terms of the Nambu spinor, $\psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} = (\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
d_{-\mathbf{k} + \mathbf{Q}}^{\dagger} & e_{\mathbf{k}}
\end{array}
\!\!)$, the Hamiltonian takes the matrix form $$H = H_{C} + H_{CS},
\label{ehccs}$$ in which $$H_{C} = \sum_{\mathbf{k}} \psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} \tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}}
\psi_{\mathbf{k}}
\label{ehc}$$ describes the charge dynamics, contained in the first two lines of equation (\[Momentum\]), while the interaction between the charge and spin degrees of freedom (latter two lines) is given by $$H_{CS} = \sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}} \psi_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger} M (\mathbf{k},
\mathbf{q}) \psi_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}};
\label{ehcs}$$ in equations (\[ehc\]) and (\[ehcs\]) we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}} = \left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
U/2 & 4t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} \\ 4t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} & - U/2
\end{array}
\!\!\right) \!\!, \nonumber \\ M (\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) = \left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
M_{11} (\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) & 0 \\ 0 & M_{22} (\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q})
\end{array}
\!\!\right) \!\!, \nonumber \\
M_{11} (\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) = g_{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \alpha_{\mathbf{q}}^{\dag}
+ g_{1} (\mathbf{k,q}) \alpha_{-\mathbf{q}}, \nonumber \\
M_{22} (\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) = - g_{1} (\mathbf{k,q}) \alpha_{\mathbf{q}}^{\dag}
- g_{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \alpha_{-\mathbf{q}}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The unperturbed charge Green function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{F}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) & = [i\omega_{n} -
\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}}]^{-1} \\
& = \frac{1}{(i\omega_{n} - E_{\mathbf{k}}) (i\omega_{n} + E_{\mathbf{k}})}
\left(\!\!
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
i\omega_{n} + U/2 & 4t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} \\
4t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} & i\omega_{n} - U/2
\end{array} \!\!\right) \!\!, \nonumber
\label{ZeroHamil}\end{aligned}$$ where $$E_{\mathbf{k}} = \sqrt{{\textstyle \frac{1}{4}} U^2 + (4t b_{0}^{2}
\gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^{2}}
\label{edisp}$$ is the quasiparticle dispersion relation for the charge degrees of freedom.
The self-consistent Dyson equation for the full Green function in the presence of spin-fluctuation interactions is calculated in the SCBA to deduce the Green function, $$\mathbf{F} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) = \frac{1}{i\omega_{n} -
\tilde{\varepsilon}_{\mathbf{k}} - \mathbf{\Sigma} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n})},
\label{ecgf}$$ of equation (\[egf\]) with the self-energy given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Sigma} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n})
& = \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\varepsilon \frac{1 - f(\varepsilon)}
{i\omega_{n} - \varepsilon - \Omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \mathbf{g} (\mathbf{k,q})
\mathbf{A}_{1} (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}, \varepsilon) \mathbf{g} (\mathbf{k,q})
\nonumber \\
& + \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} d\varepsilon \frac{f(\varepsilon)}
{i\omega_{n} - \varepsilon + \Omega_{\mathbf{q}}} \mathbf{g} (\mathbf{k,q})
\mathbf{A}_{2} (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}, \varepsilon) \mathbf{g} (\mathbf{k,q}),
\label{SelfE}\end{aligned}$$ in which $$\mathbf{g} (\mathbf{k,q}) = \left[
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
g_{1} (\mathbf{k,q}) & 0 \\ 0 & - g_{2} (\mathbf{k,q})
\end{array}
\right] \!\! ,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A}_{1} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) & = & \left[
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
A_{11} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) & A_{12} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) \\
A_{21} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) & A_{22} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon)
\end{array}
\right] \!\! , \\
\mathbf{A}_{2} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) & = & \left[
\begin{array}[c]{cc}
A_{22} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) & A_{12} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) \\
A_{21} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) & A_{11} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon)
\end{array}
\right] \!\! ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$A_{\alpha\beta} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon) = - \frac{1}{\pi} \rm{I}\rm{m}
F_{\alpha\beta}^{R} (\mathbf{k},\varepsilon + i \eta)$$ the spectral function corresponding to the retarded Green function and $f(\varepsilon)$ the Fermi distribution function.
Large-$U$ Limit {#largeulimit}
===============
Because the slave-fermion treatment of the Hubbard model is exact in the limit of strong on-site Coulomb repulsion, the SCBA affords valuable insight both into the limiting properties and into the effects of charge and spin fluctuations away from the limiting regime. In this appendix we review the magnetic order, Green function and approximate spectral properties at large $U$.
Bose Condensation and Magnetic Order {#lum}
------------------------------------
In the slave-fermion decomposition, the self-consistent condition has the form \[equation (\[Consist\])\] $$\frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{k}} \left[ \langle d_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger } d_{\mathbf{k}}
\rangle + \langle e_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger } e_{\mathbf{k}} \rangle + v_{\mathbf{k}}^{2}
\right] + b_{0}^{2} = 1,$$ where the coefficient $v_{\mathbf{k}}^{2}$ of the Bogoliubov transformation is defined in equation (\[Bogo\]). At half-filling and in the large-$U$ limit, $\sum_{\mathbf{k}} \langle d_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger } d_{\mathbf{k}} \rangle =
\sum_{\mathbf{k}} \langle e_{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger } e_{\mathbf{k}} \rangle = 0$, leaving $$b_{0}^{2} = 1 - \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{k}} v_{\mathbf{k}}^{2} \simeq 0.803$$ for the nearest-neighbour kinetic term.
In the Schwinger-boson representation, the staggered magnetisation of the magnetically ordered phase is related to this condensed fraction by $$\begin{aligned}
m_{s} & = & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \langle S_{i}^{z} \rangle = \frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i} \frac{1}{2} (\langle s_{i,\uparrow }^{\dag } s_{i,\uparrow} \rangle
- \langle s_{i,\downarrow }^{\dag } s_{i,\downarrow} \rangle) \nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2} b_{0}^{2} - \frac{1}{2N} \sum_{\mathbf{k}} v_{\mathbf{k}}^{2} \simeq
0.303.\end{aligned}$$ One observes that this treatment of the $S = 1/2$ system yields a remarkably accurate reproduction of the known ordered moment, $m_s \simeq 0.306$, computed by unbiased numerical methods [@Sandvik-1997]. Our calculations are performed on a square lattice of size $48 \times 48$ sites with periodic boundary conditions, and due to this finite-size effect give the approximate values $$b_{0}^{2} \simeq 0.821, \;\;\;\; m_{s} \simeq 0.321.$$
Green Function and Double Occupancy {#lud}
-----------------------------------
In the strong-coupling limit, to lowest order one may consider only the charge part of the Hamiltonian, $H_C$ in equation (\[ehccs\]), and neglect the terms $H_{CS}$ describing the interaction of the charge degrees of freedom with the spin fluctuations. In this approximation, the doublon Green function $$\mathbf{F}_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},\tau) = - \left\langle T_{\tau } \left[
d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}} (\tau) d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}}^{\dagger } (0) \right]
\right\rangle \!,$$ may be expressed as $$\mathbf{F}_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) = \frac{i\omega _{n} + U/2}
{(i\omega_{n} - E_{\mathbf{k}}) (i\omega_{n} + E_{\mathbf{k}})},
\label{edgf}$$ with $E_{\mathbf{k}}$ given in equation (\[edisp\]).
By rewriting equation (\[edgf\]) in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{F}_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},\omega +i\delta) & = & \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}}
+ U/2}{2E_{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{1}{\omega + i\delta - E_{\mathbf{k}}} + \,
\frac{E_{\mathbf{k}} - U/2}{2E_{\mathbf{k}}} \frac{1}{\omega + i\delta
+ E_{\mathbf{k}}},\end{aligned}$$ one obtains the spectral function $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A}_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},\omega) & = & \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}} + U/2}
{2E_{\mathbf{k}}} \delta (\omega - E_{\mathbf{k}}) + \, \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}} - U/2}
{2E_{\mathbf{k}}} \delta (\omega + E_{\mathbf{k}})
\label{edsf}\end{aligned}$$ and thus the zero-temperature doublon occupation function $$\langle d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}}^{\dagger} d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}} \rangle =
\int_{-\infty }^{\infty } \!\! d\omega f (\omega) A_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},\omega)
= \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}} - \frac{U}{2}}{2E_{\mathbf{k}}}.$$ By Taylor expansion of this expression, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}}^{\dagger} d_{-\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{Q}} \rangle
& \simeq & \frac{1}{U} \left\{ \frac{U}{2} \left[ 1 + \frac{1}{2}
\frac{4}{U^{2}} (4 t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^{2} \right] - \frac{U}{2}
\right\} \nonumber \\ & \simeq & (4 t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^{2}
\frac{1}{U^{2}}\end{aligned}$$ and the net doublon occupation is $$D \simeq \frac{1}{U^{2}} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{k}} (4 t b_{0}^{2}
\gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^{2} \simeq \frac{2.70}{U^{2}},$$ showing asymptotic $1/U^2$ scaling in the large-$U$ limit.
Mott Gap {#lug}
--------
In the limit of large $U$, one may assume that the strongest contributions to the renormalisation of the Mott gap are obtained at first order in the SCBA, with higher-order contributions being heavily suppressed. In this case it is safe to assume that the off-diagonal Green-function components, $\mathbf{F}_{12}$ and $\mathbf{F}_{21}$ in equation (\[ecgf\]), may be neglected in computing the self-energy corrections determining the Mott gap. From the doublon spectral function of equation (\[edsf\]) and its holon counterpart $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{A}_{22}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k},\omega) & = & \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}} - U/2}
{2E_{\mathbf{k}}} \delta (\omega - E_{\mathbf{k}}) + \, \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}} + U/2}
{2E_{\mathbf{k}}} \delta (\omega + E_{\mathbf{k}}),
\label{ehsf}\end{aligned}$$ the self-energy components \[equation (\[SelfE\])\] calculated in the SCBA are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Sigma }_{11} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) & = & \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_{1}^{2}
(\mathbf{k,q}) \int_{0}^{\infty } d\varepsilon \frac{A_{11}^{(0)}(\mathbf{k}
- \mathbf{q},\varepsilon )}{i\omega_{n}-\Omega_{\mathbf{q}} - \varepsilon}
[1 - f(\varepsilon )] \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_{2}^{2}(\mathbf{k,q}) \int_{-\infty }^{0} d\varepsilon
\frac{A_{11}^{(0)}(\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q},\varepsilon )}{i\omega _{n} +
\Omega_{\mathbf{q}}-\varepsilon} f(\varepsilon) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}} + U/2}{2E_{\mathbf{k}
- \mathbf{q}}} g_{1}^{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \frac{1}{i\omega_{n} - \Omega_{q}
- E_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \frac{E_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}} - U/2}{2E_{\mathbf{k}
- \mathbf{q}}} g_{2}^{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \frac{1}{i\omega _{n} + \Omega_{q}
+ E_{\mathbf{k}-\mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\
& \approx & \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_{1}^{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \frac{1}{i\omega _{n} - U/2}
\; = \; \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega _{n}-U/2},
\label{DSESCBA}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Sigma }_{22} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) & = & \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_{2}^{2}
(\mathbf{k,q}) \int_{0}^{\infty } d\varepsilon \frac{A_{22}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k}
- \mathbf{q},\varepsilon )}{i\omega_{n} - \Omega_{q} - \varepsilon}
[1 - f(\varepsilon )] \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_{1}^{2}(\mathbf{k,q}) \int_{-\infty }^{0} d\varepsilon
\frac{A_{22}^{(0)} (\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q},\varepsilon)}{i\omega_{n} +
\Omega_{q} - \varepsilon } f(\varepsilon ) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \frac{E_{\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}} - U/2}{2E_{\mathbf{k}
- \mathbf{q}}} g_{2}^{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \frac{1}{i\omega_{n} - \Omega_{q}
- E_{\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\
& & + \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \frac{E_{\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}} + U/2}{2E_{\mathbf{k}
- \mathbf{q}}} g_{1}^{2} (\mathbf{k,q}) \frac{1}{i\omega _{n} + \Omega_{q}
+ E_{\mathbf{k} - \mathbf{q}}} \nonumber \\
& \approx & \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_{1}^{2}(\mathbf{k,q}) \frac{1}{i\omega_{n} + U/2}
\; = \; \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega _{n}+U/2}, \label{HSESCBA}\end{aligned}$$ where $$a_{\mathbf{k}} = \sum_{\mathbf{q}} g_1^{2} (\mathbf{k,q}).
\label{eag}$$
The SCBA Green function \[equations (\[ZeroHamil\]) and (\[ecgf\])\] is then $$\mathbf{F} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
i\omega_{n} - U/2 - \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega _{n} - U/2} & - 4 t b_{0}^{2}
\gamma_{\mathbf{k}} \\ - 4 t b_{0}^{2} \gamma_{\mathbf{k}} & i\omega_{n} + U/2
- \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} + U/2} \! \end{array} \right]^{\!-1} \!,
\nonumber
\label{ZeroHamil2}$$ whose doublon and holon components are $$\begin{aligned}
\fl \mathbf{F}_{11} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) = \label{DSCBA} \frac{i\omega_{n}
+ U/2 - \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} + U/2}}{\left[ i\omega_{n} - U/2
- \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} - U/2}\right] \! \left[i\omega_{n} + U/2
- \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} + U/2}\right] - (4 t b_{0}^{2}
\gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^{2}}, \\
\fl \mathbf{F}_{22} (\mathbf{k},i\omega_{n}) = \label{HSCBA} \frac{i\omega_{n}
- U/2 - \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} + U/2}}{\left[ i\omega_{n} - U/2
- \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} - U/2}\right] \! \left[i\omega_{n} + U/2
- \frac{a_{\mathbf{k}}}{i\omega_{n} + U/2}\right] - (4 t b_{0}^{2}
\gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ These functions both have four poles, which are the same in both cases, $$E_k^m = \pm \frac12 \sqrt{4 a_{\mathbf{k}} + 2 b_{\mathbf{k}} + U^2 \pm 2
\sqrt{4 a_{\mathbf{k}} b_{\mathbf{k}} + b_{\mathbf{k}}^2 + 4 a_{\mathbf{k}} U^2}},
\label{efpdhgf}$$ where we have defined $b_{\mathbf{k}} = (4 t b_0^2 \gamma_{\mathbf{k}})^2$. Thus the holon and doublon gaps are both given by $$\Delta_{e,\mathbf{k}} = \Delta_{d,\mathbf{k}} \approx U - 2\sqrt{a_{\mathbf{k}}}$$ in the limit of large $U$.
The electron Green function is the convolution of the holon and doublon Green functions, which include the magnon renormalisation effects, and hence the Mott gap is given by the holon and doublon gaps. From figure \[Resolved\](a), it is clear that the minimum value of this gap corresponds to the high density of states giving the clear peaks in figure \[Spectral\](b). Thus by setting $\mathbf{k} = (\pi/2,\pi/2)$ and performing the $\mathbf{q}$-sum over the Brillouin zone within $a_{\mathbf{k}}$ (\[eag\]) we obtain (main text) $$\Delta = {\rm min}|_{\mathbf{k}} \left[ U - 2 \sqrt{a_{\mathbf{k}}} \right]
\; = \; U - 3.77$$ in the strong-coupling limit. We conclude that the approach of the Mott gap, $\Delta/U = 1 - 3.77/U$, to unity due to the suppression of spin fluctuations in this regime is proportional to $1/U$. Because this derivation considers only the first order in the self-consistent renormalisation scheme, one may expect the coefficient to be larger than $3.77$ if higher-order processes are included.
Optical conductivity {#Opticalconductivity}
====================
The conductivity tensor $\sigma_{\mu\nu} (\mathbf{q},\omega)$ is defined as the linear response of the charge current density in a solid to the total electric field, $$\left\langle \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu} (\mathbf{q},\omega) \right\rangle
= \sum_{\nu} \sigma_{\mu\nu} (\mathbf{q},\omega) E_{\nu} (\mathbf{q},\omega),$$ where $\mu$ and $\nu$ denote Cartesian coordinates and $\left\langle
\mathcal{\dots} \right\rangle$ denotes the equilibrium average; we use units where $e = 1$, $\hbar = 1$ and $c = 1$. The long-wavelength $(\mathbf{q} = 0)$ limit of the real part, $[\sigma_{\mu\nu}
(\omega)]$, is referred to as the optical conductivity, because the wavelength of electromagnetic waves far exceeds the characteristic length scales of condensed matter systems, so here we derive this limit.
For a lattice system, the hopping parameter in the presence of an electromagnetic field is expressed by the Peierls substitution [@Bergeron-2011] as $$t_{ij} = t_{ij}^{0} \rm{e}\rm{x}\rm{p} \left[ i \int_{i}^{j} d\mathbf{l}
\cdot \mathbf{A} (\mathbf{r},t) \right] \!\!,$$ where $\int_{i}^{j} d \mathbf{l} \cdot \mathbf{A} (\mathbf{r},t)$ is the integral of the vector potential along the hopping path. For a spatially uniform electric field, the vector potential can be taken as independent of position, $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{r},t) \rightarrow \mathbf{A} (t)$. By restricting to the linear-response regime, expanding the phase factors to second order in $\mathbf{A} (t)$ and taking the Fourier transform, one obtains the current operator in the form $$\mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu} (\mathbf{k},t) = \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(1)}
(\mathbf{k},t) + \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(2)} (\mathbf{k},t) ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(1)} (\mathbf{q},t) = - \sum_{\mathbf{k},\sigma}
\frac{\partial\varepsilon_{(2\mathbf{k+q})/2}}{\partial k_{x}}
c_{\mathbf{k},\sigma}^{\dag} c_{\mathbf{k+q},\sigma}, \\
& \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(2)} (\mathbf{q},t) = - \sum_{\mathbf{k},\mathbf{p},\sigma}
\frac{\partial^{2}\varepsilon_{(\mathbf{k+p})/2}}{\partial k_{x}^{2}}
c_{\mathbf{k},\sigma}^{\dag} c_{\mathbf{p},\sigma} A_{\mathbf{k-p}+\mathbf{q}}^{\mu} (t),\end{aligned}$$ with $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{k}}$ the electron dispersion relation.
$\mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(1)} (\mathbf{k},t)$ is known as the paramagnetic current and $\mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(2)} (\mathbf{k},t)$ as the diamagnetic one. The latter is already linear with respect to the applied field but for the former the Kubo formula is required. To linear order in the applied field, the interaction term in the Hamiltonian is given by $$H^{\prime} (t) = - \frac{1}{i\omega} \sum_{\mathbf{q}} \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\mu}^{(1)}
(-\mathbf{q}) \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{q}}^{\mu} e^{-i \omega t}.$$ The imaginary-time current-current correlation function is defined as $$\Pi_{\alpha\beta} (\mathbf{q},\tau) = - \frac{1}{N} \left\langle T_{\tau} \left[
\mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\alpha}^{(1)} (\mathbf{q},\tau) \mathcal{\hat{J}}_{\beta}^{(1)}
(-\mathbf{q},0) \right] \right\rangle$$ and its Fourier transform as $$\Pi_{\alpha\beta} (\mathbf{q},i\omega_{n}) = \int_{0}^{\beta} d\tau e^{i\omega_{n}\tau}
\Pi_{\alpha\beta} (\mathbf{q},\tau),$$ both of which are obtained from the charge Green function of equation (\[ecgf\]). Finally, the conductivity in the $x$ direction is given by $$\begin{aligned}
& \sigma_{xx} (\mathbf{q},\omega) = \frac{i}{\omega} \left[ \Pi_{xx}^{R}
(\mathbf{q},\omega) + \frac{1}{N} \sum_{\mathbf{k},\sigma} \frac{\partial^{2}
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{k}}}{\partial k_{x}^{2}} \langle c_{\mathbf{k},\sigma}^{\dag}
c_{\mathbf{k},\sigma} \rangle \right] \!\!,\end{aligned}$$ whence the real part of the optical conductivity in the limit $\mathbf{q} = 0$ is $$\mathrm{Re} [\sigma_{xx} (\omega)] = - \mathrm{Im} \left[ \frac{1}{\omega}
\Pi_{xx}^{R} (\omega) \right] \!\!.$$
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Imada M, Fujimori A and Tokura Y 1998 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**70**]{}, 1039
de Boer J H and Verwey E J W 1937 [*Proc. Phys. Soc. London*]{} [**49**]{}, 59
Mott N F and Peierls R 1937 [*Proc. Phys. Soc. London*]{} [**49**]{}, 72
Mott N F 1949 [*Proc. Phys. Soc. London, Sect. A*]{} [**62**]{}, 416
Mott N F 1956 [*Can. J. Phys*]{} [**34**]{}, 1356
Bednorz J G and Müller K A 1986 [*Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter*]{} [**64**]{}, 189
Hubbard J 1963 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A*]{} [**276**]{}, 238
Lieb E H and Wu F Y 1968 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**20**]{}, 1445
Metzner W and Vollhardt D 1989 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**62**]{}, 324
Georges A, Kotliar G, Krauth W and Rozenberg M J 1996 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**68**]{}, 13
Hubbard J 1964 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A*]{} [**277**]{}, 237
Hubbard J 1964 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A*]{} [**281**]{}, 401
Hubbard J 1965 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A*]{} [**285**]{}, 542
Hubbard J 1967 [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A*]{} [**296**]{}, 82
Brinkman W F and Rice T M 1970 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**2**]{}, 4302
Gutzwiller M C 1965 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**137**]{}, A1726
Hirsch J E 1985 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**31**]{}, 4403
White S R, Scalapino D J, Sugar R L, Loh E Y, Gubernatis J E and Scalettar R T 1989 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**40**]{}, 506
Raghu S, Kivelson S A and Scalapino D J 2010 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**81**]{}, 224505
Dagotto E, Ortolani F and Scalapino D J 1992 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**46**]{}, 3183
Feng G S and White S R 1992 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**46**]{}, 8691(R)
Leung P W, Liu Z P, Manousakis E, Novotny M A and Oppenheimer P E 1992 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**46**]{}, 11779
Dagotto E 1994 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**66**]{}, 763
Eder R, Seki K and Ohta Y 2011 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**83**]{}, 205137
White S R 1991 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**44**]{}, 4670
Bulut N, Scalapino D J and White S R 1994 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**73**]{}, 748
Preuss R, Hanke W and von der Linden W 1995 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{}, 1344
Gröber C, Eder R and Hanke W 2000 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**62**]{}, 4336
Varney C N, Lee C R, Bai Z J, Chiesa S, Jarrell M and Scalettar R T 2009 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**80**]{}, 075116
Baeriswyl D, Eichenberger D and Menteshashvili M 2009 [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**11**]{}, 075010
Yanagisawa T 2013 [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**15**]{}, 033012
Vitali E, Shi H, Qin M P and Zhang S W 2016 unpublished (arXiv:1606.04785)
Sénéchal D, Perez D and Pioro-Ladrière M 2000 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 522
Sénéchal D, Perez D and Plouffe D 2002 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**66**]{}, 075129
Sénéchal D and Tremblay A M S 2004 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{}, 126401
Kohno M 2012 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 076401
Kohno M 2014 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**90**]{}, 035111
Wang Y, Wohlfeld K, Moritz B, Jia C J, van Veenendaal M, Wu K, Chen C C and Devereaux T P 2015 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**92**]{}, 075119
Potthoff M, Aichhorn M and Dahnken C 2003 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 206402
Dahnken C, Aichhorn M, Hanke W, Arrigoni E and Potthoff M 2004 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**70**]{}, 245110
Sénéchal D, Lavertu P L, Marois M A and Tremblay A M S 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, 156404
Aichhorn M, Arrigoni E, Huang Z B and Hanke W 2007 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{}, 257002
Schäfer T, Geles F, Rost D, Rohringer G, Arrigoni E, Held K, Blümer N, Aichhorn M and Toschi A 2015 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**91**]{}, 125109
Kotliar G, Savrasov S Y, Pálsson G and Biroli G 2001 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 186401
Stanescu T D, Civelli M, Haule K and Kotliar G 2006 [*Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)*]{} [**321**]{}, 1682
Park H, Haule K and Kotliar G 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{}, 186403
Gull E, Millis A J, Lichtenstein A I, Rubtsov A N, Troyer M and Werner P 2011 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**83**]{}, 349
Sentef M, Werner P, Gull E and Kampf A P 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{}, 126401
Sordi G, Sémon P, Haule K, and Tremblay A M S 2012 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**108**]{}, 216401
LeBlanc J P F [*et al*]{} 2015 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}X [**5**]{}, 041041
Corboz P 2016 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**93**]{}, 045116
Anderson P W 1997 [*Adv. Phys.*]{} [**46**]{}, 3
Auerbach A 1994 [*Interacting Electrons and Quantum Magnetism*]{} (Springer-Verlag, New York)
Castellani C, Di Castro C, Feinberg D and Ranninger J 1979 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**43**]{}, 1957
Kaplan T A, Horsch P and Fulde P 1982 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**49**]{}, 889
Capello M, Becca F, Fabrizio M, Sorella S and Tosatti E 2005 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, 026406
Capello M, Becca F, Yunoki S and Sorella S 2006 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**73**]{}, 245116
Yokoyama H, Ogata M and Tanaka Y 2006 [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**75**]{}, 114706
Miyagawa T and Yokoyama H 2011 [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**80**]{}, 084705
Miyagawa T and Yokoyama H 2011 [*Physica C*]{} [**471**]{}, 738
Leigh R G, Phillips P and Choy T P 2007 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{}, 046404
Leigh R G and Phillips P 2009 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**79**]{}, 245120
Phillips P 2010 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{}, 1719
Dzyaloshinskii I 2003 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**68**]{}, 085113
Sakai S, Motome Y and Imada M 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{}, 056404
Sakai S, Motome Y and Imada M 2010 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**82**]{}, 134505
Yamaji Y and Imada M 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [ **106**]{}, 016404
Zhou S, Wang Y and Wang Z 2014 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [ **89**]{}, 195119
Stanescu T D, Phillips P and Choy T P 2007 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**75**]{}, 104503
Schmitt-Rink S, Varma C M and Ruckenstein A E 1988 [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**60**]{}, 2793
Kane C L, Lee P A and Read N 1989 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**39**]{}, 6880
Marsiglio F, Ruckenstein A E, Schmitt-Rink S and Varma C M 1991 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**43**]{}, 10882
Martinez G and Horsch P 1991 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [ **44**]{}, 317
Bała J, Oleś A M and Zaanen J 1995 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**52**]{}, 4597
Xiang T and Wheatley J M 1996 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [ **54**]{}, R12653
Brinkman W F and Rice T M 1970 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**2**]{}, 1324
Kim J, Daghofer M, Said A H, Gog T, van den Brink J, Khaliullin G and Kim B J 2014 [*Nat. Commun.*]{} [**5**]{}, 4453
Barnes S E 1976 [*J. Phys. F*]{} [**6**]{}, 1375
Barnes S E 1977 [*J. Phys. F*]{} [**7**]{}, 2637
Zou Z and Anderson P W 1988 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**37**]{}, 627
Yoshioka D 1989 [*J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.*]{} [**58**]{}, 1516
Xiang T, Luo H G, Lu D H, Shen K M and Shen Z X 2009 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**79**]{}, 014524
Hirsch J E and Tang S 1989 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**39**]{}, 2850
Manousakis E 1991 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**63**]{}, 1
Kotliar G, Lange E and Rozenberg M J 2000 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 5180
Leong W H, Yu S L, Xiang T and Li J X 2014 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**90**]{}, 245102
Yang K Y, Rice T M and Zhang F C 2006 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**73**]{}, 174501
Sangiovanni G [*et al*]{} 2006 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**73**]{}, 205121
Damascelli A, Hussain Z and Shen Z X 2003 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**75**]{}, 473
Basov D N and Timusk T 2005 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**77**]{}, 721
Basov D N, Averitt R D, van der Marel D, Dressel M and Haule K 2011 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**83**]{}, 471
Ye C, Cai P, Yu R, Zhou X D, Ruan W, Liu Q Q, Jin C Q, and Wang Y Y 2013 [*Nat. Commun.*]{} [**4**]{}, 1365
Luttinger J M 1960 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**119**]{}, 1153
Luttinger J M and Ward J C 1960 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**118**]{}, 1417
Oshikawa M 2000 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 3370
Uchida S, Ido T, Takagi H, Arima T, Tokura Y and Tajima S 1991 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**43**]{}, 7942
Zaanen J, Sawatzky G A and Allen J W 1985 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**55**]{}, 418
Meinders M B J, Eskes H and Sawatzky G A 1993 [ *Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**48**]{}, 3916
Dagotto E, Moreo A, Ortolani F, Riera J and Scalapino D J 1992 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**45**]{}, 10107
Tohyama T, Inoue Y, Tsutsui K and Maekawa S 2005 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**72**]{}, 045113
Taranto C, Sangiovanni G, Held K, Capone M, Georges A and Toschi A 2012 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**85**]{}, 085124
Lin N, Gull E and Millis A J 2009 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**80**]{}, 161105(R)
Sandvik A W 1997 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**56**]{}, 11678
Bergeron D, Hankevych V, Kyung B and Tremblay A M S 2011 [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}B [**84**]{}, 085128
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
If fast radio bursts (FRBs) originate from galaxies at cosmological distances, then their all-sky rate implies that the Milky Way may host an FRB every 30–1500 years, on average. If many FRBs persistently repeat for decades or more, a local giant FRB could be active now, with 1 GHz flux radio pulses of $\sim 3\times 10^{10}$ Jy, comparable to the fluxes and frequencies detectable by cellular communication devices (cell phones, Wi-Fi, GPS). We propose searching for Galactic FRBs using a global array of low-cost radio receivers. One possibility is the $\sim
1$ GHz communication channel in cellular phones, through a Citizens-Science downloadable application. Participating phones would continuously listen for and record candidate FRBs and would periodically upload information to a central data-processing website which will identify the signature of a real, globe-encompassing, FRB from an astronomical distance. Triangulation of the GPS-based pulse arrival times reported from different Earth locations will provide the FRB sky position, potentially to arcsecond accuracy. Pulse arrival times versus frequency, from reports from phones operating at diverse frequencies, or from fast signal de-dispersion by the application, will yield the dispersion measure (DM). Compared to a Galactic DM model, it will indicate the source distance within the Galaxy. A variant approach uses the built-in $\sim 100$ MHz FM-radio receivers present in cell phones for an FRB search at lower frequencies. Alternatively, numerous “software-defined radio” (SDR) devices, costing $\sim$\$10 US each, could be deployed and plugged into USB ports of personal computers (particularly in radio-quiet locations) to establish the global network of receivers.
author:
- 'Dan Maoz$^{1}$, Abraham Loeb$^{1,2}$\'
bibliography:
- 'wdbib.bib'
title: 'Searching for giga-Jansky fast radio bursts from the Milky Way with a global array of low-cost radio receivers '
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: radio continuum, variables
Introduction
============
The origin and nature of fast radio bursts (FRBs) have remained enigmatic since the first FRB discovery by @lorimer07. The $
17$ or so distinct FRB sources that have been reported so far are bright ($\sim 0.1$–$1~{\rm Jy}$) and brief ($\sim 1~{\rm ms}$) pulses of $\sim 1~{\rm GHz}$ radio emission [@lorimer07; @keane12; @thornton13; @spitler14; @burke-spolaor14; @petroff15a; @ravi15; @champion16; @masui15; @keane16]. The pulse arrival times of FRBs show a $\nu^{-2}$ frequency dependence indicative of a passage through a cold plasma, with the so-called dispersion measure (DM) measuring the line-of-sight column density of free electrons. FRBs are selected to have large measured DMs of $\sim
300-1600$ pc cm$^{-3}$, in excess of the values expected from models of the interstellar electron distribution in the Milky Way galaxy, and have therefore been inferred to originate from extragalactic sources at cosmological distances. The cosmological distance has been confirmed in the case of the sole repeating FRB 121102, which has been localised to a dwarf galaxy at redshift $z=0.19$ [@chatterjee; @tendulkar; @marcote].
The range of excess (above Galactic) DMs of the known FRBs correspond to a range of co-moving distances of 0.9–4.4 Gpc, with a median of 2.4 Gpc (corresponding to a redshift of $z=0.64$), under the assumption that most of the excess DM is contributed by the intergalactic medium and using the standard cosmological parameters [@planck]. The latest estimate of the all-sky rate of FRBs with flux $>0.3$ Jy is $1.1^{+3.8}_{-1.0}\times 10^4~{\rm day}^{-1}$ at 95% confidence [@scholz16]. This estimate is based on the single detection of FRB 121102, and ignoring the fact that it has been detected repeatedly over a period of 4 years. We note that some other recent rate estimates have smaller uncertainties, but find, to varying degrees of significance, a dependence of rate on Galactic latitude (see, e.g., [@vanderwiel16], and references therein). By adopting the @scholz16 rate and its uncertainty, we encompass this uncertainty in the latitude dependence as well.
If FRBs occur in Milky-Way-like galaxies, we can divide the observed cosmological rate by the number of galaxies within the FRB survey volume, to find the expected FRB rate within a single such galaxy. We note that the recently localised FRB 121102 comes from an extreme-emission-line dwarf galaxy [@tendulkar], quite unlike the Milky Way. However, this host galaxy is not necessarily representative of all FRB hosts. The product between the comoving number density of $L_*$ galaxies, $\sim
10^{-2}~{\rm Mpc^{-3}}$ [@prada], and the cosmological volume out to the median distance of known FRBs, $57$ comoving Gpc$^3$, implies that an FRB should occur in our galaxy once per $140^{+1400}_{-110}$ years [@lingam17]. A 0.3 Jy FRB from a comoving distance of $2.4$ Gpc (a luminosity distance of $3.9$ Gpc), placed at a typical Galactic distance of $\sim 10$ kpc, would have an observed 1 GHz flux density of $f_\nu\approx 3\times 10^{10}$ Jy or, equivalently, $3\times
10^{-16}~{\rm W~m}^{-2} {\rm Hz}^{-1}$. FRB 121102 has been bursting repeatedly for at least 4 years. If most FRBs persist for decades or even centuries, a Galactic FRB could be active now. A powerful local FRB may have already been detected in the far side-lobes of radio telescope beams, but mistakenly ascribed to artificial interference.
Indeed, the radio flux density level of the received GHz-band signals from commercial radio stations, cellular communications and wireless networks is within a few orders of magnitude of the expected flux level from a Galactic FRB. For example, a typical desktop Wi-Fi transmitter operating at 2.4 GHz under the 802.11b standard has a radiated power of 100 mW over an 82 MHz bandpass with an outdoor range of $\sim 100$ m, corresponding to a detected flux density of $f_\nu=1\times 10^{-14}~ {\rm W~m}^{-2} {\rm Hz}^{-1}$. Each of the transmitter’s individual channels has a bandpass of 22 MHz, and therefore a time resolution of $\Delta t \sim 2\times 10^{-8}$ s. By binning an incoming signal into millisecond ($\Delta t=10^{-3}$ s) time bins a Wi-Fi receiver would improve its sensitivity in proportion to $\sqrt{\Delta t}$, i.e. by a factor of $\sim
200$, to a level of $f_\nu\sim 5\times 10^{-17}~ {\rm W~m}^{-2} {\rm
Hz}^{-1}$ ($5\times 10^9$ Jy, i.e. 5 GJy). This is a factor 6 fainter than the typical Galactic FRB flux discussed above, and means that such a Galactic FRB, and even fainter and perhaps-more-frequent FRBs, would be detectable by existing communication devices. In the subsequent sections, we outline how an array of numerous low-cost radio receivers can be used to detect and localise giant Galactic FRBs.
A global array of cellular receivers for Galactic FRB detection
===============================================================
We consider below three related technical approaches to the assembly of an array of low-cost radio receivers, suitable for the detection of Galactic FRBs. The choice of the most practical approach will depend on several issues that need to be resolved, such as the ability to access and manipulate raw radio signals picked up by the antennas, the flux from FRBs at sub-GHz frequencies, the level of terrestrial noise at different locations, and the ability to filter out that foreground noise.
A cell phone communications channel approach
--------------------------------------------
There are currently an estimated 7 billion active cellular phone accounts on our planet (similar to the number of people), operating in several frequency bands, from 0.8 to 2.4 GHz. Each of these phones is, as argued above, a radio receiver that is in principle sensitive to a Galactic FRB signal. Furthermore, every smartphone is a programmable computer capable of analyzing the signal, of timing it up to $\Delta t
\sim 10^{-7}$ s precision with its global-positioning system (GPS) module, of storing this information, and of diffusing it through the internet.
We propose therefore to build a Citizens-Science project in which participants voluntarily download onto their phones an application that runs in the background some or all of the time, monitoring the phone’s antenna input for candidate broad-band millisecond-timescale pulses that appear similar to an FRB. The application would record candidate FRB pulses (most of which originate from artificial and natural noise sources) and would periodically upload the candidate pulse information (pulse profile, GPS-based arrival time), along with information about the phone (GPS-based location, operating frequency) to a central processing website. The central website will continuously correlate the incoming information from all participants, to identify the signature of a real, globe-encompassing, FRB.
Because of the received signal’s integration into ms time bins (required to improve the sensitivity to FRB levels, see above), every phone’s actual arrival time accuracy will be no better than $10^{-3}$ s. However, improved time precision can be recovered by averaging the reported arrival times recorded by many participating phones at a similar location. For example, averaging the ms-precision reports from 10,000 phones within a city of radius 3 km (light travel time $<10^{-5}$ s), would improve the precision by a factor of 100, to $\sim 10^{-5}$ s. Triangulation of the GPS-timed pulse arrival times from different Earth locations would then give the FRB sky position to an accuracy of order $\sim c\Delta t/2R_\oplus\sim 1$ arcmin. If time binning of the FRB signal, and subsequent loss of the native $10^{-7}$ s GPS timing precision could be avoided (a possibility considered in some of the other technical frameworks that we propose below), then naturally the localisation precision can be improved down to the sub-arcsecond level.
Because of the $\nu^{-2}$ arrival-time dependence of a radio pulse propagating through the Galactic plasma, phones operating at diverse frequencies (multiple networks and phone models) will receive the signal at a time delay, $$\delta t= 0.144\times\left({{\rm DM}\over 200~{\rm
pc~cm^{-3}}}\right)\left({\nu\over {\rm 2.4 GHz}}\right)^{-2} ~{\rm s} .$$ Over, e.g., a 22 MHz cellphone channel bandwidth at 2.4 GHz, a typical Galactic DM of $200~{\rm pc~cm^{-3}}$ [@Rane_16] will spread the FRB arrival time over just 2.6 ms, comparable to typical FRB pulse widths. The channel bandwidth therefore will not result in any significant smearing of the pulse over time, which could have reduced the detection sensitivity and timing precision. By comparing the arrival times of different frequencies at the same locations, the central website will be able to solve for the FRB’s DM that, when compared to a Galactic DM model [@cordes02; @yao16], will indicate the FRB source distance within the Galaxy. Alternatively, the application software itself could attempt to de-disperse all candidate incoming signals across the full frequency range available to each receiver. With efficient new algorithms, real-time de-dispersion of FRB signals is now feasible on small computers [@Zackay_14; @Zackay_17], and so is likely possible on smartphones as well. In such a scenario, the identification of a $\nu^{-2}$ frequency sweep would be a real-time test of incoming signals, performed at the level of each individual receiver.
One clear advantage of the above operation plan is that it is essentially cost free—all of the necessary hardware (the world’s cell phones) is already in place, and one needs only to carry out the plan’s organizational steps in order to make it work for the scientific program. Potential problems with this proposed mode are, first, that cell phones may be hardwired at the basic electronics level to demodulate and digitize incoming communications signals, and therefore the raw broad-band radio signal containing the FRB may be inaccessible to software. Furthermore, mobile phone communications are encoded so as to allow many users to share the frequency band, and this encoding permits the detection of communication signals at sub-noise levels (as opposed to the un-encoded FRB signal).
The sought-after millisecond-timescale FRB signal will need to be disentangled from the foreground noise of cellular and other communications emissions, as well as from natural radio noise from atmospheric processes and from the sun. Although the feasibility of this requires further study, the prospects look promising based on a number of past attempts. @katz2003 review a handful of experiments, and decribe their own experiment, which is similar to our proposal. The basic concept consisted of a number of wide-angle, geographically distributed radio receivers that searched for short radio bursts, separating astronomical signals from noise by requiring coincident detections. @katz2003 used three 611 MHz receivers in the eastern US, sensitive to $\gtrsim 3\times 10^4$ Jy bursts ($2\times 10^5$ fainter than considered here) on timescales $\gtrsim 125$ ms (50 times longer than here). The recorded, GPS-time-stamped, bursts were periodically uploaded to a central processing station, exactly as in our proposed plan.
Over 18 months of continuous operation, @katz2003 detected a burst roughly every 10 s, but 99.9% of these signals could be rejected as local interference based on their non-coincidence between the three receivers. The remaining $\sim 4000$ coincident signals could all be traced to solar radio bursts, by comparison to reports from a solar radio observatory. No other astronomical sources were detected by @katz2003 nor by previous experiments. Interestingly, @katz2003 succeeded in using their GPS signal, with its $10^{-7}$ s accuracy, to time-stamp their detected bursts to the accuracy of their 20 $\mu$s-long individual time samples, and they note that, in principle, they could have used a multiple-time-sample averaging period shorter than 0.125 s (at the expense of sensitivity). This would have allowed them to triangulate their source localisations, just as we propose to do.
A cell phone FM radio channel approach
--------------------------------------
Most or all cell phones have built-in FM-band radio receivers operating at around $\nu\sim 100$ MHz and enabling direct (i.e. not through the internet or the service provider) reception of radio broadcasts. Interestingly, this hardware is de-activated by phone manufacturers in about $\sim {2\over 3}$ of all phones, in the service-providers’ interest of having the customers download and pay for the radio broadcasts, rather than receiving them for free. Nevertheless, about ${1\over 3}$ of all phones (still a sizeable number when considering the global number) do have the direct FM reception option activated. The raw, non-demodulated radio signal from this channel is more likely to be accessible to the application software in its search for an FRB signal than in the preceeding approach using the $\sim 1$ GHz cellular communication channel. A shortcoming of this option, however, is the yet-unknown properties of FRBs at $\sim
100$ MHz frequencies. Current upper limits from FRB searches at 145 MHz [@karastergiou] and 139-170 MHz [@tingay], limit the FRB spectral slope to $>+0.1$. As with the $\sim 1$ GHz cellular-communications option, discussed above, here too integration over time could make a typical Galactic FRB detectable at 100 MHz, even for more positive slopes as high as $+1$, such that the FRB would have $\gtrsim 5$ GJy at 100 MHz. The foreground noise question in this option is similar (though in a different frequency band) to that in the previous, cellular-communications, option.
A software-defined radio approach
---------------------------------
A software-defined radio (SDR) is a radio system where components such as filters, amplifiers, demodulators, etc., that are typically implemented in hardware, are implemented instead in software on a personal computer. SDR devices are widely available for $\sim$\$10 US a piece, and they are popular with radio amateurs. They are often the size of a memory stick and likewise can be USB plugged. An SDR device includes an antenna than can detect the full raw ambient radio emissions over some frequency range and can input them with minimal processing into a computer, where the signals can be software-processed at will. Our third approach is therefore to deploy a large number (depending on the available budget) of such SDR devices, to be plugged into participating personal computers around the globe, or base the network on devices already in use by participating radio amateurs. As with the phone option, the participants will download and install software that will continuously monitor the input from the SDR. As before, the computers will upload the information on candidate Milky Way FRBs to a central data-processing website.
A disadvantage of this approach is the need to actually buy and send the SDR hardware to the selected participating individuals of the network (unless one takes the existing-amateur-SDR approach). The advantages involve having an accessible FRB signal, uniformly processed and fully analysable at will (including spectral information from every station). Every SDR could be supplemented with a simple exterior antenna or antenna booster (wireless reception boosters are also widely and inexpensively available for cell phones and laptops) that would considerably enhance its sensitivity, lowering or fully avoiding the need for time integration, and hence for the sacrifice of timing precision, or simply probing for fainter and more frequent bursts (see below). Furthermore, the ability to choose the stations sites at will in a well-spaced global network, specifically in “radio-quiet” locations with minimal artificial and natural radio interference, may prove to be the most important benefit.
Lower-flux, more-common Galactic FRBs
=====================================
A major practical problem of the schemes described above are the long and uncertain timescales—decades to many centuries—expected for the detection of a single, Galactic $3\times 10^{10}$ Jy FRB, unless typical FRBs persistently repeat for decades or centuries (which is a real possibility, given the case of FRB 121102). If FRBs typically do not repeat, then even for the more optimistic end of the rate estimate, broadcasting standards, phone models and other technical factors, may change over a decade, not to mention the limited patience of the participants and the experiment managers. A resolution of this concern, however, could be based on the fact that FRBs must have a distribution of luminosities. Indeed, if the known FRBs are at the cosmological distances indicated by their excess DMs, then they are clearly not “standard candles”. A reasonable expectation is then that FRB numbers increase at decreasing luminosities. If so, lower-luminosity FRBs should be detected more frequently by the global cellular network.
Let us assume that we can parameterize the FRB number per unit luminosity with a Schechter form, $${dN \over d(\log L_\nu)} \propto L_\nu^{-\alpha+1}e^{-L_\nu/L_{F\star}},$$ where $L_{F\star}$ corresponds to the characteristic specific luminosity of an FRB source (namely, the one that yields an observed flux density of $\sim 0.3~$Jy at a luminosity distance of $\sim 4$ Gpc). One way to calibrate $\alpha$ is by speculating that the Galactic population of rotating radio transients (RRATs), which have some properties in common with FRBs, constitute the low-luminosity counterparts of FRBs. The rate of RRATs over the entire sky at a flux of $\sim 0.3$ Jy is $\sim 10^6~{\rm
day}^{-1}$, based on the estimated number of sources in the Galaxy, $\sim 10^5$, and their individual repetition rates, $\sim 10$ day$^{-1}$[@mclaughlin06]. The RRAT rate is thus $\sim
10^{11}$ times the Galactic FRB rate (of once per 300 yr, i.e. $10^{-5}$ day$^{-1}$). The RRAT flux of $\sim 0.3$ Jy, in turn, corresponds to $\sim 10^{-11}$ the typical flux of a Galactic FRB. If these two populations of transient radio sources are related, then $\alpha\approx 2$. Interestingly, this value corresponds to an equal luminosity contribution from transients per logarithmic interval of luminosity.
The flux distribution from a Galactic FRB population having a particular luminosity will be $(dN/d(\log f_\nu))\vert_{L_\nu}
\propto f_\nu^{-3/2}$ for a spherically distributed population (e.g. in the Galactic halo), or $\propto f_\nu^{-1}$ for a planar distribution (e.g. the Galactic disk)— coincidentally matching the power-law scaling at low fluxes in the luminosity function for $\alpha=2$. At a 5 GJy flux level, still detectable by our proposed arrays, one might then expect to find Galactic FRBs 6 times more frequently than at 30 GJy, i.e. once per 5 to 250 years. Increasing the sensitivity by one or two orders of magnitudes, e.g. by adding simple antennas in the SRD option, would potentially allow for the detection of Galactic FRBs on a yearly to weekly basis, and for the direct determination of their luminosity function.
Conclusions
===========
The first, and so-far only, FRB that has been localised, FRB 121102, is at a cosmological distance, it has been repeating for at least 4 years, and its host galaxy is a low-metallicity dwarf. We have argued that if most FRBs are cosmological, but their hosts are not necessarily dwarf galaxies like the host of FRB 121102, then their all-sky rate implies that the Milky Way hosts an FRB every 30 to 1500 years. If, furthermore, many FRBs repeat like FRB 121102, and for long enough, then the occurrence frequency could be higher, and a local FRB may even be active now. A typical Galactic FRB will be a millisecond broad-band radio pulse with 1 GHz flux density of $\sim
3\times 10^{10}$ Jy, not much different from the radio flux levels and frequencies detectable by cellular communication devices (cell phones, WiFi, GPS). If the Milky Way has a currently active and repeating FRB source, then some Local Group galaxies would have them too, at MJy flux-density levels, which could be detected by monitoring nearby galaxies with dedicated small radio telescopes.
An argument against frequent Galactic FRBs could be that FRBs require some kind of exotic and energetic physical event, such as a super-flare from a magnetar, and that irradiation of the Earth by such an event once per century or millenium would be accompanied by clear signatures, or perhaps even by mass extinctions. However, this argument relies on a still-speculative connection between the radio emission of FRBs and their emissions in other bands. Observationally, an upper limit of $10^8$ Jy has been set on any FRB-like radio flux accompanying the giant 2004 December $\gamma$-ray burst from the magnetar SGR 1806-20, and no $\gamma$-ray counterparts have been detected for any FRB [@tendulkar16].
Our proposed search for Galactic FRBs using a global array of low-cost (possibly already existing) radio receivers would enable triangulation of the GPS-timed pulse arrival times from different Earth locations, localising the FRB sky position to arcminute or even arcsecond precision. Pulse arrival times from devices operating at diverse frequencies, or from de-dispersion calculations on the devices themselves, will yield the DM that, when compared to a Galactic DM model, will indicate the FRB source distance within the Galaxy. Fainter FRBs could potentially be detected on a yearly or even weekly basis, enabling a direct measurement of the FRB luminosity function.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank C. Carlsson, A. Fialkov, J. Guillochon, Z. Manchester, E. Ofek, M. Reid, B. Zackay, and the anonymous referee, for useful advice and comments. This work was supported in part by Grant 1829/12 of the I-CORE program of the PBC and the Israel Science Foundation (D.M.) and by a grant from the Breakthrough Prize Foundation (A.L.). A.L. acknowledges support from the Sackler Professorship by Special Appointment at Tel Aviv University.
Burke-Spolaor, S., & Bannister, K. W. 2014, [[ApJ]{}]{}, 792, 19
Chatterjee, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 541, 58
Champion, D.J., Petroff, E., Kramer, M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 460, L30
Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002, arXiv:astro-ph/0207156
Karastergiou, A., Chennamangalam, J., Armour, W., et al. 2015, [[MNRAS]{}]{}, 452, 1254
Katz, C.A., Hewitt, J.N., Corey, B.E., Moore, C.B 2003, PASP, 115, 675
Keane, E. F., Stappers, B. W., Kramer, M., & Lyne, A. G. 2012, [[MNRAS]{}]{}, 425, L71
Keane, E. F. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 1360
Lingam, M. & Loeb, A. 2017, arXiv:1701.01109
Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777
Marcote, B., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, L8
Masui, K., Lin, H.-H., Sievers, J., et al. 2015, Nature, 528, 523
McLaughlin, M. A., Lyne, A. G., Lorimer, D. R., et al. 2006, [[Nature]{}]{}, 439, 817
Montero-Dorta, A. D., & Prada, F. 2009, [[MNRAS]{}]{}, 399, 1106
Petroff, E., Bailes, M., Barr, E. D., et al. 2015, [[MNRAS]{}]{}, 447, 246
Planck Collaboration, Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., et al. 2016, [[A&A]{}]{}, 594, A13
Rane, A., Loeb, A. 2016, arXiv:1608.06952
Ravi, V., Shannon, R. M., & Jameson, A. 2015, [[ApJ]{}]{}, 799, L5
Scholz, P., Spitler, L. G., Hessels, J.W. T. et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 177
Spitler, L. G., Cordes, J. M., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2014, [[ApJ]{}]{}, 790, 101
Tendulkar, S.P., Kaspi, V.M., & Patel, C. 2016, [[ApJ]{}]{}, 827, 59
Tendulkar, S.P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, L7
Tingay, S. J., Trott, C. M., Wayth, R. B., et al. 2015, [[AJ]{}]{}, 150, 199
Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M., et al. 2013, Science, 341, 53
Vander Wiel, S., Burke-Spolaor, S., Lawrence, E., Law, C.J., Bower, G.C. 2016, arXiv:1612.00896
Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N., & Wang, N. 2016, arXiv:1610.09448
Zackay, B., Ofek, E. 2014, arXiv:1411.5373
Zackay, B. 2017, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 229, 330.06
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present a new derivative via the Laplace transform. The Laplace transform leads to a natural form of the fractional derivative which is equivalent to a Riemann-Liouville derivative with fixed terminal point. We first consider a representation which interacts well with periodic functions, examine some rudimentary properties and propose a generalization. The interest for this new approach arose from recent developments in fractional differential equations involving Caputo-type derivatives and applications in regularization problems.'
author:
- |
Mostafa Rezapour\
Department of Mathematics\
Washington State University\
Pullman WA, 99163\
`[email protected]`\
Adebowale Sijuwade\
Department of Mathematics\
Washington State University\
Pullman WA, 99163\
`[email protected]`\
title: 'A new Laplace-type fractional derivative'
---
Introduction
============
This section is intended to motivate the usage of fractional differentiation and integration. Let D denote the ordinary derivative $\frac{d}{dt}\footnotesize( \cdot \footnotesize)$. There are many applications of fractional calculus such as: modeling diffusion processes in Atananckovic [@Ref1]; heat transfer models in Atangana and Baleanu [@Ref3]; continuum mechanics in Mainardi [@Ref4]; evolution equations and renewal processes in Kochubei [@Ref5]; physics and engineering in Diethelm [@Ref8]; robotics, aerospace and biomedicine in Caponetto [@Ref13] and financial economics in Kiryakova [@Ref16]. Partial fractional differential equations and modelling techniques in hydrodynamics and stochastics can be found in Kilbas et al. [@Ref15]. An introductory treatment of fractional differential equations is provided in Miller et al. [@Ref18] and Podlubny [@Ref20]. One can find several different definitions involving fractional-order integral and derivative operators such as those seen in de Olivera [@Ref2] and Samko [@Ref19]. In this article, we consider spaces where the functions are continuous or piecewise continuous.
Suppose that $f$ is locally integrable on $\mathbb{R}$. We define distributions by
$$< f(t), \phi(t) > = \int_{\mathbb{R}} f(t) \phi(t) dt, \tag{1} \label{eq: 1}$$
and denote the space of distributions by $\mathscr{D}$’. Consider the delta distribution in the usual sense as a continuous linear functional acting on the space of distributions $\mathscr{D}$ by
$$<\delta(t-c), \phi(t) > = \phi(c) \hspace{1mm} \text{ for } \phi \in \mathscr{D}, c \in \mathbb{R}.$$
The derivative of a distribution $\phi$ is given by
$$<\phi’(t), \psi(t)> = -<\phi(t), \psi’(t)>,$$
where $\psi \in \mathscr{D}$. Setting $\phi(t)=\delta(t-c)$, we obtain $\delta’(c)$ on the right hand side. This definition can be easily generalized to higher order derivatives by
$$<D^{(n)} \delta(t-c) , \phi(t)> = (-1)^{(n)} (D^{(n)} \phi)(c).$$
The Fourier transform of a distribution is defined as follows:
$$< \mathscr{F} (\phi(t)) (\omega), \phi(\omega)> = < \phi(t), \mathscr{F} (\phi(\omega))>,$$ where $\mathscr{F} (\phi(t))$ is the usual definition of the Fourier transform for real-valued functions.
Now consider the Schwarz class of smooth test functions $\mathscr{I}$, which decay with their derivatives at infinity. The space of continuous linear functionals on this space is denoted by $\mathscr{I}$’, which is contained in the set of distributions. Consider the Laplace transform of a distribution $\phi(t)$ defined by
$$F(s) = \mathscr{L}(\phi(t))= \mathscr{F} (\phi(t)e^{-\sigma t})(\mu), \tag{2} \label{eq: 2}$$
where $s = \sigma + i\mu$, $ \mu < 0$ and $\phi(t)e^{-\sigma t} \in \mathscr{I}'$. Let $f$ be a distribution supported on $(0, \infty)$ such that for $\sigma >0$, $f(t)e^{-\sigma t} \in \mathscr{I}'$. It follows that the Laplace transform of the Dirac delta function is given by
$$\mathscr{L}(\delta(t-c)) (s) = e^{-cs},$$
and
$$\mathscr{L}(\phi’(t))(s) = s\mathscr{L}(\phi(t)) (s).$$
A more rigorous treatment of distributional derivatives and generalized functions can be found in Schwarz [@Ref6], Kanwal [@Ref7], McBride [@Ref17] and Zemanian [@Ref30]. If $f:\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is of exponential order, then
$$F(s)=\mathscr{L}f(t) = \int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-st} f(t) dt,$$
$$\mathscr{L}(D^{n} f) = s^{\alpha} F(s) - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1} s^{k} (D^{n-k-1} f(t) )_{t=0} . \tag{3} \label{eq: 3}$$
The left and right Riemann Liouville derivatives of order $\alpha \in \mathbb{C}$, where $Re(\alpha)\geq 0$ on a finite real interval are defined by
$$(^{L}_{a} \mathbf{D} ^{\alpha}_{t})g (t) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(n-\alpha)} D^{n} \int_{a}^{t} g(s) (t-s)^{n-\alpha-1} ds, \tag{4} \label{eq: 4}$$
when $t>a$ and
$$(^{R}_{b} \mathbf{D} ^{\alpha}_{t})g (t) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(n-\alpha)} D^{n} \int_{t}^{b} g(s) (t-s)^{n-\alpha-1} ds, \tag{5} \label{eq: 5}$$
when $t < b$ that resemble the Cauchy formula for integration given by
$$(D^{-n} f)(t) = \int_{a}^{t} \frac{f(s)(t-s)^{\alpha-1} ds}{\Gamma(\alpha)},$$
where $t<b$, $n=\ceil{\alpha}$. From the identity
$$D^n f(t) = \lim\limits_{h \to 0} h^{-n} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} (-1)^{k} {n \choose k} f(t-kh),$$
we have the Grunwald-Letnikov definition for $\alpha <0$:
$$^{GL}_a D_{t}^{-\alpha} f(t) = \lim_{\substack{h \to 0 \\ nh = t - a}} h^{-\alpha} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} (-1)^{k} {\alpha \choose k} f(t-kh) \tag{6} \label{eq: 6},$$
and it can be shown that if $f \in C[a,t]$,
$$\lim_{\substack{h \to 0 \\ nh = t - a}} h^{-\alpha} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} (-1)^{k} {\alpha \choose k} f(t-kh)$$
$$= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \lim\limits_{n, k \to \infty} \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} \bigg( \frac{(-1)^k \Gamma(\alpha)}{k^{\alpha - 1}} {-\alpha \choose k} \bigg) \frac{t-a}{n} \bigg (\frac{k(t-a)}{n}\bigg)^{\alpha -1} f\bigg( t-\frac{k(t-a)}{n} \bigg)$$
$$= \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha)} \int_{a}^{t} (t-s)^{\alpha - 1} f(s) ds,$$
which connects the Grunwald-Letnikov and Riemann-Liouville approaches. For $\alpha<0$ it is then enough to replace ${ \alpha \choose k }$ with $(-1)^{-k} { -p \choose k }$ in the classical limit and proceed. The Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative is problematic in that
$$\lim\limits_{t \to a} {^{L}}_{a} \mathbf{D} ^{\alpha}_{t} = b_n,$$
where $b_n$ for $n=0,1,2, ...$ are prescribed constants. Consider the $\alpha$-th Caputo fractional derivative of $f(t)$ defined by
$$^C_a D_{t}^{\alpha} f(t) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha - n)} \int_{a}^{t} \frac{f^{(n)} (s) ds}{(t-s)^{\alpha + 1 - n}}, (n-1 < \alpha < n). \tag{7} \label{eq: 7}$$
Integrating by parts, one can see that for $f \in C^{n+1} ([a,T])$, $0 \leq n-1 < \alpha < n$,
$$^C_a D_{t}^{\alpha} f(t) \to D^{n} f(t)$$
as $\alpha \to n$. The Caputo derivative unfortunately does not reduce to the classical derivative for $n-1 < \alpha \leq n$ since its behavior depends on the terminal point, $a$ as follows
$$^C_a D_{t}^{k} f(t) \to \int_{a}^{t} \frac{f^{(n)} (s) ds}{\Gamma(1) } = D^{n-1} f(t) - D^{n-1} f(a).$$
The Caputo and Riemann-Liouville derivatives do not satisfy all of the expected classical properties. For instance, for $c \in \mathbb{R}$, $n-1 < \alpha \leq n$,
$$^C_a D_{t}^{\alpha} c = 0 \text{ while } ^{L} _a \textbf{D}_{t}^{\alpha} c = \frac{ct^{-\alpha}}{\Gamma(\alpha - n)}.$$
Fortunately, the left Riemann Liouville fractional derivative does satisfy a semigroup property under the following conditions. Suppose that $\alpha \neq \beta$. If $f$ is $N$ times differentiable where $N=\max{ (\ceil{\alpha}, \ceil{\beta}) }$ and $D^{k} f(a)=0$ for $k=0,1,2, … N$, we have that
$$^{L}_{a} \mathbf{D}^{\alpha}_{t} (^{L}_{a} \mathbf{D}^{\beta}_{t} f(t) ) = ^{L} _a \textbf{D}_{t}^{\alpha + \beta},$$
as in equation (2.127) of [@Ref20]. In the case of the Caputo fractional derivative and Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives, if $D^{s} f (0) = 0$ for $s=n, n+1 , … m$, we have
$$^{C} _{a} D^{\alpha}_{t} (^{C} _{a} D^{m}_{t} f(t) ) = ^{C}_{a} D^{\alpha + m}_{t} f(t), \hspace{1mm} m=0,1,2, …$$
and
$$^{L} _{a} \textbf{D}^{m}_{t} (^{L} _{a} \textbf{D}^{\alpha}_{t} f(t) ) = ^{L} _{a} \textbf{D}^{\alpha + m}_{t} f(t), \hspace{1mm} m=0,1,2, …$$
For the Riemann-Liouville and Grunwald-Letnikov fractional derivatives, we also have the expected result
$$D^{\alpha} (t-c)^{\gamma}= \frac{\Gamma(\gamma + 1)}{\Gamma(\gamma - \alpha + 1 )}(t-c)^{\gamma - \alpha}, \tag{8} \label{eq: 8}$$
The equivalence of the Riemann-Liouville and integral form of the Grunwald-Letnikov fractional derivative ([@Ref20] pg. 63) allows us to verify this as follows. Since
$$^{GL}_a {D}_{t}^{\alpha} f(t) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(-\alpha)} \int_{a}^{t} (t-s)^{-\alpha - 1} (s-c)^{\gamma} ds,$$
substituting $u = \frac{s-c}{t-c}$, we have:
$$\int_{0}^{1} \frac{ ((t-c)(1-u))^{-\alpha-1} ((t-c)u)^{\gamma} (t-c)}{\Gamma(-\alpha)} du$$
$$= \frac{(t-c)^{\gamma - \alpha}}{\Gamma(-\alpha)} \int_{0}^{1} { (1-u)^{-\alpha-1} u^{\gamma}} du$$
$$= (t-c)^{\gamma - \alpha} \bigg( \frac{\beta(\gamma + 1, -\alpha)} {\Gamma(-\alpha)} \bigg)$$
$$= \frac{\Gamma(\gamma + 1)}{\Gamma(\gamma - \alpha + 1 )}(t-c)^{\gamma - \alpha}.$$
These definitions can be extended to higher dimensions as in Caputo and Fabrizio [@Ref22]. More details on the Caputo derivative can be found in Caputo [@Ref14]. Applications of these fractional derivatives in the context of gradient descent algorithms can be found in Wei et al [@Ref24] and Pu et al. [@Ref25]
The $\ell_{1}$ derivative {#sec:1}
=========================
In this paper, we seek a fractional derivative using a transformation approach. Suppose that $f^{(k)}(0)=0$ for $k=0,1,2 , ... , n-1$. A Laplace-transform based fractional derivative can be defined naturally by
$$^{LT} D^{\alpha}_t f = \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( s^{\alpha}F(s) ). \tag{9} \label{eq: 9}$$
In the case that $f= (t-c)^{\gamma}$, we have
$$^{LT} D^{\alpha}_t (t-c)^{\gamma} = \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( s^{\alpha}\mathscr{L}( (t-c)^{\gamma} ) )$$
$$= \Gamma(\gamma + 1) \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( e^{-sc} s^{\alpha - \gamma - 1} )$$
$$= \frac{\Gamma(\gamma + 1)} {\Gamma(\gamma - \alpha + 1) } \mathscr{L}^{-1}( e^{-sc} \mathscr{L}(t^{\gamma - \alpha}) )$$
$$= \frac{\Gamma(\gamma + 1)} {\Gamma(\gamma - \alpha + 1) } (t-c)^{\gamma - \alpha} H(t-c),$$
where $H(t)$ is the usual Heaviside function. For simplicity, let $f(t) = | t - c | $, then
$$^{LT} D^{\alpha}_t f(t) = \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s^{\alpha} \mathscr{L}( (c-t) + 2(t-c)H(t-c)) ),$$
since
$$\mathscr{L}^{-1}(s^{\alpha} \mathscr{L}( (c-t) + 2(t-c)H(t-c)) )$$
$$= \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( cs^{\alpha-1} + s^{\alpha-2}(2e^{-cs} - 1) ).$$
When $\alpha = 1$, this reduces to $2H(t-c) - 1$, which agrees with the usual distributional derivative $\frac{t}{|t|}$. When $\alpha = 2$,
$$^{LT} D^{\alpha}_t |t-c| = (cD^{*} - 1)\delta(t) + 2H(t-c),$$
otherwise when $\alpha <1$,
$$^{LT} D^{\alpha}_t |t-c| = \frac{ct^{\alpha - 2}}{\Gamma(\alpha -1)} - \frac{ct^{\alpha - 3}(2H(t-3) - 1)}{\Gamma(\alpha -2)}.$$
For other values of $\alpha$, the inverse Laplace transform does not exist, since by a standard choice of contour as in Arfken \[34\], for $p>0$,
$$\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma- i \sqrt{R^2 - \gamma^2} }^{\gamma + i \sqrt{R^2 - \gamma^2} } s^{p}e^{st} ds = - \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{ \frac{3\pi}{2} - \sin^{-1}(\frac{\gamma}{R}) }^{\frac{\pi}{2} + \sin^{-1}(\frac{\gamma}{R})} (Re^{i\theta})^pe^{Rte^{i \theta}} iRe^{i\theta} d\theta. \tag{10} \label{eq: 10}$$
After integration by parts and a standard application of the Euler’s reflection formula, the above integral results in
$$\int_{-\epsilon}^{0} (-se^{-i\pi})^{p} e^{st} \frac{ds}{2\pi i } - \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{-\epsilon}^{0} (-se^{i\pi})^{p} e^{st} \frac{ds}{2\pi i } + \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} (\epsilon e^{i\theta})^p i \epsilon e^{i\theta} \frac{ds}{2\pi i}$$
$$= \frac{\sin{p\pi}} {\pi} \int_{\epsilon}^{\infty} e^{-st} s^{p} ds + \frac{\epsilon^{p+1}\sin{\pi p} }{\pi(p+1)}$$
$$= \frac{t^{-p-1} }{\Gamma(-p)},$$ as $R \to \infty$, $ \epsilon \to 0$. In the case of the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative, we obtain
$$\mathscr{L} (_{0} D^{\alpha}_{t} f(t) ) = s^{\alpha} \mathscr{L}f(t) - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1} s^{k} (D^{n-k-1} f(t) )_{t=0}$$
$$=s^{\alpha} F(s) - \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1} D^{n-1-k} ( g_{n-\alpha} \star f) )_{t=0},$$
where $n = \ceil{\alpha}$. Thus, the Laplace transform readily generalizes the left Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative with a lower limit $a=0$, applying ($\ref{eq: 3}$). When $\alpha = \pm 1$,
$$\mathscr{L}(D^{n} f(x) ) = \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( s^{n} \mathscr{L}(f) ),$$
reduces to
$$s\mathscr{L}\big( \int_{0}^{t} f(x) dx \big) = \mathscr{L}(f(t)).$$
Now let
$$g_{c}(t) = \frac{t^{c - 1}H (t)}{\Gamma(c)},$$
then
$$D^{\alpha}_{t} f(t) = \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( s^{\alpha} \mathscr{L} f(t) )$$
$$= \mathscr{L}^{-1} (s^{n} \mathscr{L} (g_{n-\alpha} \star f)(t))$$ $$= \mathscr{L}^{-1} (\mathscr{L} (g_{n-\alpha} ) (sF(s)))$$
$$= g_{n-\alpha}(t) \star Df(t), \tag{10} \label{eq: 10}$$
which agrees with the left Riemann-Liouville derivative for $a =0$.
We now consider a new Laplace derivative. Suppose that $\sigma >0$ and $f$ is a real-valued function such that $\{ f(t) e^{-\sigma t} \} \in \mathscr{I}'$.
**Definition 2.1.** Define the $\ell_{1}$ fractional derivative by
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D f)(t) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}\bigg(s \bigg( \mathscr{L}(f(t-\epsilon) )- f(t\epsilon) \bigg) \bigg), \tag{11} \label{eq: 11}$$
and we say that $f$ is $\ell_{1}$-differentiable if the above limit exists.
**Theorem 2.2.**
1. Let $f_k$ be $\ell_{1}$-differentiable for $k=0,1,2 ,... , n$, then
$$^{\ell_{1}} D(\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} c_k f_k )(t) = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} c_k (^{\ell_{1}} D f_k )(t). \tag{13} \label{eq: 12}$$
2. Suppose that $f$ is $\ell_{1}$-differentiable, then
$$^{\ell_{1}} D(^{\ell_{1}} D f(t) ) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s^2 \mathscr{L}(|f(t-\epsilon)| - |f(\epsilon)| )) . \tag{12} \label{eq: 13}$$
**Proof.** (a) is immediate, since
$$^{\ell_{1}} D( \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} c_kf_k)(t) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}(\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} |c_k f_k(t-\epsilon)|) - |c_kf_k(\epsilon)| )$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} \mathscr{L}( |c_k f_k(t-\epsilon)|) - |c_kf_k(\epsilon)| )$$
$$= \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} c_k {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( | f_k(t-\epsilon)|) - |f_k(\epsilon)| )$$
$$= \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n} c_k (^{\ell_{1}} D ( f_k )).$$
To show (b), the result readily follows since
$$= ^{\ell_{1}} D ( ^{\ell_{1}} D f)(t) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}(| (^{\ell_{1}} D f)(t-\epsilon)|) - | (^{\ell_{1}} D f)(\epsilon)| )$$
$${\lim\limits_{\epsilon_1 \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( \lim\limits_{\epsilon_2 \to 0} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L} ( |f(t-\epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2)|) - |f(\epsilon_2-\epsilon_1)| )) - \lim\limits_{\epsilon_3 \to 0} \mathscr{L}^{-1} (s \mathscr{L} (|f(\epsilon_1-\epsilon_3)|) - |f(\epsilon_3)|)$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon_1 \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( \lim\limits_{\epsilon_2 \to 0} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L} ( |f(t- \epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2)| )- |f(- \epsilon_1 - \epsilon_2)| )) - \mathscr{L}^{-1} (s \mathscr{L} (|f(\epsilon_1)| - |f(0)|) )$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon_1 \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( \lim\limits_{\epsilon_2 \to 0} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L} ( |f(t-\epsilon_1)|) - |f(\epsilon_1)| )) - \mathscr{L}^{-1} (s \mathscr{L} (|f(\epsilon_1)|) - |f(0)| )$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon_1 \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s^{2} \mathscr{L} ( |f(t-\epsilon_1)|) - |f(\epsilon_1)| ) - \mathscr{L}^{-1} (s \mathscr{L} (|f(\epsilon_1)|) - |f(0)|)$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s^2 \mathscr{L}(|f(t-\epsilon)| - |f(\epsilon)| )).$$
The above steps steps follow from Dominated Convergence, since
$$|F(t)e^{-st}| \leq |F(t)|,$$
and
$$\int_{0}^{\infty} | F(t-\epsilon) - F(t) | dt \to 0,$$
which yields
$$\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0} \mathscr{L}( |F(t-\epsilon)e^{-st}|) = \mathscr{L} (|F(t)e^{-st}|).$$
**Theorem 2.3.** Suppose that $f$ is real-valued, $\Phi: [0, \infty) \to \mathbb{R}$ is concave and $\ell_{1}$-differentiable with $\Phi(f(0))=0$. Then
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)( \Phi(f) ) \geq \mathscr{L}^{-1} |\Phi(\mathscr{L}(f))|. \tag{14} \label{eq: 14}$$
**Proof.**
Jensen’s inequality applied to $\Phi$ yields
$$\Phi(F(s-\epsilon)) \geq e^{-\epsilon} s^{-1} \int_{0}^{\infty} se^{-st} \Phi(f(t-\epsilon)) dt,$$
since
$$\int_{0}^{\infty} se^{-st} dt = 1.$$
The result follows from the definition of the $\ell_{1}$ derivative
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)( \Phi(f) ) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( |\Phi(f(t)-\epsilon) |) - s|\Phi(f(\epsilon)| ).$$
**Theorem 2.4.** Suppose $m \in \mathbb{R}$, $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and let $^{\ell_{1}} (D)(S)$ denote the space of $\ell_{1}$ differentiable functions on the set $S$. We have the following results:
1. $^{\ell_{1}} (D)(P_n) \subset P_{n-1}$, where $P_n(t)$ is the space of polynomials in $t$ of degree $n$.
2. Let $C \in \mathbb{R}$. Then
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(C) = |C|(\delta(t) - \delta'(t)). \tag{15} \label{eq: 15}$$
3. Let $m \in \mathbb{R}$. Then $$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(e^{mt}) = \delta(t) - \delta'(t) + me^{m t}. \tag{16} \label{eq: 16}$$
4. If $f$ is periodic with period $P>0$, differential and nonvanishing, then
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(f(t)) = \frac{ f(t) f(t)' }{|f(t)|} - f(0). \tag{17} \label{eq: 17}$$
5. If $a >0$ and $f$ is of exponential order, differentiable and nonvanishing, then
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)( f(at) ) = af'(at)|f(at)|^{-1} - f(0)\delta'(t).$$
**Proof.** Let $k>0$. Property (a) follows from the computation
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(t^{2k}) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( (t-\epsilon)^{2k} ) -s\epsilon^{2k} )$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}( e^{\epsilon s} \Gamma(2k +1) - s\epsilon^{2k})$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}( e^{-\epsilon s} s^{-2k} \Gamma(2k +1) - s\epsilon^{2k})$$
$$= t^{2k - 1}$$
To show (b),
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(C)= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}(|C|) - |C| ))$$
$$= \mathscr{L}^{-1}(|C| - |C|s )$$
$$= |C|(\delta(t) - \delta'(t)),$$
since $\mathscr{L} ^{-1} (s^{n})=D^{n} \delta(t)$ in the distributional sense.
Property (c) follows from the identity $\mathscr{L}( f(at) ) = \frac{F(s/a)}{a}$.
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(e^{mt}) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( e^{m(t-\epsilon)}) - se^{\epsilon})$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(sm^{-1} (sm^{-1} -1)^{-1}e^{(\epsilon sm^{-1} )} - se^{m\epsilon})$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s(s-1)^{-1}e^{\epsilon s} - se^{m\epsilon})$$
$$= \delta(t) - \delta'(t) + me^{m t}.$$
To show (d), applying the identity
$$\mathscr{L} (|f(t-\epsilon)|) = \frac{e^{s\epsilon} \mathscr{L}(f)}{1-e^{-sP}},$$
we obtain
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)(f(t)) = \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+} } \mathscr{L}^{-1} ( ( s^{1 + \frac{s \epsilon}{ln s} } ) (1-e^{-sP})^{-1} \mathscr{L}(f) - s|f(\epsilon)|).$$
To show (e), we have
$$^{\ell_{1}} (D)( f(at) ) = {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(s \mathscr{L}( f(a(t-\epsilon)) - s|f(a\epsilon)| )$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(sa^{-1} e^{a\epsilon s} \mathscr{L}(| f(at)|) - s|f(a\epsilon)| )$$
$$= {\lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0}} \mathscr{L}^{-1}(sa^{-1} e^{a\epsilon s} \mathscr{L}(F^{*}(s/a)) - |f(a\epsilon)| )$$
$$= af'(at)|f(at)|^{-1} - f'(0)\delta'(t).$$
We now consider generalizations of the work above. One consideration is to adjust the rate of convergence in ($\ref{eq: 11}$). Let $f$ be $\ell_{1}$-differentiable. Define the modified $\ell_{1}$-fractional derivative of order $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ by
$$^{\ell_{1} +}D^{\alpha}_{t} f = \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} \mathscr{L}^{-1} \bigg( s^{\alpha} \big( \mathscr{L}(f(t-\epsilon) - f(t\epsilon)) \bigg). \tag{19} \label{eq: 19}$$
In the case that $f(t)=|t|$, we obtain
$$\mathscr{L}^{-1}(\epsilon s^{\alpha - 1} + (1-\epsilon + 2e^{-\epsilon s})s^{\alpha-2} ).$$ When $\alpha = 1$, this resembles the $\ell_{1}$ fractional derivative. A quick application of the convolution theorem, leads to a second representation
$$^{\ell_{1} +}D^{\alpha}_{t} f = \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} \mathscr{L}^{-1} \bigg( s^{\alpha} \big( \mathscr{L}(f(t-\epsilon) - f(t\epsilon) \bigg). \tag{19} \label{eq: 19} = \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} \mathscr{L}^{-1} \bigg(s^{\alpha - 1} s \bigg( \mathscr{L}\bigg( f(t - \epsilon) - f(s \epsilon) \bigg) \bigg)$$
$$= \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} \frac{t^{-\alpha}}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)} \star (f(t - \epsilon) - f(t \epsilon))' = \frac{1}{\Gamma(1-\alpha)} \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} \int_{0}^{t} (s-t)^{-\alpha} \bigg( f'(s-\epsilon) - \epsilon f'(s\epsilon) \bigg) \hspace{1mm} ds.$$
A natural generalization of the derivative above can be seen by considering the generalized $\beta,\gamma$ finite difference operator defined for $0<a<t<b$ , $f \in H^{1}(a,b)$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ by
$$^{\beta, \gamma}D^{\alpha}_{t} f = \frac{1}{Mf(1-\alpha)} \lim\limits_{\epsilon \to 0^{+}} \int_{a}^{t} (s-t)^{-\alpha} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{\ceil{\alpha}} \bigg( f'(s^{k}-\epsilon) - kE_{\beta,\gamma}(\log \epsilon) f'(s\epsilon^{k}) \bigg) \hspace{1mm} ds,$$
where $Mf(s)$ denotes the Mellin transform of $f$ and $E_{\beta, \gamma}$ denotes the two-parameter Mittag-Leffler function given by
$$E_{\beta, \gamma} (z) = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{z^{k}}{\Gamma(\beta k + \gamma )}, \tag{20} \label{eq: 20}$$
where $\beta, \gamma \in \mathbb{C}$. In Oliveira [@Ref23], the following generalized Laplace fractional derivative is discussed. Suppose that $\Phi(s,\alpha)$ is a two-parameter real-valued operator satisfying
$$\mathscr{L} (_{0} D^{\alpha}_{t} f) = \Phi(s,\alpha) \mathscr{L}(f(t)) (s), \tag{21} \label{eq: 21}$$
where $D^{\alpha}$ denotes a general fractional derivative. If $\Phi(s,\pm 1) = s^{ \pm 1}$ and $\Phi(s,0)=1$ and the operator $\Phi$ also satisfies $\Phi(s, \alpha)=sk(s,\alpha)$, proceeding as in ($\ref{eq: 11}$), we are left with
$$_{0} D^{\alpha}_{t} f = \int_{0}^{t} K(t-x, \alpha) Df(x) dx, \tag{22} \label{eq: 22}$$
where $K(t,\alpha) = \mathscr{L}^{-1} (k(s,\alpha))$. In ($\ref{eq: 22}$), the kernel $K(t,\alpha)$ plays the role of $g_{n-\alpha}$ in ($\ref{eq: 11}$). Caputo and Fabrizio [@Ref22] propose a Caputo-type fractional derivative with an exponential kernel, considering applications to constitutive equations for dissipation in [@Ref10]. This derivative is studied in distributional settings in Atanakovic [@Ref26], where this operator is shown to obey a viscoelastic consistency result. The Caputo-Fabrizio fractional derivative is criticized in Tarasov [@Ref11] and Origuieira et al. [@Ref12] for its non-locality. In Ortiguieira et al. [@Ref30], criteria for suitable fractional derivative candidates are considered including reduction to a classical derivative, backwards compatibility, a neutral element and the Leibniz rule.
A generalized Laplace transform approach is considered in Oliveira [@Ref23] working from the theory of distributions, revealing a deep relationship between the Riemann-Liouville and Caputo fractional derivative definitions. This leads the authors back to the choice of kernel in [@Ref22], which is then viewed in the context of a relaxation model. The interaction between the Laplace transform and Mittag-Leffler functions can be found in Gorenflo and Mainardi [@Ref9]. A generalized fractional derivative is also seen in Katugampola [@Ref27], extending the limit definition of the derivative. It is shown to satisfy linearity, the Leibniz rule and the Mean Value Theorem. The authors also introduce a generalized fractional integral satisfying the integration by parts formula. In [@Ref28], a generalization of the Riemann-Liouville and Hadamard fractional derivatives is investigated.
In the context of gradient descent algorithms, it is possible to replace the usual gradient $\nabla f$ with a fractional gradient based on the modified $\ell_{1}$ fractional derivative. We have seen that even for elementary functions, the $\ell_{1}$ fractional derivative often exists only in the distributional sense, which means that convergence to an extreme point is more difficult to achieve. In the context of $\ell_{1}$ regularization, it is evident that this fractional gradient mimics the classical gradient however, this may not be true of a generalization. The search for a fractional gradient with better smoothing properties is related to the choice of kernel in ($\ref{eq: 11}$).
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have discussed a new derivative defined by the Laplace transform. This representation interacts well with periodic functions and satisfies some of the expected classical properties. This derivative can be readily generalized to one of fractional order. We have investigated a more suitable operator with better smoothing properties that are compatible with $\ell_{1}$ norm problems. The generalization in ($\ref{eq: 21}$) and the viewpoint of convolution in ($\ref{eq: 11}$) is useful in the search for a better kernel. As a future work, we seek a fractional operator that is nonlocal yet manages to smoothen the $\ell_{1}$ loss function in gradient descent methods.
[999]{}
Atanackovic TM, Pilipovic S, Stankovic B, Zorica D. Fractional calculus with applications in mechanics: vibrations and diffusion processes. London: ISTE Ltd; 2014.
de Oliveira EC, Machado JAT. A review of definitions for fractional derivatives and integral. Math Prob Ing 2014;2014:238459.
Atangana, Abdon and Dumitru Baleanu. “New Fractional Derivatives with Nonlocal and Non-Singular Kernel: Theory and Application to Heat Transfer Model.” (2016).
Gorenflo R, Mainardi F, 223–276. Fractional calculus: integral and differential equations of fractional order. Fractals and Fractional Calculus in Continuum Mechanics. Carpinteri A, Mainardi F, editors. Wien and New York: Springer Verlag; 1997.
Kochubei AN. General fractional calculus, evolution equations, and renewal processes. Integr Equ Oper Theory 2011;71:583–600.
Schwartz L. Theorie des distributions, I-II. Paris: Hermann, Cie; 1950–51.
Kanwal RP. Generalized functions: theory and technique. Academic Press, New York; 1983
K. Diethelm, The Analysis of Fractional Differential Equations, an Application Oriented, Exposition Using Differential Operators of Caputo type, Lecture Notes in Mathematics nr. 2004, Springer, Heidelbereg, 2010.
Gorenflo R, Kilbas AA, Mainardi F, Rogosin SV. Mittag-Leffler functions, related topics and applications. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2014.
Caputo M, Fabrizio M. Applications of new time and spatial fractional derivatives with exponential kernels. Progr Fract Differ Appl 2016;2:1–11.
Tarasov VE. No nonlocality. no fractional derivative. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2018;62:157–63.
Ortigueira MD, Machado JAT. A critical analysis of the caputo-fabrizio operator. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 2018;59:608–11
R. Caponetto, Fractional Order Systems (Modelling and Control Applications), World Scientific, 2010.
M. Caputo, Elasticita‘ e Dissipazione, Zanichelli, Bologna, 1965.
A.A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava and J. J. Trujillo, Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations, North-Holland Mathematical Studies, Amsterdam, 2006.
V. Kiryakova, Generalised Fractional Calculus and Applications, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics No 301, Longman, Harlow, 1994
A.C. McBride, Fractional Calculus and Integral Tranforms of Generalized Functions, Pitman Res. Notes in Mathem., nr. 31, Pitman, London, 1979.
K.S. Miller and B. Ross, An Introduction to Fractional Calculus and Fractional Differential Equations, Wiley, New York, 1993.
S. G. Samko, A. A. Kilbas and O.I. Marichev, Fractional Integrals and Derivatives, Grodon and Breach Sc. Publ, 1993.
I. Podlubny, Fractional Differential Equations, Academic Press, New York, 2009.
J. Sabatier, O.P. Agraval and J.A. Teneiro Machado, Advances in Fractional Calculus, Springer, 2009.
Caputo, Michèle and Mauro Fabrizio. “A new Definition of Fractional Derivative without Singular Kernel.” (2015).
Capelas de Oliveira, Edmundo , Jarosz, S. , Jr, Vaz,. (2018). Fractional Calculus via Laplace Transform and its Application in Relaxation Processes. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation. 69. 10.1016/j.cnsns.2018.09.013.
Wei, Kang, Yin, Yong. Design of generalized fractional order gradient descent method (2018).
Pu, Yi-Fei , Zhou, Zhang, Ni, Huang, Siarry. Fractional Extreme Value Adaptive Training Method: Fractional Steepest Descent Approach. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems(2013).
Atanackovic, Pilipovic, Zorica. (2018). Properties of the Caputo-Fabrizio fractional derivative and its distributional settings. Fractional Calculus and Applied Analysis. 21. 10.1515/fca-2018-0003.
Katugampola, Udita N.. “A New Fractional Derivative with Classical Properties.” (2014).
Katugampola, Udita N.. “A new approach to Generalized Fractional Derivatives.” (2014).
Zemanian AH. Distribution theory and transform analysis. New York: Dover Publ. Inc.; (1987).
Ortigueira, Machado, José. (2014). What is a fractional derivative?. Journal of Computational Physics. 293. 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.07.019.
G. Arfken, “Inverse Laplace Transformation.” 15.12 in Mathematical Methods for Physicists, 3rd ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 853-861, 1985.
Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521, pp. 436–444, 2015.
J. S. Zeng and W. T. Yin, “On nonconvex decentralized gradient descent,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 66, no. 11, pp. 2834–2848, 2018.
Priestley RD, Ellison CJ, Broadbelt LJ, Torkelson JM. Structural relaxation of polymer glasses at surfaces, interfaces, and in between. Science 2005;309:456–9.
Dormann JL, Fiorani D, Tronc E. Magnetic relaxation in fine-particle systems. Advances in Chemical Physics, 98. Prigogine I, Rice SA, editors. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken; 1997.
Bernstein MA, King KF, Zhou XJ. Handbook of MRI pulse sequences. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press; 2004.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove three new dichotomies for Banach spaces à la W. T. Gowers’ dichotomies. The three dichotomies characterise respectively the spaces having no minimal subspaces, having no subsequentially minimal basic sequences, and having no subspaces crudely finitely representable in all of their subspaces. We subsequently use these results to make progress on the program of Gowers of classifying Banach spaces by finding characteristic spaces present in every space. Also, the results are used to embed any partial order of size $\aleph_1$ into the subspaces of any space without a minimal subspace ordered by isomorphic embeddability. Finally, we analyse several examples of spaces and classify them according to which side of the dichotomies they fall.'
author:
- Valentin Ferenczi and Christian Rosendal
date: May 2007
title: Banach spaces without minimal subspaces
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In the paper [@g:dicho], W.T. Gowers initiated a celebrated classification theory for Banach spaces. Since the task of classifying all (even separable) Banach spaces up to isomorphism is extremely complicated (just how complicated is made precise in [@flr]), one may settle for a [*loose classification of Banach spaces up to subspaces*]{}, that is look for a list of classes of Banach spaces such that:
\(a) each class is [*pure*]{}, in the sense that if a space belongs to a class, then every subspace belongs to the same class, or maybe, in the case when the property depends on a basis of the space, every block subspace belongs to the same class,
\(b) the classes are [*inevitable*]{}, i.e., every Banach space contains a subspace in one of the classes,
\(c) any two classes in the list are disjoint,
\(d) belonging to one class gives a lot of information about operators that may be defined on the space or on its subspaces.
We shall refer to this list as the [*list of inevitable classes of Gowers*]{}. Many classical problems are related to this classification program, as for example the question whether every Banach space contains a copy of $c_0$ or $\ell_p$, solved in the negative by B.S. Tsirelson in 1974 [@tsi], or the unconditional basic sequence problem, also solved negatively by Gowers and B. Maurey in 1993 [@GM]. Ultimately one would hope to establish such a list so that any classical space appears in one of the classes, and so that belonging that class would yield most of the properties which are known for that space. For example any property which is known for Tsirelson’s space is also true for any of its block subspaces, so Tsirelson’s space is a pure space, and as such, should appear in one of the classes with a reasonable amount of its properties. Also, presumably the nicest among the classes would consist of the spaces isomorphic to $c_0$ or $\ell_p$, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p<\infty$.
After the discovery by Gowers and Maurey of the existence of [*hereditarily indecomposable*]{} (or HI) spaces, i.e., spaces such that no subspace may be written as the direct sum of infinite dimensional subspaces [@GM], Gowers proved that every Banach space contains either a HI subspace or a subspace with an unconditional basis [@g:hi]. These were the first two examples of inevitable classes. We shall call this dichotomy the [*first dichotomy*]{} of Gowers. He then used his famous Ramsey or determinacy theorem [@g:dicho] to refine the list by proving that any Banach space contains a subspace with a basis such that either no two disjointly supported block subspaces are isomorphic (which, for reasons that will become apparent later on, we shall call [*tight by support*]{}), or such that any two subspaces have further subspaces which are isomorphic. He called the second property [*quasi minimality*]{}. This [*second dichotomy*]{} divides the class of spaces with an unconditional basis into two subclasses (up to passing to a subspace). Finally, recall that a space is [*minimal*]{} if it embeds into any of its subspaces. A quasi minimal space which does not contain a minimal subspace is called [*strictly quasi minimal*]{}, so Gowers again divided the class of quasi minimal spaces into the class of strictly quasi minimal spaces and the class of minimal spaces.
Obviously the division between minimal and strictly quasi-minimal spaces is not a real dichotomy, since it does not provide any additional information. The main result of this paper is to provide the missing dichotomy for minimality, which we shall call the [*third dichotomy*]{}.
A first step in that direction was obtained by A. Pełczar, who showed that any strictly quasi minimal space contains a further subspace with the additional property of not containing any subsymmetric sequence [@anna]. The first author proved that the same holds if one replaces subsymmetric sequences by embedding-homogeneous sequences (any subspace spanned by a subsequence contains an isomorphic copy of the whole space) [@subsurfaces].
A crucial step in the proofs of [@anna] and [@subsurfaces] is the notion of [*asymptoticity*]{}. An asymptotic game of length $k$ in a space $E$ with a basis is a game where I plays integers $n_i$ and II plays block vectors $x_i$ supported after $n_i$, and where the outcome is the length $k$ sequence $(x_i)$. Asymptotic games have been studied extensively and the gap between finite dimensional and infinite dimensional phenomena was usually bridged by fixing a constant and letting the length of the game tend to infinity. For example, a basis is [*asymptotic $\ell_p$*]{} if there exists $C$ such that for any $k$, I has a winning strategy in the length $k$ asymptotic game so that the outcome is $C$-equivalent to the unit vector basis of $\ell_p^k$.
In [@anna] it is necessary to consider asymptotic games of [*infinite*]{} length, which are defined in an obvious manner. The outcome is then an infinite block-sequence. The proof of the theorem in [@anna] is based on the obvious fact that if a basic sequence $(e_i)$ is subsymmetric, then II has a strategy in the infinite asymptotic game in $E=[e_i]$ to ensure that the outcome is equivalent to $(e_i)$. In [@subsurfaces] a similar fact for embedding homogeneous basic sequences is obtained, but the proof is more involved and a more general notion of asymptoticity must be used. Namely, a [*generalised asymptotic game*]{} in a space $E$ with a basis $(e_i)$ is a game where I plays integers $n_i$ and II plays integers $m_i$ and vectors $x_i$ such that ${\rm supp}(x_i) \subseteq [n_1,m_1]\cup\ldots\cup[n_i,m_i]$, and the outcome is the sequence $(x_i)$, which may no longer be a block basis.
Observe that in the first round of such a game, II may pick some integer $m_1$ so large, depending on arbitrary large $n$, that he has enough room to choose any vectors $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ supported in $[n_1,m_1]$ as the $n$ first vectors of the outcome. This means that everything is decided at the first round in a finite generalised asymptotic game, and so only infinite generalised asymptotic games are of interest.
The second author analysed infinite asymptotic games in [@asymptotic], showing that the most obvious necessary conditions are, in fact, also sufficient for II to have a strategy to play inside a given set. This was done through relating the existence of winning strategies to a property of subspaces spanned by vectors of the basis with indices in some intervals of integers. His methods extend to the setting of generalised asymptotic games and motivate the following definition. A space $Y$ is [*tight*]{} in a basic sequence $(e_i)$ if there is a sequence of successive intervals $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ of ${\mathbb N}$ such that for all infinite subsets $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, we have $$Y\not\sqsubseteq [e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i].$$ In other words, any embedding of $Y$ into $[e_i]$ has a “large” image with respect to subsequences of the basis $(e_i)$.
We then define a [*tight basis*]{} as a basis such that every subspace is tight in it, and a [*tight space*]{} as a space with a tight basis.
As we shall prove in Lemma \[strategic uniformisation\], using the techniques of [@asymptotic], essentially a block subspace $Y=[y_i]$ is not tight in $(e_i)$, when II has a winning strategy in the generalised asymptotic game in $[e_i]$ for producing a sequence equivalent to $(y_i)$. This relates the notion of tight bases to the methods of [@subsurfaces], and by extending these methods we prove the main result of this paper:
\[main\] Let $E$ be a Banach space without minimal subspaces. Then $E$ has a tight subspace.
Theorem \[main\] extends the theorems of [@anna] and of [@subsurfaces], since it is clear that a tight space cannot contain a subsymmetric or even embedding homogeneous block-sequence. This dichotomy also provides an improvement to the list of Gowers: a strictly quasi minimal space must contain a tight quasi minimal subspace. Example \[ex\] shows that this is a non-trivial refinement of the unconditional and strictly quasi minimal class, and Corollary \[tsi\] states that Tsirelson’s space is tight. Theorem \[main\] also refines the class of HI spaces in the list, i.e., every HI space contains a tight subspace, although it is unknown whether the HI property for a space with a basis does not already imply that the basis is tight.
Our actual examples of tight spaces turn out to satisfy one of two stronger forms of tightness. The first is called [*tightness with constants*]{}. A basis $(e_n)$ is tight with constants when for for every infinite dimensional space $Y$, the sequence of successive intervals $I_0<I_1<\ldots$ of ${\mathbb N}$ witnessing the tightness of $Y$ in $(e_n)$ may be chosen so that $Y \not\sqsubseteq_K [e_n { \; \big| \;}n \notin I_K]$ for each $K$. We show that this is the case of Tsirelson’s space.
The second kind of tightness is called [*tightness by range*]{}. Here the range, ${\rm range} \ x$, of a vector $x$ is the smallest interval of integers containing its support, and the range of a block subspace $[x_n]$ is $\bigcup_n {\rm range} \ x_n$. A basis $(e_n)$ is tight by range when for for every block subspace $Y=[y_n]$, the sequence of successive intervals $I_0<I_1<\ldots$ of ${\mathbb N}$ witnessing the tightness of $Y$ in $(e_n)$ may be defined by $I_k={\rm range}\ y_k$ for each $k$. This is equivalent to no two block subspaces with disjoint ranges being comparable. We show that tightness by range is satisfied by some HI spaces and also by a space with unconditional basis constructed by Gowers.
It turns out that there are natural dichotomies between each of these strong forms of tightness and respective weak forms of minimality. For the first notion, we define a space $X$ to be [*locally minimal*]{} if for some constant $K$, $X$ is $K$-crudely finitely representable in any of its subspaces. Notice that local minimality is easily incompatible with tightness with constants. Using an equivalent form of Gowers’ game as defined by J. Bagaria and J. López-Abad [@BL] we prove:
\[main3\] Any Banach space $E$ contains a subspace with a basis that is either tight with constants or is locally minimal.
There is also a dichotomy concerning tightness by range. This direction for refining the list of inevitable classes of spaces was actually suggested by Gowers [@g:dicho]. P. Casazza proved that if a space $X$ has a shrinking basis such that no block sequence is [*even-odd*]{} ( the odd subsequence is equivalent to the even subsequence), then $X$ is not isomorphic to a proper subspace, see [@g:hyperplanes]. So any Banach space contains either a subspace, which is not isomorphic to a proper subspace, or is saturated with even-odd block sequences, and, in the second case, we may find a further subspace in which Player II has a winning strategy to produce even-odd sequences in the game of Gowers associated to his Ramsey theorem. This fact was observed by Gowers, but it was unclear to him what to deduce from the property in the second case.
We answer this question by using Gowers’ theorem to obtain a dichotomy which on one side contains tightness by range, which is a slightly stronger property than the Casazza property. On the other side, we define a space $X$ with a basis $(x_n)$ to be [*subsequentially minimal*]{} if every subspace of $X$ contains an isomorphic copy of a subsequence of $(x_n)$. This last property is satisfied by Tsirelson’s space and will also be shown to be incompatible with tightness by range.
\[main2\] Any Banach space $E$ contains a subspace with a basis that is either tight by range or is subsequentially minimal.
It is easy to check that the second case in Theorem \[main2\] may be improved to the following hereditary property of a basis $(x_n)$, that we call [*sequential minimality*]{}: every block sequence of $[x_n]$ has a further block sequence $(y_n)$ such that every subspace of $[x_n]$ contains a copy of a subsequence of $(y_n)$.
Theorem \[main2\] divides any class of strictly quasi minimal spaces into two subclasses. Combining Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[main2\] we therefore refine Gowers’ list to six classes which are enumerated in Theorem \[gowersbis\]. We obtain two subclasses of strictly quasi minimal unconditional spaces: no example of the first one is known, and the other is illustrated by Tsirelson’s space. We also obtain two subclasses of HI spaces; we prove that a space constructed by Gowers [@g:asymptotic] belongs to the first one, Proposition \[type1\], but know of no example belonging to the second. It is an interesting problem to look for examples for the two classes that haven’t yet been proved to be non empty.
It has been proved in [@DFKO] that every minimal space with a strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ basis, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p <+\infty$, contains a subspace isomorphic to $\ell_p$. A basis is strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ if finite families of disjointly supported (but not necessarily successive) normalised blocks supported “far enough” are uniformly equivalent to the basis of $\ell_p^n$. Leaving aside the case of strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ spaces, this means that a space which does not contain a copy of $c_0$ or $\ell_p$ must contain a further subspace which either does not contain a minimal subspace, or does not contain a strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ subspace. In the first case Theorem \[main\] implies that some further subspace is tight. In the second case, another dichotomy theorem due to A. Tcaciuc [@T] implies that some subspace $Y$ is what we shall call [*uniformly inhomogeneous*]{}, i.e. $\forall\epsilon>0 \exists n \in {\mathbb N}, \forall Y_1,\ldots,Y_n \subseteq Y, \exists y_1, z_1 \in Y_1,
\ldots \exists y_n, z_n \in Y_n: {\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n y_i\rVert} <\epsilon {\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n z_i\rVert},$ where $y_n, z_n$ are of norm $1$. New subclasses for spaces which do not contain a copy of $c_0$ or $\ell_p$ may therefore be distinguished. We indicate how we may use this observation and the 5th dichotomy to refine the classes in the list of Theorem \[gowersbis\], to subclasses so that “spaces isomorphic to $c_0$ or $\ell_p$” appears as one subclass, Proposition \[further\]. Interestingly, classical examples such as Tsirelson’s space, its dual, and Schlumprecht’s space [@S1] each appear in a different subclass of this new list. So this seems a reasonable direction for an “ultimate” classification in which each “pure” classical space, including $c_0$ and $\ell_p$, would appear as a representative of some subclass which would list most of its properties.
The six dichotomies and the interdependence of the properties involved can be visualised in the following diagram.
$$\begin{tabular}{ccc}
Strongly asymptotic $\ell_p$&$**\textrm{ Tcaciuc's dichotomy }**$&
Uniformly inhomogeneous\\
$\Downarrow$& &$\Uparrow$\\
Unconditional basis&$**\textrm{ 1st dichotomy }**$& Hereditarily indecomposable\\
$\Uparrow$& &$\Downarrow$\\
Tight by support & $**\textrm{ 2nd dichotomy }**$ & Quasi minimal \\
$\Downarrow$&&$\Uparrow$\\
Tight by range & $**\textrm{ 4th dichotomy }**$ & Sequentially minimal \\
$\Downarrow$&&$\Uparrow$\\
Tight& $**\textrm{ 3rd dichotomy }**$ & Minimal\\
$\Uparrow$& &$\Downarrow$\\
Tight with constants& $**\textrm{ 5th dichotomy }**$ & Locally minimal\\
\end{tabular}$$
From a different point of view, coming from combinatorics and descriptive set theory, Theorem \[main\] also has important consequences for the isomorphic classification of separable Banach spaces. To explain this, suppose that $X$ is a Banach space and $SB_\infty(X)$ is the class of all infinite-dimensional subspaces of $X$ ordered by the relation $\sqsubseteq$ of isomorphic embeddability. Then $\sqsubseteq$ induces a partial order on the set of biembeddability classes of $SB_\infty(X)$ and we denote this partial order by ${\mathbb P}(X)$. Many questions about the isomorphic structure of $X$ translate directly into questions about the structure of ${\mathbb P}(X)$, e.g., $X$ has a minimal subspace if and only if ${\mathbb P}(X)$ has a minimal element and $X$ is quasi minimal if and only if ${\mathbb P}(X)$ is downwards directed. In some sense, a space can be said to be pure in case the complexity of ${\mathbb P}(X)$ does not change by passing to subspaces and Gowers, Problem 7.9 [@g:dicho], motivated by this, asked for a classification of, or at least strong structural information about, the partial orders $P$ for which there is a Banach space $X$ saturated with subspaces $Y\subseteq X$ such that $P{\cong}{\mathbb P}(Y)$. A simple diagonalisation easily shows that such $P$ either consist of a single point (corresponding to a minimal space) or are uncountable, and, using methods of descriptive set theory and metamathematics, this was successively improved in [@ergodic] and [@incomparable] to either $|P|=1$ or $P$ having a continuum size antichain. Using a strengthening of Theorem \[main\], we are now able to show that such $P$, for which $|P|>1$, have an extremely complex structure by embedding any partial order of size at most $\aleph_1$ into them.
For $A,B \subseteq {\mathbb N}$, we write $A \subseteq^* B$ to mean that $A \setminus B$ is finite.
\[posets\] Given a Banach space $X$, let ${\mathbb P}(X)$ be the set of all biembeddability classes of infinite-dimensional subspaces of $X$, partially ordered under isomorphic embeddability. Let $P$ be a poset for which there exist a Banach space $X$ such that $X$ is saturated with subspaces $Y$ such that ${\mathbb P}(Y){\cong}P$. Then either $|P|=1$, or $\subseteq^*$ embeds into $P$. In the second case it follows that
- any partial order of size at most $\aleph_1$ embeds into $P$, and
- any closed partial order on a Polish space embeds into $P$.
From the point of view of descriptive set theory, it is more natural to study another problem, part of which was originally suggested to us by G. Godefroy some time ago. Namely, the space $SB_\infty(X)$, for $X$ separable, can easily be made into a standard Borel space using the Effros–Borel structure. In this way, the relations of isomorphism, ${\cong}$, and isomorphic embeddability, $\sqsubseteq$, become analytic relations on $SB_\infty(X)$ whose complexities can be measured through the notion of Borel reducibility. We obtain Theorem \[posets\] as a consequence of some finer results formulated in this language and that are of independent interest.
In Sections \[gowers-maurey\] and \[argyros\] various (and for some of them new) examples of “pure” spaces are analysed combining some of the properties of tightness or minimality associated to each dichotomy. We provide several examples of tight spaces from the two main families of exotic Banach spaces: spaces of the type of Gowers and Maurey [@GM] and spaces of the type of Argyros and Deliyanni [@AD]. Recall that both types of spaces are defined using a coding procedure to “conditionalise” the norm of some ground space defined by induction. In spaces of the type of Gowers and Maurey, the ground space is the space $S$ of Schlumprecht, and in spaces of the type of Argyros and Deliyanni, it is a mixed (in further versions modified or partly modified) Tsirelson space associated to the sequence of Schreier families. The space $S$ is far from being asymptotic $\ell_p$ and is actually uniformly inhomogeneous, and this is the case for our examples of the type of Gowers-Maurey as well. On the other hand, we use a space in the second family, inspired from an example of Argyros, Deliyanni, Kutzarova and Manoussakis [@ADKM], to produce strongly asymptotically $\ell_1$ and $\ell_{\infty}$ examples with strong tightness properties.
In the last section, a final list of 19 inevitable classes of “pure” Banach spaces associated to the six dichotomies is given, with examples for 8 of these classes, Theorem \[final\]. Open problems are also stated.
Preliminaries
=============
Notation, terminology, and conventions
--------------------------------------
We shall in the following almost exclusively deal with infinite-dimensional Banach spaces, so to avoid repeating this, we will always assume our spaces to be infinite-dimensional. The spaces can also safely be assumed to be separable, but this will play no role and is not assumed. Moreover, all spaces will be assumed to be over the field of real numbers ${\mathbb R}$, though the results hold without modification for complex spaces too.
Suppose $E$ is a Banach space with a normalised Schauder basis $(e_n)$. Then, by a standard Skolem hull construction, there is a countable subfield ${\bf F}$ of ${\mathbb R}$ containing the rational numbers ${\mathbb Q}$ such that for any finite linear combination $$\lambda_0e_0+\lambda_1e_1+\ldots+\lambda_ne_n$$ with $\lambda_i\in {\bf F}$, we have ${\lVert\lambda_0e_0+\lambda_1e_1+\ldots+\lambda_ne_n\rVert}\in {\bf F}$. This means that any ${\bf F}$-linear combination of $(e_n)$ can be normalised, while remaining a ${\bf F}$-linear combination. Thus, as the set of ${\mathbb Q}$ and hence also ${\bf F}$-linear combinations of $(e_n)$ are dense in $E$, also the set of ${\bf F}$-linear normalised combinations of $(e_n)$ are dense in the unit sphere ${\mathcal}S_E$.
A [*block vector*]{} is a normalised finite linear combination $x=\lambda_0e_0+\lambda_1e_1+\ldots+\lambda_ne_n$ where $\lambda_i\in {\bf F}$. We insist on blocks being normalised and ${\bf F}$-linear and will be explicit on the few occasions that we deal with non-normalised blocks. The restriction to ${\bf F}$-linear combinations is no real loss of generality, but instead has the effect that there are only countably many blocks. We denote by ${\bf Q}$ the set of blocks. The [*support*]{}, ${\rm supp}\; x$, of a block $x=\lambda_0e_0+\lambda_1e_1+\ldots+\lambda_ne_n$ is the set of $i\in {\mathbb N}$ such that $\lambda_i\neq 0$ and the [*range*]{}, ${\rm range}\; x$, is the smallest interval $I\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ containing ${\rm supp}\; x$.
A [*block (sub)sequence*]{}, [*block basis*]{}, or [*blocking*]{} of $(e_n)$ is an infinite sequence $(x_n)$ of blocks such that ${\rm supp}\; x_n<{\rm supp}\; x_{n+1}$ for all $n$ and a [*block subspace*]{} is the closed linear span of a block sequence. Notice that if $X$ is a block subspace, then the associated block sequence $(x_n)$ such that $X=[x_n]$ is uniquely defined up to the choice of signs $\pm x_n$. So we shall sometimes confuse block sequences and block subspaces. For two block subspaces $X=[x_n]$ and $Y=[y_n]$, write $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$ if $Y\subseteq X$, or, equivalently, $y_n\in {\rm span}(x_i)$ for all $n$. Also, let $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^* X$ if there is some $N$ such that $y_n\in {\rm span}(x_i)$ for all $n{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}N$.
When we work with block subspaces of some basis $(e_n)$, we will assume that we have chosen the same countable subfield ${\bf F}$ of ${\mathbb R}$ for all block sequences $(x_n)$ of $(e_n)$, and hence a vector in $[x_n]$ is a block of $(x_n)$ if and only if it is a block of $(e_n)$, so no ambiguity occurs. We consider the set $bb(e_n)$ of block sequences of $(e_n)$ as a closed subset of ${\bf Q}^{\mathbb N}$, where ${\bf Q}$ is equipped with the discrete topology. In this way, $bb(e_n)$ is a Polish, i.e., separable, completely metrisable space. If $\Delta=(\delta_n)$ is a sequence of positive real numbers, which we denote by $\Delta>0$, and ${\mathbb A}\subseteq bb(e_n)$, we designate by ${\mathbb A}_\Delta$ the set $${\mathbb A}_\Delta=\{(y_n)\in bb(e_n){ \; \big| \;}{\exists}(x_n)\in bb(e_n)\; {\forall}n\; {\lVertx_n-y_n\rVert}<\delta_n\}.$$
If $A$ is an infinite subset of ${\mathbb N}$, we denote by $[A]$ the space of infinite subsets of $A$ with the topology inherited from $2^A$. Also, if $a\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is finite, $$[a,A]=\{B\in [{\mathbb N}]{ \; \big| \;}a\subseteq B \subseteq a\cup ( A\cap [\max a+1,\infty[) \}.$$
Given two Banach spaces $X$ and $Y$, we say that $X$ is [*crudely finitely representable*]{} in $Y$ if there is a constant $K$ such that for any finite-dimensional subspace $F\subseteq X$ there is an embedding $T\colon F{\rightarrow}Y$ with constant $K$, i.e., ${\lVertT\rVert}\cdot{\lVertT{^{-1}}\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}K$.
Also, if $X=[x_n]$ and $Y=[y_n]$ are spaces with bases, we say that $X$ [*crudely block finitely representable*]{} in $Y$ if for some constant $K$ and all $k$, there are (not necessarily normalised) blocks $z_0<\ldots<z_k$ of $(y_n)$ such that $(x_0,\ldots,x_k)\sim_K(z_0,\ldots,z_k)$.
Two Banach spaces are said to be [*incomparable*]{} if neither one embeds into the other, and [*totally incomparable*]{} if no subspace of one is isomorphic to a subspace of the other.
We shall at several occasions use non-trivial facts about the Tsirelson space, for which our reference is [@CS], and also facts from descriptive set theory that can all be found in [@kechris]. For classical facts in Banach space theory we refer to [@LT].
Gowers’ block sequence game
---------------------------
A major ingredient in several of our proofs will be the following equivalent version of Gowers’ game due to J. Bagaria and J. López-Abad [@BL].
Suppose $E=[e_n]$ is given. Player I and II alternate in choosing blocks $x_0<x_1<x_2<\ldots$ and $y_0<y_1<y_2<\ldots$ as follows: Player I plays in the $k$’th round of the game a block $x_k$ such that $x_{k-1}<x_k$. In response to this, II either chooses to pass, and thus play nothing in the $k$’th round, or plays a block $y_i\in [x_{l+1},\ldots,x_k]$, where $l$ was the last round in which II played a block. $$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & x_0 &\ldots & x_{k_0} & & x_{k_0+1} & \ldots&
x_{k_1}&\\
{\bf II} & & & &y_0\in [x_0,\ldots,x_{k_0}] & & & & y_1\in[x_{k_0+1},\ldots,x_{k_1}]
\end{array}$$ We thus see I as constructing a block sequence $(x_i)$, while II chooses a block subsequence $(y_i)$. This block subsequence $(y_i)$ is then called the [*outcome*]{} of the game. (Potentially the blocking could be finite, but the winning condition can be made such that II loses unless it is infinite.)
Gowers [@g:dicho] proved that if ${\mathbb A}\subseteq bb(e_i)$ is an analytic set such that any $(x_i)\in bb(e_i)$ has a block subsequence $(y_i)\in bb(e_i)$ belonging to ${\mathbb A}$, then for all $\Delta>0$ and $(z_i)\in bb(e_i)$, there is a block subsequence $(v_i)\in bb(e_i)$ of $(z_i)$ such that II has a strategy to play in ${\mathbb A}_\Delta$ if I is restricted to play blockings of $(v_i)$.
A trick and a lemma {#tricks}
-------------------
We gather here a couple of facts that will be used repeatedly later on.
We shall at several occasions use coding with inevitable subsets of the unit sphere of a Banach space, as was first done by López-Abad in [@lopez]. So let us recall here the relevant facts and set up a framework for such codings.
Suppose $E$ is an infinite-dimensional Banach space with a basis not containing a copy of $c_0$. Then by the solution to the distortion problem by Odell and Schlumprecht [@OS:distortion] there is a block subspace $[x_n]$ of $E$ and two closed subsets $F_0$ and $F_1$ of the unit sphere of $[x_n]$ such that ${\rm dist}(F_0,F_1)=\delta>0$ and such that for all block bases $(y_n)$ of $(x_n)$ there are block vectors $v$ and $u$ of $(y_n)$ such that $v\in F_0$ and $u\in F_1$. In this case we say that $F_0$ and $F_1$ are [*positively separated, inevitable, closed subsets of ${\mathcal}S_{[x_n]}$*]{}.
We can now use the sets $F_0$ and $F_1$ to code infinite binary sequences, i.e., $\alpha\in 2^{\mathbb N}$ in the following manner. If $(z_n)$ is a block sequence of $(x_n)$ such that for all $n$, $z_n\in F_0\cup F_1$, we let $\varphi((z_n))=\alpha\in {{2^{\mathbb N}}}$ be defined by $$\alpha_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{if $z_n\in F_0$;} \\
1, & \hbox{if $z_n\in F_1$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Since the sets $F_0$ and $F_1$ are positive separated, this coding is fairly rigid and can be extended to block sequences $(v_n)$ such that ${\rm dist}(v_n,F_0\cup F_1)<\frac\delta2$ by letting $\varphi((v_n))=\beta\in{{2^{\mathbb N}}}$ be defined by $$\beta_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{if ${\rm dist}(v_n, F_0)<\frac\delta2$;} \\
1, & \hbox{if ${\rm dist}(v_n, F_1)<\frac\delta2$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ In this way we have that if $(z_n)$ and $(v_n)$ are block sequences with $z_n\in F_0\cup F_1$ and $\|v_n-z_n\|<\frac\delta2$ for all $n$, then $\varphi((z_n))=\varphi((v_n))$.
One can now use elements of Cantor space ${{2^{\mathbb N}}}$ to code other objects in various ways. For example, let ${\mathbb H}$ denote the set of finite non-empty sequences $(q_0,q_1,\ldots,q_n)$ of rationals with $q_n\neq 0$. Then as ${\mathbb H}$ is countable, we can enumerate it as $\vec h_0,\vec h_1,\ldots$. If now $(y_n)$ and $(v_n)$ are block sequences with $\varphi((v_n))=0^{n_0}10^{n_1}10^{n_2}1\ldots$, then $(v_n)$ codes an infinite sequence $\Psi((v_n),(y_n))=(u_n)$ of (not necessarily normalised) non-zero blocks of $(y_n)$ by the following rule: $$u_k=q_0y_0+q_1y_1+\ldots+q_my_m,$$ where $\vec h_{n_k}=(q_0,\ldots,q_m)$.
We should then notice three things about this type of coding:
- It is [*inevitable*]{}, i.e., for all block sequences $(y_n)$ of $(x_n)$ and $\alpha\in {{2^{\mathbb N}}}$, there is a block sequence $(v_n)$ of $(y_n)$ with $\varphi((v_n))=\alpha$.
- It is [*continuous*]{}, i.e., to know an initial segment of $(u_n)=\Psi((v_n),(y_n))$, we only need to know initial segments of $(v_n)$ and of $(y_n)$.
- It is [*stable under small perturbations*]{}. I.e., we can find some $\Delta=(\delta_n)$ only depending on the basis constant of $(x_n)$ with the following property. Assume that $(v_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are block bases of $(x_n)$ with $v_n\in F_0\cup F_1$ for all $n$ and such that $\Psi((v_n),(y_n))=(u_n)$ is in fact a block sequence of $(y_n)$ with $\frac 12<u_n<2$. Then whenever $(v'_n)$ and $(y'_n)$ are other block sequences of $(x_n)$ with $\|v_n-v'_n\|<\frac\delta2$ and $\|y_n-y'_n\|<\delta_n$ for all $n$, the sequence $\Psi((v'_n),(y'_n))=(u'_n)$ will be a block sequence of $(y'_n)$ that is $2$-equivalent to $(u_n)$.
One can of course consider codings of other objects than sequences of vectors and, depending on the coding, obtain similar continuity and stability properties.
The inevitability of the coding is often best used in the following form.
- Suppose ${\mathbb B}$ is a set of pairs $((y_n),\alpha)$, where $(y_n)$ is a block sequence of $(x_n)$ and $\alpha\in {{2^{\mathbb N}}}$, such that for all block sequences $(z_n)$ of $(x_n)$ there is a further block sequence $(y_n)$ and an $\alpha$ such that $((y_n),\alpha)\in{\mathbb B}$. Then for all block sequences $(z_n)$ of $(x_n)$ there is a further block sequence $(y_n)$ such that for all $n$, $y_{2n+1}\in F_0\cup F_1$ and $((y_{2n}),\varphi((y_{2n+1})))\in {\mathbb B}$.
To see this, let $(z_n)$ be given and notice that by the inevitability of the coding there is a block sequence $(w_n)$ of $(z_n)$ such that $w_{3n+1}\in F_0$ and $w_{3n+2}\in F_1$. Pick now a block sequence $(v_n)$ of $(w_{3n})$ and an $\alpha$ such that $((v_n),\alpha)\in {\mathbb B}$. Notice now that between $v_n$ and $v_{n+1}$ there are block vectors $w_{3i_n+1}$ and $w_{3i_n+2}$ of $(z_n)$ belonging to $F_0$, respectively $F_1$. Thus, if we let $y_{2n}=v_n$ and set $$y_{2n+1}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
w_{3i_n+1}, & \hbox{if $\alpha_n=0$;} \\
w_{3i_n+2}, & \hbox{if $\alpha_n=1$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ then $((y_{2n}),\varphi((y_{2n+1})))\in {\mathbb B}$.
\[block uniformisation\] Let $(x_n^0){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(x_n^1){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(x_n^2){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\ldots$ be a decreasing sequence of block bases of a basic sequence $(x_n^0)$. Then there exists a block basis $(y_n)$ of $(x_n^0)$ such that $(y_n)$ is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with a block basis of $(x_n^K)$ for every $K$.
Let $c(L)$ be a constant depending on the basis constant of $(x_n^0)$ such that if two block bases differ in at most $L$ terms, then they are $c(L)$-equivalent. Find now a sequence $L_0{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}L_1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}L_2{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\ldots$ of non-negative integers tending to $+\infty$ such that $c(L_K)<\sqrt K$. We can now easily construct an infinite block basis $(y_n)$ such that for all $K$ at most the first $L_K$ terms of $(y_n)$ are not blocks of $(x_n^K)_{n=L_K+1}^\infty$. Then $(y_n)$ differs from a block basis of $(x_n^K)$ in at most $L_K$ terms and hence is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with a block basis of $(x_n^K)$.
Tightness
=========
Tight bases
-----------
The following definition is central to the rest of the paper.
Consider a Banach space $E$ with a basis $(e_n)$ and let $Y$ be an arbitrary Banach space. We say that $Y$ is [*tight in the basis*]{} $(e_n)$ if there is a sequence of successive non-empty intervals $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ of ${\mathbb N}$ such that for all infinite subsets $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, we have $$Y\not\sqsubseteq [e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i].$$ In other words, if $Y$ embeds into $[e_n]_{n\in B}$, then $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ intersects all but finitely many intervals $I_i$.
We say that $(e_n)$ is [*tight*]{} if every infinite-dimensional Banach space $Y$ is tight in $(e_n)$.
Finally, an infinite-dimensional Banach space $X$ is [*tight*]{} if it has a tight basis.
Also, the following more analytical criterion will prove to be useful. For simplicity, denote by $P_I$ the canonical projection onto $[e_n]_{n\in I}$.
\[projection tightness\] Let $X$ be a Banach space, $(e_n)$ a basis for a space $E$, and $(I_n)$ finite intervals such that $\min I_n{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{n{\rightarrow}\infty}}\infty$ and for all infinite $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, $$X\not\sqsubseteq[e_n]_{n\notin\bigcup_{k\in A}I_k}.$$ Then whenever $T\colon X{\rightarrow}[e_n]$ is an embedding, we have $\liminf_k {\lVertP_{I_k}T\rVert}>0$.
Suppose towards a contradiction that $T\colon X{\rightarrow}E$ is an embedding such that for some infinite $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, $\lim_{\substack{k{\rightarrow}\infty\\k\in A}}{\lVertP_{I_k}T\rVert}=0$. Then, by passing to an infinite subset of $A$, we can suppose that $\sum_{k\in A}{\lVertP_{I_k}T\rVert}<\frac 12{\lVertT{^{-1}}\rVert}{^{-1}}$ and that the intervals $(I_n)_{n\in A}$ are disjoint. Thus, the sequence of operators $(P_{I_k}T)_{k\in A}$ is absolutely summable and therefore the operator $\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}T\colon X{\rightarrow}E$ exists and has norm $<\frac12{\lVertT{^{-1}}\rVert}{^{-1}}$.
But then for $x\in X$ we have $${\lVert\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}Tx\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVert\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}T\rVert}\cdot{\lVertx\rVert}<\frac 1{2{\lVertT{^{-1}}\rVert}}{\lVertx\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac 1{2{\lVertT{^{-1}}\rVert}}{\lVertT{^{-1}}\rVert}\cdot{\lVertTx\rVert}=\frac12{\lVertTx\rVert},$$ and hence also $${\lVert\big(T-\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}T\big)x\rVert}{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}{\lVertTx\rVert}-{\lVert\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}Tx\rVert}{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}{\lVertTx\rVert}-\frac 12{\lVertTx\rVert}=\frac12{\lVertTx\rVert}.$$ So $T-\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}T$ is still an embedding of $X$ into $E$. But this is impossible as $T-\sum_{k\in A}P_{I_k}T$ takes values in $[e_n]_{n\notin\bigcup_{k\in A}I_k}$.
A tight Banach space contains no minimal subspaces.
Suppose $(e_n)$ is a tight basis for a space $E$ and let $Y$ be any subspace of $E$. Pick a block subspace $X=[x_n]$ of $E$ that embeds into $Y$. Since $Y$ is tight in $(e_n)$, we can find a sequence of intervals $(I_i)$ such that $Y$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n\in B}$ whenever $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is disjoint from an infinite number of intervals $I_i$. By passing to a subsequence $(z_n)$ of $(x_n)$, we obtain a space $Z=[z_n]$ that is a subspace of some $[e_n]_{n\in B}$ where $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is disjoint from an infinite number of intervals $I_i$, and hence $Y$ does not embed into $Z$. Since $Z$ embeds into $Y$, this shows that $Y$ is not minimal.
The classical example of space without minimal subspaces is Tsirelson’s space $T$ and it is not too difficult to show that $T$ is tight. This will be proved later on as a consequence of a more general result.
Any block sequence of a tight basis is easily seen to be tight. And also:
If $E$ is a tight Banach space, then every shrinking basic sequence in $E$ is tight.
Suppose $(e_n)$ is a tight basis for $E$ and $(f_n)$ is a shrinking basic sequence in $E$. Let $Y$ be an arbitrary space and find intervals $I_0<I_1<\ldots$ associated to $Y$ for $(e_n)$, i.e., for all infinite subsets $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, we have $Y\not\sqsubseteq [e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i]$.
We notice that, since $(e_n)$ is a basis, we have for all $m$ $${\lVertP_{I_k}|_{[f_i{ \; \big| \;}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m]}\rVert}{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}}0, \eqno(1)$$ and, since $(f_n)$ is shrinking and the $P_{I_k}$ have finite rank, we have for all $k$ $${\lVertP_{I_k}|_{[f_i{ \; \big| \;}i> m]}\rVert}{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{m{\rightarrow}\infty}}0. \eqno(2)$$ Using alternately (1) and (2), we can construct integers $k_0<k_1<\ldots$ and intervals $J_0<J_1<\ldots$ such that $${\lVertP_{I_{k_n}}|_{[f_i{ \; \big| \;}\notin J_n]}\rVert}<\frac 2{n+1}.$$ To see this, suppose $k_{n-1}$ and $J_{n-1}$ have been defined and find some large $k_n>k_{n-1}$ such that $${\lVertP_{I_{k_n}}|_{[f_i{ \; \big| \;}i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\max J_{n-1}]}\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac 1{n+1}.$$ Now, choose $m$ large enough that $${\lVertP_{I_{k_n}}|_{[f_i{ \; \big| \;}i> m]}\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac1{n+1},$$ and set $J_n=[\max J_{n-1}+1,m]$. Then ${\lVertP_{I_{k_n}}|_{[f_i{ \; \big| \;}i\notin J_n]}\rVert}<\frac2{n+1}$. It follows that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite and $T\colon Y{\rightarrow}[f_i]_{i\notin \bigcup_{n\in A}J_n}$ is an embedding, then $\lim_{n\in A}{\lVertP_{I_{k_n}}T\rVert}=0$, which contradicts Lemma \[projection tightness\]. So $(J_n)$ witnesses that $Y$ is tight in $(f_n)$.
If a tight Banach space $X$ is reflexive, then every basic sequence in $X$ is tight.
Notice that, since $c_0$ and $\ell_1$ are minimal, we have by the classical theorem of James, that if $X$ is a tight Banach space with an unconditional basis, then $X$ is reflexive and so every basic sequence in $X$ is tight.
\[ex\] The symmetrisation $S(T^{(p)})$ of the $p$-convexification of Tsirelson’s space, $1<p<+\infty$, does not contain a minimal subspace, yet it is not tight.
Since $S(T^{(p)})$ is saturated with subspaces of $T^{(p)}$ and $T^{(p)}$ does not contain a minimal subspace, it follows that $S(T^{(p)})$ does not have a minimal subspace. The canonical basis $(e_n)$ of $S(T^{(p)})$ is symmetric, therefore $S(T^{(p)})$ is not tight in $(e_n)$ and so $(e_n)$ is not tight. By reflexivity, no basis of $S(T^{(p)})$ is tight.
A generalised asymptotic game
-----------------------------
Suppose $X=[x_n]$ and $Y=[y_n]$ are two Banach spaces with bases. We define the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1$ between two players I and II as follows: I will in each turn play a natural number $n_i$, while II will play a not necessarily normalised block vector $u_i\in X$ and a natural number $m_i$ such that $$u_i\in X[n_0,m_0]+\ldots +X[n_i,m_i],$$ where, for ease of notation, we write $X[k,m]$ to denote $[x_n]_{k{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m}$. Diagramatically, $$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & & n_0 & & n_1 & & n_2 & & n_3& &\ldots \\
{\bf II} & & & & u_0,m_0 & & u_1, m_1 & & u_2,m_2 & & u_3,m_3 &\ldots
\end{array}$$ We say that the sequence $(u_i)_{i\in {\mathbb N}}$ is the [*outcome*]{} of the game and say that II wins the game if $(u_i)\sim_{C}(y_i)$.
For simplicity of notation, if $X=[x_n]$ is space with a basis, $Y$ a Banach space, $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ a sequence of non-empty intervals of ${\mathbb N}$ and $K$ is a constant, we write $$Y\sqsubseteq _K(X,I_i)$$ if there is an infinite set $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ containing $0$ such that $$Y\sqsubseteq_K [x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i],$$ i.e., $Y$ embeds with constant $K$ into the subspace of $X$ spanned by $(x_n)_{n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i}$. Also, write $$Y\sqsubseteq (X,I_i)$$ if there is an infinite set $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ such that $Y\sqsubseteq [x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i]$. Notice that in the latter case we can always demand that $0\in A$ by perturbating the embedding with a finite rank operator.
It is clear that if $Y=[y_n]$ and II has a winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $K$, then for any sequence of intervals $(I_i)$, $Y \sqsubseteq_K(X,I_i)$.
Modulo the determinacy of open games, the next lemma shows that the converse holds up to a perturbation.
\[strategic uniformisation\] Suppose $X=[x_n]$ is space with a basis and $K$ is a constant such that for all block bases $Y$ of $X$ there is a winning strategy for I in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $2K$. Then there is a Borel function $f\colon bb(X){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all $Y$ if $I_j=[f(Y)_{2j},f(Y)_{2j+1}]$, then $$Y\not\sqsubseteq_K(X,I_j).$$
Notice that the game $H_{Y,X}$ is open for player I and, in fact, if ${\bf Q}_{2K}$ denotes the set of blocks $u$ with $\frac1{2K}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVertu\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2K$, then the set $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb A}=\{&(Y,\vec p)\in bb(X)\times ({\mathbb N}\times {\bf Q}_{2K}\times {\mathbb N})^{\mathbb N}{ \; \big| \;}\textrm{ either $\vec p$ is a legal run of the game } H_{Y,X}\\
&\textrm{with constant $2K$ in which I wins or $\vec p$ is not a legal run of the game } H_{Y,X}\}
\end{split}$$ is Borel and has open sections ${\mathbb A}_Y=\{\vec p\in ({\mathbb N}\times {\bf Q}_{2K}\times {\mathbb N})^{\mathbb N}{ \; \big| \;}(Y,\vec p)\in {\mathbb A}\}$. Also, since there are no rules for the play of I in $H_{Y,X}$, ${\mathbb A}_Y$ really corresponds to the winning plays for I in $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $2K$. By assumption, I has a winning strategy to play in ${\mathbb A}_Y$ for all $Y$, and so by the theorem on strategic uniformisation (see (35.32) in [@kechris]), there is a Borel function $\sigma\colon Y\mapsto \sigma_Y$ that to each $Y$ associates a winning strategy for I in the game $H_{Y, X}$ with constant $2K$.
Now let $\Delta=(\delta_n)$ be a sequence of positive reals such that for all sequences of blocks $(w_n)$ of $X$ with $\frac1{K}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVertw_n\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}K$ and sequences of vectors $(u_n)$, if for all $n$, ${\lVertw_n-u_n\rVert}<\delta_n$, then $(w_n)\sim_2(u_n)$. We also choose sets ${\mathbb D}_n$ of finite (not necessarily normalised) blocks with the following properties:
- for each finite $d\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, the number of vectors $u\in {\mathbb D}_n$ such that ${\rm supp}\; u=d$ is finite,
- for all blocks vectors $w$ with $\frac1{K}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVertw\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}K$, there is some $u\in {\mathbb D}_n$ with ${\rm supp} \;w={\rm supp}\; u$ such that ${\lVertw-u\rVert}<\delta_n$.
This is possible since the $K$-ball in $[x_i]_{i\in d}$ is totally bounded for all finite $d\subseteq{\mathbb N}$. So for all sequences $(w_n)$ of blocks with $1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVertw_n\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}K$ there is some $(u_n)\in \prod_n{\mathbb D}_n$ such that ${\rm supp}\; w_n={\rm supp}\; u_n$ and ${\lVertw_n-u_n\rVert}<\delta_n$ for all $n$, whence $(w_n)\sim_2(u_n)$.
Suppose now that $Y=[y_n]$ is given. For each $p=(n_0,u_0,m_0,\ldots,n_i,u_i,m_i)$, where $u_j\in {\mathbb D}_j$ for all $j$ and $$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & & & n_0 & & n_1 & & \ldots & n_i& & \\
{\bf II} & & & & u_0,m_0 & & u_1, m_1 & \ldots & & & u_i,m_i&
\end{array}$$ is a legal position in the game $H_{Y,X}$ in which I has played according to $\sigma_Y$, we write $p<k$ if $n_j,u_j,m_j<k$ for all $j{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i$. Notice that for all $k$ there are only finitely many such $p$ with $p<k$, so we can define $$\alpha(k)=\max(k,\max\{\sigma_Y(p){ \; \big| \;}p<k\})$$ and set $I_k=[k,\alpha(k)]$. Clearly, the sequence $(I_k)$ can be computed in a Borel fashion from $Y$. The $I_k$ are not necessarily successive, but their minimal elements tend to $\infty$, so to prove the lemma it is enough to show that $Y$ does not $K$-embed into $[x_n]$ avoiding an infinite number of $I_k$.
Suppose now for a contradiction that $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, $0\in A$ and $y_i\mapsto w_i$ is a $K$-embedding into $[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{k\notin A}I_k]$. Using the defining properties of ${\mathbb D}_i$, we find $u_i\in {\mathbb D}_i$ such that ${\lVertw_i-u_i\rVert}<\delta_i$ and ${\rm supp}\;w_i={\rm supp}\; u_i$ for all $i$, whereby $(u_i)\sim_2(w_i)\sim_K(y_i)$.
We now proceed to define natural numbers $n_i$, $m_i$, and $a_i\in A$ such that for $p_i=(n_0,u_0,m_0,\ldots, n_i,u_i,m_i)$, we have
- $a_0=0$ and $[0,n_0[\subseteq I_{a_0}$,
- $m_i=a_{i+1}-1$,
- $p_i$ is a legal position in $H_{Y,X}$ in which I has played according to $\sigma_Y$,
- $]m_i,n_{i+1}[\subseteq I_{a_{i+1}}$.
Let $a_0=0$ and $n_0=\sigma_Y(\emptyset)=\alpha(0)$, whence $I_{a_0}=[0,\alpha(0)]=[0,n_0]$. Find $a_1$ such that $n_0,u_0,a_0<a_1$ and set $m_0=a_1-1$. Then $p_0=(n_0,u_0,m_0)$ is a legal position in $H_{Y,X}$ in which I has played according to $\sigma_Y$, $p_0<a_1$, so $n_1=\sigma_Y(n_0,u_0,m_0){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\alpha(a_1)$, and therefore $]m_0,n_1[\subseteq I_{a_1}=[a_1,\alpha(a_1)]$.
Now suppose by induction that $n_0,\ldots, n_i$ and $a_0,\ldots, a_i$ have been defined. Since $[0,n_0[\subseteq I_{a_0}$ and $]m_j,n_{j+1}[\subseteq I_{a_{j+1}}$ for all $j<i$, we have $$u_{i}\in X[n_0,m_0]+\ldots + X[n_{i-1},m_{i-1}]+ X[n_i,\infty[.$$ Find some $a_{i+1}$ greater than all of $n_0,\ldots, n_i$, $u_0,\ldots, u_i$, $a_0,\ldots, a_i$ and let $m_i=a_{i+1}-1$. Then $$u_{i}\in X[n_0,m_0]+\ldots + X[n_{i-1},m_{i-1}]+ X[n_i,m_i]$$ and $p_i=(n_0,u_0,m_0,\ldots, n_i,u_i,m_i)$ is a legal position played according to $\sigma_Y$. Since $p_i<a_{i+1}$ also $$n_{i+1}=\sigma_Y(n_0,u_0,m_0,\ldots, n_i,u_i,m_i){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\alpha(a_{i+1}).$$ Thus $]m_i,n_{i+1}[\subseteq I_{a_{i+1}}=[a_{i+1},\alpha(a_{i+1})]$.
Now since $p_0\subseteq p_1\subseteq p_2\subseteq\ldots$, we can let $\vec p=\bigcup_ip_i$ and see that $\vec p$ is a run of the game in which I followed the strategy $\sigma_Y$ and II has played $(u_i)$. Since $\sigma_Y$ is winning for I, this implies that $(u_i)\not\sim_{2K}(y_i)$ contradicting our assumption.
\[interval diagonalisation\] Suppose $X=[x_n]$ is a space with a basis and $Y$ is a space such that for all constants $K$ there are intervals $I_0^{(K)}<I_1^{(K)}<I^{(K)}_2<\ldots$ such that $Y\not\sqsubseteq_K(X,I^{(K)}_j)$. Then there are intervals $J_0<J_1<J_2<\ldots$ such that $Y\not\sqsubseteq (X,J_j)$. Moreover, the intervals $(J_j)$ can be computed in a Borel manner from $(I_i^{(K)})_{i,K}$.
By induction we can now construct intervals $J_0<J_1<J_2<\ldots$ such that $J_n$ contains one interval from each of $(I^{(1)}_i), \ldots , (I^{(n)}_i)$ and if $M=\min J_n-1$ and $K=\lceil n\cdot c(M)\rceil$, then $\max J_n>\max I^{(K)}_0+M$, where $c(M)$ is a constant such that if two subsequences of $(x_n)$ differ in at most $M$ terms then they are $c(M)$ equivalent. It then follows that if $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, then $$Y\not\sqsubseteq [x_n]_{n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}J_i}.$$ To see this, suppose towards a contradiction that $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite and that for some integer $N$, $$Y\sqsubseteq_N [x_n]_{n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}J_i}.$$ Pick then $a\in A$ such that $a{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}N$ and set $M=\min J_a-1$ and $K=\lceil a\cdot c(M)\rceil$. Define an isomorphic embedding $T$ from $$[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}J_i]$$ into $$[x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}J_i\;\&\; n>\max J_a]+[x_n{ \; \big| \;}\max I_0^{(K)}<n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\max J_a ]$$ by setting $$T(x_n)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_n, & \hbox{if $n>\max J_a$;} \\
x_{\max I_0^{(K)}+n+1}, & \hbox{if $n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}M$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ This is possible since $\max J_a>\max I^{(K)}_0+M$. Also, since $T$ only changes at most $M$ vectors from $(x_n)$, it is a $c(M)$ embedding. Therefore, by composing with $T$ and using that $N\cdot c(M){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}a\cdot c(M){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}K$, we see that $$Y\sqsubseteq_K [x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}J_i\;\&\; n>\max J_a]+[x_n{ \; \big| \;}\max I_0^{(K)}<n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\max J_a].$$ In particular, as almost all $J_i$ contain an interval $I_l^{(K)}$, we can find and infinite set $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ containing $0$ such that $$Y\sqsubseteq_K [x_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in B}I^{(K)}_i],$$ which is a contradiction.
\[borel tight\] Let $E=[e_n]$ be given and suppose that for all block subspaces $Z{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$ and constants $C$ there is a block subspace $X{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}Z$ such that for all block subspaces $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$, I has a winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C$. Then there is a block subspace $X{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$ and a Borel function $f\colon bb(X){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all normalised block bases $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$, if we set $I_j=[f(Y)_{2j},f(Y)_{2j+1}]$, then $$Y\not\sqsubseteq (X,I_j).$$
Using the hypothesis inductively together with Lemma \[strategic uniformisation\], we can construct a sequence $X_0{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}X_1{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}X_2{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\ldots$ of block subspaces $X_K$ and corresponding Borel functions $f_K\colon bb(X_K){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all $V{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X_K$ if $I_j=[f_K(V)_{2j},f_K(V)_{2j+1}]$, then $V\not\sqsubseteq_{K^2} (X_K,I_j)$.
Pick by Lemma \[block uniformisation\] some block $X_\infty$ of $X_0$ that is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with a block sequence $Z_K$ of $X_K$ for every $K$. Then for any block sequence $Y$ of $X_\infty$ and any $K$ there is some block sequence $V{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}Z_K{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X_K$ such that $Y$ is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with $V$. Let $(I_j)$ be the intervals given by $f_K(V)$ so that $V\not\sqsubseteq_{K^2}(X_K,I_j)$. We can then in a Borel way from $(I_j)$ construct intervals $(J_j)$ such that $V\not\sqsubseteq_{K^2}(Z_K,J_j)$ and therefore also $Y\not\sqsubseteq_{K}(X_\infty,J_j)$.
This means that there are Borel functions $g_K\colon bb(X_\infty){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X_\infty$ if $J^K_j(Y)=[g_K(Y)_{2j},g_K(Y)_{2j+1}]$, then $Y\not\sqsubseteq_K (X_\infty, J^K_j(Y))$. Using Lemma \[interval diagonalisation\] we can now in a Borel manner in $Y$ define intervals $L^Y_0<L^Y_1<\ldots$ such that $$Y\not\sqsubseteq (X_\infty,L^Y_j).$$ Letting $f\colon bb(X_\infty){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ be the Borel function corresponding to $Y\mapsto (L^Y_j)$, we have our result.
As will be clear in Section \[chains and posets\] it can be useful to have a version of tightness that not only assures us that certain intervals exist, but also tells us how to obtain these. Thus, we call a basis $(e_n)$ [*continuously tight*]{} if there is a continuous function $f\colon bb(e_n){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all normalised block bases $X$, if we set $I_j=[f(X)_{2j},f(X)_{2j+1}]$, then $$X\not\sqsubseteq ([e_n],I_j),$$ i.e., $X$ does not embed into $[e_n]$ avoiding an infinite number of the intervals $I_j$.
We shall now improve Lemma \[borel tight\] to conclude continuous tightness from its hypothesis.
\[cont tight\] Let $E=[e_n]$ be given and suppose that for all block subspaces $Z{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$ and constants $C$ there is a block subspace $X{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}Z$ such that for all block subspaces $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$, I has a winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C$. Then there is a continuously tight block subspace $X{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$.
We observe that $E$ does not contain a copy of $c_0$. Indeed if $Z$ is a block subspace of $E$ spanned by a block sequence which is $C$-equivalent to the unit vector basis of $c_0$, then for any $Y {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}Z$, II has a winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C^2$. We shall then use codings with inevitable subsets. So find first a block subspace $Z$ of $E$ such that there are inevitable, positively separated, closed subsets $F_0$ and $F_1$ of ${\mathcal}S_Z$. By Lemma \[borel tight\], we can find a further block subspace $V$ of $Z$ and and a Borel function $g\colon bb(V){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}V$, if $I_j=[g(Y)_{2j},g(Y)_{2j+1}]$, then $Y\not\sqsubseteq (V,I_j)$. Define the set $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb A}=\big\{&(y_n)\in bb(V){ \; \big| \;}y_{2n}\in F_0{\Leftrightarrow}n\notin g((y_{2n+1})) \textrm{ and } y_{2n}\in F_1{\Leftrightarrow}n\in g((y_{2n+1})\big\}.
\end{split}$$ Obviously, ${\mathbb A}$ is Borel and, using inevitability, one can check that any block basis of $V$ contains a further block basis in ${\mathbb A}$. Thus, by Gowers’ Determinacy Theorem, we have that for all $\Delta>0$ there is a block sequence $X$ of $V$ such that II has a strategy to play into ${\mathbb A}_\Delta$ when I plays block subspaces of $X$. Choosing $\Delta>0$ sufficiently small, this easily implies that for some block basis $X$ of $E$, there is a continuous function $h\colon bb(X){\rightarrow}bb(X)\times [{\mathbb N}]$ that to each $W{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$ associates a pair $\big(Y,(I_n)\big)$ consisting of a block sequence $Y$ of $W$ and a sequence of intervals $(I_n)$ such that $Y\not\sqsubseteq (V,I_j)$. Notice now that continuously in the sequence $(I_j)$, we can construct intervals $(J_j)$ such that $Y\not\sqsubseteq (X,J_j)$ and hence also $W\not\sqsubseteq (X,I_j)$. So the continuous function $f\colon bb(X){\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ corresponding to $W\mapsto (J_j)$ witnesses the continuous tightness of $X$.
We shall need the following consequence of continuous tightness in Section \[chains and posets\].
\[ramsey tight\] Suppose $(e_n)$ is continuously tight. Then there is a continuous function $f\colon [{\mathbb N}]{\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all $A, B\in [{\mathbb N}]$, if $B$ is disjoint from an infinite number of intervals $[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]$, then $[e_n]_{n\in A}$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n\in B}$.
It is enough to notice that the function $h\colon[{\mathbb N}]{\rightarrow}bb(e_n)$ given by $h(A)=(e_n)_{n\in A}$ is continuous. So when composed with the function witnessing continuous tightness we have the result.
A game for minimality
---------------------
For $L$ and $M$ two block subspaces of $E$, define the infinite game $G_{L,M}$ with constant $C{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1$ between two players as follows. In each round I chooses a subspace $E_i\subseteq L$ spanned by a finite block sequence of $L$, a normalised block vector $u_i\in E_0+\ldots+E_i$, and an integer $m_i$. In the first round II plays an integer $n_0$, and in all subsequent rounds II plays a subspace $F_i$ spanned by a finite block sequence of $M$, a (not necessarily normalised) block vector $v_i\in F_0+\ldots+F_i$ and an integer $n_{i+1}$. Moreover, we demand that $n_i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E_i$ and $m_i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_i$.
Diagramatically, $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
{\bf I} & &n_0{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E_0 \subseteq L & & n_1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E_1\subseteq L& & \ldots \\
& &u_0\in E_0, m_0 & & u_1\in E_0+E_1, m_1 & & \\
& & & & & & \\
{\bf II} &n_0 & & m_0{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_0 \subseteq M& &m_1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_1 \subseteq M & \ldots \\
& & &v_0 \in F_0, n_1 & &v_1 \in F_0+F_1, n_2& \\
\end{array}$$ The [*outcome*]{} of the game is the pair of infinite sequences $(u_i)$ and $(v_i)$ and we say that II wins the game if $(u_i)\sim_C(v_i)$.
\[games\] Suppose that $X$ and $Y$ are block subspaces of $E$ and that player II has a winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C$. Then II has a winning strategy in the game $G_{Y,X}$ with constant $C$.
We shall in fact prove that II has a winning strategy in a game that is obviously harder for her to win. Namely, we shall suppose that II always plays $n_i=0$, which obviously puts less restrictions on the play of I. Moreover, we do not require I to play the finite-dimensional spaces $E_i$, which therefore also puts fewer restrictions on I in subsequent rounds. Therefore, we shall suppress all mention of $E_i$ and $n_i$ and only require that the $u_i$ are block vectors in $Y$.
While playing the game $G_{Y,X}$, II will keep track of an auxiliary play of the game $H_{Y,X}$ in the following way. In the game $G_{Y,X}$ we have the following play $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
{\bf I} &u_0\in Y, m_0& & u_1\in Y, m_1& & \ldots \\
& & & & & \\
{\bf II} & & m_0{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_0 \subseteq X& &m_1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_1 \subseteq X & \ldots \\
& &v_0 \in F_0 & &v_1 \in F_0+F_1& \\
\end{array}$$ We write each vector $u_i=\sum_{j=0}^{k_i}\lambda_j^iy_j$ and may for simplicity of notation assume that $k_i<k_{i+1}$. The auxiliary run of $H_{Y,X}$ that II will keep track of is as follows, where II plays according to her winning strategy for $H_{Y,X}$. $$\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
{\bf I} & m_0 && \ldots & m_0 & &m_1 & &\ldots& m_1& &\ldots \\
{\bf II} & & w_0,p_0 & \ldots& & w_{k_0}, p_{k_0} & & w_{k_0+1},p_{k_0+1} &\ldots && w_{k_1},p_{k_1} &\ldots
\end{array}$$ To compute the $v_i$ and $F_i$ in the game $G_{Y,X}$, II will refer to the play of $H_{Y,X}$ and set $$v_i=\sum_{j=0}^{k_i}\lambda_j^iw_j,$$ and let $$F_i=X[m_i,\max\{p_{k_{i-1}+1},\ldots,p_{k_i}\}].$$ It is not difficult to see that $m_i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_i\subseteq X$, $v_i\in F_0+\ldots +F_i$, and that the $F_i$ and $v_i$ only depends on $u_0,\ldots, u_i$ and $m_0, \ldots, m_i$. Thus this describes a strategy for II in $G_{Y,X}$ and it suffices to verify that it is a winning strategy.
But since II follows her strategy in $H_{Y,X}$, we know that $(w_i)\sim_C(y_i)$ and therefore, since $u_i$ and $v_i$ are defined by the same coefficients over respectively $(y_i)$ and $(w_i)$, we have that $(v_i)\sim_C(u_i)$.
A dichotomy for minimality
--------------------------
We are now in condition to prove the central result of this paper.
\[3rddichotomy\] Let $E$ be a Banach space with a basis $(e_i)$. Then either $E$ contains a minimal block subspace or a continuously tight block subspace.
Suppose that $E$ has no continuously tight block basic sequence. By Lemma \[cont tight\], we can, modulo passing to a block subspace, suppose that for some constant $C$ and for all block subspaces $X{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$ there is a further block subspace $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$ such that I has no winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C$. By the determinacy of open games, this implies that for all block subspaces $X{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$ there is a further block subspace $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}X$ such that II has a winning strategy in the game $H_{Y,X}$ with constant $C$.
A [*state*]{} is a pair $(a,b)$ with $a,b\in ({\bf Q}'\times {\mathbb F})^{<{\omega}}$, where $\mathbb F$ is the set of subspaces spanned by finite block sequences and ${\bf Q}'$ the set of not necessarily normalised blocks, such that $|a|=|b|$ or $|a|=|b|+1$. The set $S$ of states is countable, and corresponds to the possible positions of a game $G_{L,M}$ after a finite number of moves were made, restricted to elements which do affect the outcome of the game from that position (i.e., $m_i$’s and $n_i$’s are forgotten).
For each state $s=(a,b)$ we will define the game $G_{L,M}(s)$ in a manner similar to the game $G_{L,M}$ depending on whether $|a|=|b|$ or $|a|=|b|+1$. To avoid excessive notation we do this via two examples:
If $a=(a_0,A_0,a_1,A_1)$, $b=(b_0,B_0,b_1,B_1)$, the game $G_{L,M}(s)$ will start with II playing some integer $n_2$, then I playing $(u_2,E_2,m_2)$ with $n_2 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E_2 \subseteq L$ and $u_2 \in A_0+A_1+E_2$, II playing $(v_2,F_2,n_3)$ with $m_2 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_2 \subseteq M$ and $v_2 \in B_0+B_1+F_2$, etc, and the outcome of the game will be the pair of infinite sequences $(a_0,a_1,u_2,\ldots)$ and $(b_0,b_1,v_2,\ldots)$.
If $a=(a_0,A_0,a_1,A_1)$, $b=(b_0,B_0)$, the game $G_{L,M}(s)$ will start with I playing some integer $m_1$, then II playing $(v_1,F_1,n_2)$ with $m_1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F_1 \subseteq M$ and $v_1 \in B_0+F_1$, I playing $(u_2,E_2,m_2)$ with $n_2 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E_2 \subseteq L$ and $u_2 \in A_0+A_1+E_2$, etc, and the outcome of the game will be the pair of infinite sequences $(a_0,a_1,u_2,\ldots)$ and $(b_0,v_1,v_2,\ldots)$.
The following lemma is well-known and easily proved by a simple diagonalisation.
Let $N$ be a countable set and let $\mu\colon bb(E) \rightarrow {\mathcal}P(N)$ satisfy either $$V{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^* W{\Rightarrow}\mu(V)\subseteq \mu (W)$$ or $$V{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^* W{\Rightarrow}\mu(V)\supseteq \mu (W).$$ Then there exists a stabilising block subspace $V_0 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$, i.e., such that $\mu(V)=\mu(V_0)$ for any $V {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^* V_0$.
Let now $\tau\colon bb(E) \rightarrow {\mathcal}P(S)$ be defined by $$s\in \tau(M){\Leftrightarrow}{\exists}L{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}M \textrm{ such that player II has a
winning strategy in } G_{L,M}(s).$$ By the asymptotic nature of the game we see that $M'{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^* M{\Rightarrow}\tau(M')\subseteq \tau (M)$, and therefore there exists $M_0{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$ which is stabilising for $\tau$. We then define a map $\rho\colon bb(E)\rightarrow {\mathcal}P(S)$ by setting $$s \in \rho(L){\Leftrightarrow}\textrm { player II has a winning strategy in } G_{L,M_0}(s).$$ Again $L'{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^* L{\Rightarrow}\rho(L')\supseteq \rho (L)$ and therefore there exists $L_0 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}M_0$ which is stabilising for $\rho$. Finally, the reader will easily check that $\rho(L_0)=\tau(L_0)=\tau(M_0)$.
For every $M{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}L_0$, II has a winning strategy for the game $G_{L_0,M}$.
Fix $M$ a block subspace of $L_0$. We begin by showing that $({\emptyset}, {\emptyset})\in \tau (L_0)$. To see this, we notice that as $L_0{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$, there is a $Y{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}L_0$ such that II has a winning strategy for $H_{Y,L_0}$ and thus, by Lemma \[games\], also a winning strategy in $G_{Y,L_0}$ with constant $C$. So $({\emptyset}, {\emptyset})\in \tau (L_0)$.
We will show that for all states $$((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_i,E_i),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i))\in \tau(L_0),$$ there is an $n$ such that for all $n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E\subseteq L_0$ and $u\in E_0+\ldots+E_i+E$, we have $$((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_i,E_i,u,E),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i))\in \tau(L_0).$$
Similarly, we show that for all states $$((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_{i+1},E_{i+1}),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i))\in \tau(L_0)$$ and for all $m$ there are $m{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F\subseteq M$ and $v\in F_0+\ldots+F_i+F$ such that $$((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_{i+1},E_{i+1}),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i,v,F))\in \tau(L_0).$$ Since the winning condition of $G_{L_0,M}$ is closed, this clearly shows that II has a winning strategy in $G_{L_0,M}$ (except for the integers $m$ and $n$, $\tau(L_0)$ is a winning quasi strategy for II).
So suppose that $$s=((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_i,E_i),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i))\in \tau(L_0)=\rho(L_0),$$ then II has a winning strategy in $G_{L_0,M_0}(s)$ and hence there is an $n$ such that for all $n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E\subseteq L_0$ and $u\in E_0+\ldots+E_i+E$, II has a winning strategy in $G_{L_0,M_0}(s')$, where $$s'= ((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_i,E_i,u,E),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i)).$$ So $s'\in \rho(L_0)=\tau(L_0)$.
Similarly, if $$s=((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_{i+1},E_{i+1}),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i))\in \tau(L_0)=\tau(M)$$ and $m$ is given, then as II has a winning strategy for $G_{L,M}(s)$ for some $L{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}M$, there are $m{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}F\subseteq M$ and $v\in F_0+\ldots+F_i+F$ such that II has a winning strategy in $G_{L,M}(s')$, where $$s'=((u_0,E_0, \ldots,u_{i+1},E_{i+1}),(v_0,F_0,\ldots,v_i,F_i,v,F)).$$ So $s'\in \tau(M)=\tau(L_0)$.
Choose now $Y=[y_i]{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}L_0$ such that II has a winning strategy in $H_{Y,L_0}$. We shall show that any block subspace $M$ of $L_0$ contains a $C^2$-isomorphic copy of $Y$, which implies that $Y$ is $C^2+\epsilon$-minimal for any $\epsilon>0$.
To see this, notice that, since II has a winning strategy in $H_{Y,L_0}$, player I has a strategy in the game $G_{L_0,M}$ to produce a sequence $(u_i)$ that is $C$-equivalent with the basis $(y_i)$. Moreover, we can ask that I plays $m_i=0$. Using her winning strategy for $G_{L_0,M}$, II can then respond by producing a sequence $(v_i)$ in $M$ such that $(v_i)\sim_C(u_i)$. So $(v_i)\sim_{C^2}(y_i)$ and $Y\sqsubseteq_{C^2} M$.
Finally we observe that by modifying the notion of embedding in the definition of a tight basis, we obtain variations of our dichotomy theorem with a weaker form of tightness on one side and a stronger form of minimality on the other.
Every Banach space with a basis contains a block subspace $E=[e_n]$ which satisfies one of the two following properties:
1. For any $[y_i] {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$, there exists a sequence $(I_i)$ of successive intervals such that for any infinite subset $A$ of ${\mathbb N}$, the basis $(y_i)$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n \notin \cup_{i \in A}I_i}$ as a sequence of disjointly supported blocks , resp. as a permutation of a block-sequence, resp. as a block-sequence.
2. For any $[y_i] {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}E$, $(e_n)$ is equivalent to a sequence of disjointly supported blocks of $[y_i]$, resp. $(e_n)$ is permutatively equivalent to a block-sequence of $[y_i]$, resp. $(e_n)$ is equivalent to a block-sequence of $[y_i]$.
The case of block sequences immediately implies the theorem of Pełczar [@anna].
The fact that the canonical basis of $T^*$ is strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ implies easily that it is tight for “embedding as a sequence of disjointly supported blocks” although $T^*$ is minimal in the usual sense. We do not know of other examples of spaces combining one form of minimality with another form of tightness in the above list.
Tightness with constants and crude stabilisation of local structure
===================================================================
We shall now consider a stronger notion of tightness, which is essentially local in nature. Let $E$ be a space with a basis $(e_n)$. There is a particularly simple case when a sequence $(I_i)$ of intervals associated to a subspace $Y$ characterises the tightness of $Y$ in $(e_n)$. This is when for all integer constants $K$, $Y \not\sqsubseteq_K [e_n]_{ n \notin I_K}$. This property has the following useful reformulations.
\[tightnesswithconstants\] Let $E$ be a space with a basis $(e_n)$. The following are equivalent:
1. For any block sequence $(y_n)$ there are intervals $I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$ such that for all $K$, $$[y_n]_{n\in I_K}\not\sqsubseteq_K[e_n]_{n\notin I_K}.$$
2. For any space $Y$, there are intervals $I_0<I_1<I_2<\cdots$ such that for all $K$, $$Y \not\sqsubseteq_K[e_n]_{ n \notin I_K}.$$
3. No space embeds uniformly into the tail subspaces of $E$.
4. There is no $K$ and no subspace of $E$ which is $K$-crudely finitely representable in any tail subspace of $E$.
A basis satisfying properties (1), (2), (3), (4), as well as the space it generates, will be said to be [*tight with constants*]{}.
The implications (1)${\Rightarrow}$(2)${\Rightarrow}$(3) are clear.
To prove (3)${\Rightarrow}$(4) assume some subspace $Y$ of $E$ is $K$-crudely finitely representable in any tail subspace of $E$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $Y=[y_n]$ is a block subspace of $E$. We pick a subsequence $(z_n)$ of $(y_n)$ in the following manner. Let $z_0=y_0$, and if $z_0,\ldots,z_{k-1}$ have been chosen, we choose $z_k$ far enough on the basis $(e_n)$, so that $[z_0,\ldots,z_{k-1}]$ has a $2K$-isomorphic copy in $[e_n { \; \big| \;}k {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n <\min({\rm supp }\; z_k)]$. It follows that for any $k$, $Z=[z_n]$ has an $M$-isomorphic copy in the tail subspace $[e_n { \; \big| \;}n {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}k]$ for some $M$ depending only on $K$ and the constant of the basis $(e_n)$.
To prove (4)${\Rightarrow}$(1), let $c(L)$ be a constant such that if two block sequences differ in at most $L$ terms, then they are $c(L)$-equivalent. Now assume (4) holds and let $(y_n)$ be a block sequence of $(e_n)$. Suppose also that $I_0<\ldots<I_{K-1}$ have been chosen. By (4) applied to $Y=[y_n]_{n=\max I_{K-1}+1}^\infty$, we can then find $m$ and $l>\max I_{K-1}$ such that $[y_n]_{n=\max I_{K-1}+1}^l$ does not $K\cdot c(\max I_{K-1}+1)$-embed into $[e_n]_{n=m}^\infty$. Let now $$I_K=[\max I_{K-1}+1,l+m]$$ and notice that, as $[y_n]_{n=\max I_{K-1}+1}^l\subseteq [y_n]_{n\in I_K}$, we have that $ [y_n]_{n\in I_K}$ does not $K\cdot c(\max I_{K-1}+1)$-embed into $[e_n]_{n=m}^\infty$. Also, since $(e_n)_{n=m}^\infty$ and $$(e_n)_{n=0}^{\max I_{K-1}}{}^\frown(e_n)_{n=\max I_{K-1}+1+m}^\infty$$ only differ in $\max I_{K-1}+1$ many terms, $[y_n]_{n\in I_K}$ does not $K$-embed into $$[e_n]_{n=0}^{\max I_{K-1}}+[e_n]_{n=\max I_{K-1}+1+m}^\infty,$$ and thus not into the subspace $[e_n]_{n\notin I_K}$ either.
It is worth noticing that a basis $(e_n)$, tight with constants, is necessarily continuously tight. For a simple argument shows that in order to find the intervals $I_K$ satisfying (1) above, one only needs to know a beginning of the block sequence $(y_n)$ and hence the intervals can be found continuously in $(y_n)$. From Proposition \[tightnesswithconstants\] we also deduce that any block basis or shrinking basic sequence in the span of a tight with constants basis is again tight with constants.
There is a huge difference between the fact that no [*subspace*]{} of $E$ is $K$-crudely finitely representable in all tails of $E$ and that no [*space*]{} is $K$-crudely finitely representable in all tails of $E$. For example, we shall see that while the former holds for Tsirelson’s space, of course the latter fails, since Tsirelson’s space is asymptotically $\ell_1$.
Recall that a basis $(e_n)$ is said to be [*strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$*]{}, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}+\infty$, [@DFKO], if there exists a constant $C$ and a function $f:{\mathbb N}\rightarrow {\mathbb N}$ such that for any $n$, any family of $n$ unit vectors which are disjointly supported in $[e_k { \; \big| \;}k {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(n)]$ is $C$-equivalent to the canonical basis of $\ell_p^n$.
\[dfko\] Let $E$ be a Banach space with a strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ basis $(e_n)$, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p<+\infty$, and not containing a copy of $\ell_p$. Then $(e_n)$ is tight with constants.
Assume that some Banach space $Y$ embeds with constant $K$ in any tail subspace of $E$. We may assume that $Y$ is generated by a block-sequence $(y_n)$ of $E$ and, since any strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ basis is unconditional, $(y_n)$ is unconditional. By renorming $E$ we may assume it is $1$-unconditional. By a result of W.B. Johnson [@J] for any $n$ there is a constant $d(n)$ such that $(y_0,\ldots,y_n)$ is $2K$-equivalent to a sequence of vectors in the linear span of $d(n)$ disjointly supported unit vectors in any tail subspace of $E$, in particular in $[e_k { \; \big| \;}k {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(d(n))]$. Therefore $[y_0,\ldots,y_n]$ $2KC$-embeds into $\ell_p$. This means that $Y$ is crudely finitely representable in $\ell_p$ and therefore embeds into $L_p$, and since $(y_n)$ is unconditional asymptotically $\ell_p$, that $Y$ contains a copy of $\ell_p$ (details of the last part of this proof may be found in [@DFKO]).
\[tsi\] Tsirelson’s space $T$ and its convexifications $T^{(p)}$, $1<p<+\infty$, are tight with constants.
Observe that on the contrary, the dual $T^*$ of $T$, which is strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ and does not contain a copy of $c_0$, is minimal and therefore does not contain any tight subspace.
Suppose a space $X$ is crudely finitely representable in all of its subspaces. Then there is some constant $K$ and a subspace $Y$ such that $X$ is $K$-crudely finitely representable in all of the subspaces of $Y$. For if not, we would be able to construct a sequence of basic sequences $(x_n^K)$ in $X$ such that $(x_n^{K+1})$ is a block sequence of $(x_n^K)$ and such that $X$ is not $K^2$-crudely finitely representable in $[x_n^{K}]$. By Lemma \[block uniformisation\], we can then find a block sequence $(y_n)$ of $(x_n^0)$ that is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with a block sequence of $(x_n^K)$ for any $K$ and hence if $X$ were $K$-crudely finitely representable in $[y_n]$ for some $K$, then it would also be $K^{3/2}$-crudely finitely representable in $[x_n^{K}]$, which is a contradiction.
When a space $X$ is $K$-crudely finitely representable in any of its subspaces for some $K$, we say that $X$ is [*locally minimal*]{}. For example, by the universality properties of $c_0$, any space with an asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ basis is locally minimal.
\[5th\] Let $E$ be an infinite-dimensional Banach space with basis $(e_n)$. Then there is a block sequence $(x_n)$ satisfying one of the following two properties, which are mutually exclusive and both possible.
1. $(x_n)$ is tight with constants,
2. $[x_n]$ is locally minimal.
If $E$ contains $c_0$, the result is trivial. So suppose not and find by the solution to the distortion problem a block sequence $(y_n)$ and inevitable, positively separated, closed subsets $F_0$ and $F_1$ of the unit sphere of $[y_n]$. Define for each integer $K{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1$ the set $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb A}_K=\{& (z_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}(y_n){ \; \big| \;}z_{2n}\in F_0\cup F_1 \textrm{ and $(z_{2n})$ codes by $0$'s and $1$'s a block}\\
&\textrm{sequence $(v_n)$ of $(z_{2n+1})$ such that for all }N, [v_n]\sqsubseteq_K [z_{2n+1}]_{n{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}N}\\
&\textrm { and moreover } 1/2<\|v_n\|<2\}.
\end{split}$$ Clearly ${\mathbb A}_K$ is analytic, so we can apply Gowers’ Determinacy Theorem to get one of two cases
- either there is a block sequence $(x_n)$ and a $K$ such that player II has a strategy to play inside $({\mathbb A}_K)_\Delta$ whenever I plays a block sequence of $(x_n)$, where $\Delta$ will be determined later,
- or we can choose inductively a sequence of block sequences $(x_n^K)$ such that $(x_n^{K+1}){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}(x_n^K)$ and such that no block sequence of $(x_n^K)$ belongs to ${\mathbb A}_K$.
Consider first case (ii). Set $w_n=x^n_{2n}$ and choose now further block sequences $(x_n)$ and $(h_n)$ of $(w_n)$ such that $$x_0<h_0<h_1<x_1<h_2<h_3<x_4<\ldots$$ and $h_{2n}\in F_0$, $h_{2n+1}\in F_1$.
We claim that $(x_n)$ is tight with constants. If not, we can find some block sequence $(u_n)$ of $(x_n)$ and a $K$ such that $[u_n]$ embeds with constant $K$ into any tail subspace of $[x_n]$. By passing to tails of $(x_n)$ and of $(u_n)$, we can suppose that $(x_n)$ is a block sequence of $(x_n^{K})$, $(u_n)$ is a block sequence of $(x_n)$ and $[u_n]$ $K$-embeds into all tails of $[x_n]$. By filling in with appropriate $h_i$ between $x_n$ and $x_{n+1}$, we can now produce a block sequence $(z_n)$ of $(x_n^{K})$ such that $(z_{2n})$ codes by $0$’s and $1$’s the block sequence $(u_n)$ of $(z_{2n+1})$ with the property that for all $N$, $[u_n]\sqsubseteq_K [z_{2n+1}]_{n{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}N}$. In other words, we have produced a block sequence of $(x_n^K)$ belonging to ${\mathbb A}_K$, which is impossible. Thus, $(x_n)$ is tight with constants.
Consider now case (i) instead and let II play according to his strategy. We suppose that $\Delta$ is chosen sufficiently small so that $\delta_i<{\rm dist}(F_0,F_1)/3$ and if two block sequences are $\Delta$-close then they are $2$-equivalent. Let $(y_n)\in ({\mathbb A}_K)_\Delta$ be the response by II to the sequence $(x_n)$ played by I and let $(z_n)\in {\mathbb A}_K$ be such that $\|z_n-y_n\|<\delta_n$ for all $n$. Then $(z_{2n})$ codes by $0$’s and $1$’s a block sequence $(v_n)$ of $(z_{2n+1})$. Let $(u_n)$ be the block sequence of $(y_{2n+1})$ constructed in the same way as $(v_n)$ is constructed over $(z_{2n+1})$. We claim that $(u_n)$ is $2K$-crudely finitely representable in any block subspace of $[x_n]$.
For this, let $[u_0,\ldots,u_m]$ be given and suppose that $(f_n)$ is any block subspace of $(x_n)$. Find a large $k$ such that $(z_0,z_2,\ldots,z_{2k})$ codes the block sequence $(v_0,\ldots, v_m)$ of $(z_1,\ldots,z_{2k+1})$ and let $l$ be large enough so that when I has played $x_0,\ldots, x_l$ then II has played $y_0,\ldots, y_{2k+1}$. Consider now the game in which player I plays $$x_0,x_1,\ldots,x_l,f_{l+1},f_{l+2},\ldots.$$ Then, following the strategy, II will play a block sequence $$y_0,\ldots, y_{2k+1},g_{2k+2},g_{2k+3},\ldots\in ({\mathbb A}_K)_\Delta.$$ So let $(h_n)\in {\mathbb A}_K$ be such that $\|h_n-y_n\|<\delta_n$ for all $n$. Then, as $\|h_{2n}-z_{2n}\|<2\delta_n<\frac23{\rm dist}(F_0,F_1)$, we have that $h_{2n}\in F_i{\Leftrightarrow}z_{2n}\in F_i$. Also, $(h_{2n+1})$ and $(y_{2n+1})$ are $2$-equivalent, so $(h_{2n})$ will code a block sequence $(w_n)$ such that $(w_0,\ldots,w_m)$ is $2$-equivalent to $(u_0,\ldots, u_m)$. Moreover, since $(h_n)\in {\mathbb A}_K$, $[w_n]$ will $K$-embed into every tail subspace of $[h_{2n+1}]$, and thus, since $(h_{2n+1})$ is block of $(f_n)$, $[u_0,\ldots,u_m]$ will $2K$-embed into $[f_n]$.
Local minimality can be reformulated in a way that makes the relation to local theory clearer. For this, let ${\mathbb F}_n$ be the metric space of all $n$-dimensional Banach spaces up to isometry equipped with the Banach-Mazur metric $$d(X,Y)=\inf\big(\log( \|T\|\cdot\|T{^{-1}}\|){ \; \big| \;}T\colon X{\rightarrow}Y \textrm{ is an isomorphism }\big).$$ Then for every Banach space $X$, the set of $n$-dimensional $Y$ that are almost isometrically embeddable into $X$ form a closed subset $(X)_n$ of ${\mathbb F}_n$. It is well-known that this set $(X)_n$ does not always stabilise, i.e., there is not necessarily a subspace $Y\subseteq X$ such that for all further subspaces $Z\subseteq Y$, $(Z)_n=(Y)_n$. However, if instead $X$ comes equipped with a basis and for all block subspaces $Y$ we let $\{Y\}_n$ be the set of all $n$-dimensional spaces that are almost isometrically embeddable into all tail subspaces of $Y$, then one can easily stabilise $\{Y\}_n$ on subspaces. Such considerations are for example the basis for [@MMT].
Theorem \[5th\] gives a dichotomy for when one can stabilise the set $(X)_n$ in a certain way, which we could call [*crude*]{}. Namely, $X$ is locally minimal if and only if there is some constant $K$ such that for all subspaces $Y$ of $X$ and all $n$, $d_H\big((X)_n,(Y)_n\big){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}K$, where $d_H$ is the Hausdorff distance. So by Theorem \[5th\], the local structure stabilises crudely on a subspace if and only if a space is not saturated by basic sequences tight with constants.
Often it is useful to have a bit more than local minimality. So we say that a basis $(e_n)$ is [*locally block minimal*]{} if it is $K$-crudely finitely block representable in all of its block bases for some $K$. As with crude finite representability we see that there then must be a constant $K$ and a block $(y_n)$ such that $(e_n)$ is $K$-crudely finitely block representable in all block subspaces of $(y_n)$. We now have the following version of Theorem \[5th\] for finite block representability.
\[5th block\] Let $(e_n)$ be a Schauder basis. Then $(e_n)$ has a block basis $(x_n)$ with one of the following two properties, which are mutually exclusive and both possible.
1. For all block bases $(y_n)$ of $(x_n)$ there are intervals $I_1<I_2<I_3<\ldots$ such that $(y_n)_{ n\in I_K}$ is not $K$-equivalent to a block sequence of $(x_n)_{ n\notin I_K}$,
2. $(x_n)$ is locally block minimal.
When $(x_n)$ is asymptotically $\ell_p$ and some block subspace $[y_n]$ of $[x_n]$ is uniformly block finitely representable in all tail subsequences of $(x_n)$, then it is clear that $(y_n)$ must actually be equivalent with the unit vector basis of $\ell_p$, or $c_0$ for $p=\infty$. So this shows that for asymptotically $\ell_p$ bases $(x_n)$, either $[x_n]$ contains an isomorphic copy of $\ell_p$ or $c_0$ or $(x_n)$ itself satisfies condition (1) of Theorem \[5th block\]. This is the counterpart of Proposition \[dfko\] for block sequences. In particular, since $T^*$ does not contain $c_0$, but has a strongly asymptotically $\ell_\infty$ basis, it thus satisfies (1).
Finally we note that there exist tight spaces which do not admit subspaces which are tight with constants:
\[OdellSchlumprecht\] There exists a reflexive, tight, locally block minimal Banach space.
E. Odell and T. Schlumprecht [@OS:universalhi] have built a reflexive space $OS$ with a basis such that every monotone basis is block finitely representable in any block subspace of $OS$. It is in particular locally block minimal and therefore contains no basic sequence which is tight with constants. We do not know whether the space $OS$ is tight. Instead, we notice that since the summing basis of $c_0$ is block finitely representable in any block subspace of $OS$, $OS$ cannot contain an unconditional block sequence. By Gowers’ dichotomy theorem it follows that some block subspace of $OS$ is HI, and by Theorem \[3rddichotomy\] and the fact that HI spaces do not contain minimal subspaces, that some further block subspace is tight, which completes the proof.
It is unknown whether there is an unconditional example with the above property. There exists an unconditional version of $OS$ [@OS:universalunc] but it is unclear whether it has no minimal subspaces. We do have however:
\[gunc\] There exists a reflexive space with an unconditional basis which is tight and locally minimal.
The example will be the dual of a space constructed by Gowers in [@g:hyperplanes]. The proof requires some knowledge of the techniques used in that article and will be given in Section \[gowers-maurey\].
Tightness by range and subsequential minimality
===============================================
Theorem \[main\] shows that if one allows oneself to pass to a basis for a subspace, one can find a basis in which there is a close connection between subspaces spanned by block bases and subspaces spanned by subsequences. Thus, for example, if the basis is tight there can be no space embedding into all the subspaces spanned by subsequences of the basis. On the other hand, any block basis in Tsirelson’s space $T$ is equivalent to a subsequence of the basis, and actually every subspace of a block subspace $[x_n]$ in $T$ contains an isomorphic copy of a subsequence of $(x_n)$. In fact, this phenomenon has a deeper explanation and we shall now proceed to show that the connection between block sequences and subsequences can be made even closer.
\[flat subspaces\] If $(e_n)$ is a basis for a space not containing $c_0$, then for all finite intervals $(I_n)$ such that $\min I_n{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{n{\rightarrow}\infty}} \infty$ and all subspaces $Y$, there is a further subspace $Z$ such that $${\lVertP_{I_k}|_ Z\rVert}{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}}0.$$
By a standard perturbation argument, we can suppose that $Y$ is generated by a normalised block basis $(y_n)$. Let $K$ be the basis constant of $(e_n)$. As $\min I_n{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{n{\rightarrow}\infty}}\infty$ and each $I_n$ is finite, we can choose a subsequence $(v_n)$ of $(y_n)$ such that for all $k$ the interval $I_k$ intersects the range of at most one vector $v_m$ from $(v_n)$. Now, since $c_0$ does not embed into $[e_n]$, no tail sequence of $(v_n)$ can satisfy an upper $c_0$ estimate. This implies that for all $N$ and $\delta>0$ there is a normalised vector $$z=\sum_{i=N}^{N'}\eta_iv_i,$$ where $|\eta_i|<\delta$. Using this, we now construct a normalised block sequence $(z_n)$ of $(v_n)$ such that there are $m(0)<m(1)<\ldots$ and $\alpha_i$ with $$z_n=\sum_{i=m(n)}^{m(n+1)-1}\alpha_iv_i$$ and $|\alpha_i|<\frac 1n$ whenever $m(n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i <m(n+1)$.
Now suppose $u=\sum_j\lambda_jz_j$ and $k$ are given. Then there is at most one vector $z_n$ whose range intersect the interval $I_k$. Also, there is at most one vector $v_p$ from the support of $z_n$ whose range intersect $I_k$. Therefore, $$\begin{split}
\|P_{I_k}(u)\|&=\|P_{I_k}(\lambda_nz_n)\|= \|P_{I_k}(\lambda_n\alpha_pv_p)\|\\
&{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2K\|\lambda_n\alpha_pv_p\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}|\lambda_n|\cdot\frac {2K}n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac {4K^2}n \|u\|.
\end{split}$$ It follows that $\|P_{I_k}|_{[z_l]}\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{4K^2}{n_k}$, where $n_k$ is such that $I_k$ intersects the range of $z_{n_k}$ (or $n_k=k$ if $I_k$ intersects the range of no $z_n$). Since $\min I_k{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}}\infty$ and $(z_n)$ is a block basis, $n_k{\rightarrow}\infty$ when $k{\rightarrow}\infty$, and hence $\|P_{I_k}|_{[z_l]}\|{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}} 0$.
Our next result should be contrasted with the construction by Pełczyński [@pe] of a basis $(f_i)$ such that every basis is equivalent with a subsequence of it, and hence such that every space contains an isomorphic copy of a subsequence. We shall see that for certain spaces $E$ such constructions cannot be done relative to the subspaces of $E$ provided that we demand that $(f_n)$ lies in $E$ too. Recall that two Banach spaces are said to be incomparable if neither one embeds into the other.
\[opposite\] Suppose that $(e_n)$ is a basis such that any two block subspaces with disjoint ranges are incomparable. Suppose also that $(f_n)$ is either a block basis or a shrinking basic sequence in $[e_n]$. Then $[e_n]$ is saturated with subspaces $Z$ such that no subsequence of $(f_n)$ embeds into $Z$.
Suppose first that $(f_n)$ is shrinking. Then, by taking a perturbation of $(f_n)$, we can suppose that each $f_n$ has finite support with respect to the basis $(e_i)$ and, moreover, that $\min{\rm range}(f_n){\rightarrow}\infty$. Let $I_n={\rm range}(f_n)$.
Fix an infinite set $N\subseteq {\mathbb N}$. Then for all infinite subsets $A\subseteq N$ there is an infinite subset $B\subseteq A$ such that $(f_n)_{n\in B}$ is a (not necessarily normalised) block sequence and hence, since $(e_n)$ is tight by range, $[f_n]_{n\in B}\not\sqsubseteq [e_n]_{n\notin \bigcup_{i\in B}I_i}$, and so also $[f_n]_{n\in N}\not\sqsubseteq [e_n]_{n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}I_i}$. Applying Lemma \[projection tightness\] to $X=[f_n]_{n\in N}$, this implies that for all embeddings $T\colon [f_n]_{n\in N}{\rightarrow}[e_n]_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$, we have $\liminf_{n\in N}{\lVertP_{I_k}T\rVert}>0$. So find by Lemma \[flat subspaces\] a subspace $Z\subseteq Y$ such that ${\lVertP_{I_k}|_ Z\rVert}{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}}0$. Then no subsequence of $(f_n)_{\in {\mathbb N}}$ embeds into $Z$.
The argument in the case $(f_n)$ is a block basis is similar. We set $I_n={\rm range}\;f_n$ and repeat the argument above.
We notice that in the above proof we actually have a measure for how “flat” a subspace $Z$ of $[e_n]$ needs to be in order that the subsequences of $(f_n)$ cannot embed. Namely, it suffices that ${\lVertP_{I_k}|_ Z\rVert}{\mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits_{k{\rightarrow}\infty}}0$.
We should also mention that, by similar but simpler arguments, one can show that if $(e_n)$ is a basis such that any two disjoint subsequences span incomparable spaces, then some subspace of $[e_n]$ fails to contain any isomorphic copy of a subsequence of $(e_n)$.
The assumption in Proposition \[opposite\] that block subspaces with disjoint ranges are incomparable is easily seen to be equivalent to the following property of a basis $(e_n)$, that we call [*tight by range*]{}. If $(y_n)$ is a block sequence of $(e_n)$ and $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ is infinite, then $$[y_n]_{n\in {\mathbb N}}\not\sqsubseteq [e_n{ \; \big| \;}n\notin \bigcup_{i\in A}{\rm range} \;y_i].$$ Thus, $(e_n)$ is tight by range if it is tight and for all block sequences $(y_n)$ of $(e_n)$ the corresponding sequence of intervals $I_i$ is given by $I_i={\rm range}\; y_i$. This property is also weaker than disjointly supported subspaces being incomparable, which we shall call [*tight by support*]{}. It is trivial to see that a basis, tight by range, is continuously tight.
We say that a basic sequence $(e_n)$ is [*subsequentially minimal*]{} if any subspace of $[e_n]$ contains an isomorphic copy of a subsequence of $(e_n)$. It is clearly a weak form of minimality.
In [@KLMT] the authors study another notion in the context of certain partly modified mixed Tsirelson spaces that they also call subsequential minimality. According to their definition, a basis $(e_n)$ is subsequentially minimal if any block basis has a further block basis equivalent to a subsequence of $(e_n)$. However, in all their examples the basis $(e_n)$ is weakly null and it is easily seen that whenever this is the case the two definitions agree. They also define $(e_n)$ to be strongly non-subsequentially minimal if any block basis contains a further block basis that has no further block basis equivalent to a subsequence of $(e_n)$. By Proposition \[opposite\], this is seen to be weaker that tightness by range.
We shall now proceed to show a dichotomy between tightness by range and subsequential minimality.
\[reflexionsdansunbus\] Let $E$ be a Banach space with a basis $(e_n)$. Then there exists a block sequence $(x_n)$ of $(e_n)$ with one of the following properties, which are mutually exclusive and both possible:
1. Any two block subspaces of $[x_n]$ with disjoint ranges are incomparable.
2. The basic sequence $(x_n)$ is subsequentially minimal.
Arguably Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\] is not a dichotomy in Gowers’ sense, since property (2) is not hereditary: for example the universal basis of Pełczyński [@pe] satisfies (2) while admitting subsequences with property (1). However, it follows obviously from Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\] that any basis $(e_n)$ either has a block basis such that any two block subspaces with disjoint ranges are incomparable or has a block basis $(x_n)$ that is [*hereditarily subsequentially minimal*]{}, i.e., such that any block has a further block that is subsequentially minimal. Furthermore, by an easy improvement of our proof or directly by Gowers’ second dichotomy, if the first case of Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\] fails, then one can also suppose that $[x_n]$ is quasi minimal.
We shall call a basis $(x_n)$ [*sequentially minimal*]{} if it is both hereditarily subsequentially minimal and quasi minimal. This is equivalent to any block basis of $(x_n)$ having a further block basis $(y_n)$ such that every subspace of $[x_n]$ contains an equivalent copy of a subsequence of $(y_n)$. We may therefore see Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\] as providing a dichotomy between tightness by range and sequential minimality.
Before giving the proof of Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\], we first need to state an easy consequence of the definition of Gowers’ game.
\[independence of I\] Let $E$ be a space with a basis and assume II has a winning strategy in Gowers’ game in $E$ to play in some set ${\mathbb B}$. Then there is a non-empty tree $T$ of finite block sequences such that $[T]\subseteq {\mathbb B}$ and for all $(y_0,\ldots,y_m)\in T$ and all block sequences $(z_n)$ there is a block $y_{m+1}$ of $(z_n)$ such that $(y_0,\ldots,y_m, y_{m+1})\in T$.
Suppose $\sigma$ is the strategy for II. We define a pruned tree $T$ of finite block bases $(y_0,\ldots,y_m)$ and a function $\psi$ associating to each $(y_0,\ldots,y_m)\in T$ a sequence $(z_0,\ldots,z_k)$ such that for some $k_0<\ldots<k_m=k$, $$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccc}
{\bf I} &z_0&\ldots&z_{k_0}& & z_{k_0+1}&\ldots&z_{k_1}& &\ldots& & z_{k_{m-1}} & \ldots&
z_{k_m}&\\
{\bf II}& & & &y_0& & & &y_1&\ldots& && && y_{m}\\
\end{array}$$ has been played according to $\sigma$.
- The empty sequence ${\emptyset}$ is in $T$ and $\psi({\emptyset})={\emptyset}$.
- If $(y_0,\ldots,y_m)\in T$ and $$\psi(y_0,\ldots,y_m)=(z_0,\ldots,z_k),$$ then we let $(y_0,\ldots,y_m,y_{m+1})\in T$ if there are some $z_k<z_{k+1}<\ldots<z_l$ and $k_0<\ldots<k_m=k$ such that $$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc}
{\bf I} &z_0&\ldots&z_{k_0}& & z_{k_0+1}&\ldots&z_{k_1}& &\ldots& & z_{k_m+1} & \ldots&
z_{k_l}&\\
{\bf II}& & & &y_0& & & &y_1&\ldots& && && y_{m+1}\\
\end{array}$$ has been played according to $\sigma$ and in this case we let $$\psi(y_0,\ldots,y_k,y_m)=(z_0,\ldots,z_k,z_{k+1},\ldots,z_l)$$ be some such sequence.
Now, if $(y_0,y_1,y_2,\ldots)$ is such that $(y_0,\ldots,y_m)\in T$ for all $m$, then $\psi({\emptyset})\subseteq \psi(y_0)\subseteq
\psi(y_0,y_1)\subseteq \ldots$ and $(y_i)$ is the play of II according to the strategy $\sigma$ in response to $(z_i)$ being played by I. So $[T]\subseteq {\mathbb B}$. It also follows by the construction that for each $(y_0,\ldots,y_m)\in T$ and block sequence $(z_i)$ there is a block $y_{m+1}$ of $(z_i)$ such that $(y_0,\ldots,y_m,y_{m+1})\in T$.
We now pass to the proof of Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\].
If $E$ contains $c_0$ the theorem is trivial. So suppose not. By the solution to the distortion problem by Odell and Schlumprecht [@OS:distortion] and passing to a subspace, we can suppose there are two positively separated inevitable closed subsets $F_0$ and $F_1$ of the unit sphere of $E$, i.e., such that ${\rm dist}(F_0,F_1)>0$ and every block basis has block vectors belonging to both $F_0$ and $F_1$.
Suppose that $(e_n)$ has no block sequence satisfying (1). Then for all block sequences $(x_n)$ there are further block sequences $(y_n)$ and $(z_n)$ with disjoint ranges such that $[y_n]\sqsubseteq [z_n]$. We claim that there is a block sequence $(f_n)$ and a constant $K$ such that for all block sequences $(x_n)$ of $(f_n)$ there are further block sequences $(y_n)$ and $(y_n)$ with disjoint ranges such that $[y_n]\sqsubseteq_K [z_n]$. If not, we can construct a sequence of block sequences $(f_n^K)$ such that $(f_n^{K+1})$ is a block of $(f_n^K)$ and such that any two block sequences of $(f_n^K)$ with disjoint ranges are $K^2$-incomparable. By Lemma \[block uniformisation\], we then find a block sequence $(g_n)$ of $(e_n)$ that is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with a block sequence of $(f_n^K)$ for every $K$. Find now block subspaces $(y_n)$ and $(z_n)$ of $(g_n)$ with disjoint ranges and a $K$ such that $[y_n]\sqsubseteq [z_n]$. Then $(g_n)$ is $\sqrt K$-equivalent with a block sequence of $(f_n^K)$ and hence we can find $K^{3/2}$-comparable block subspaces of $(f_n^K)$ with disjoint ranges, contradicting our assumption.
So suppose $(f_n)$ and $K$ are chosen as in the claim. Then for all block sequences $(x_n)$ of $(f_n)$ we can find an infinite set $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ and a block sequence $(y_n)$ of $(x_n)$ such that $[y_n]_{n \in B}$ $K$-embeds into $[y_n]_{n\notin B}$.
We claim that any block basis of $(f_n)$ has a further block basis in the following set of normalised block bases of $(f_n)$: $${\mathbb A}=\{(y_n){ \; \big| \;}{\forall}n\; y_{2n}\in F_0\cup F_1\;\&\; {\exists}^\infty n\; y_{2n}\in F_0\;\&\;[y_{2n+1}]_{y_{2n}\in F_0}\sqsubseteq_{K} [y_{2n+1}]_{y_{2n}\in F_1}\}.$$ To see this, suppose that $(x_n)$ is a block sequence of $(f_n)$ and let $(z_n)$ be a block sequence of $(x_n)$ such that $z_{3n}\in F_0$ and $z_{3n+1}\in F_1$. We can now find an infinite set $B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ and a block sequence $(v_n)$ of $(z_{3n+2})$ such that $[v_n]_{n \in B}\sqsubseteq_K [v_n]_{n\notin B}$. Let now $y_{2n+1}=v_n$ and notice that we can choose $y_{2n}=z_i\in F_0$ for $n\in B$ and $y_{2n}=z_i\in F_1$ for $n\notin B$ such that $y_0<y_1<y_2<\ldots$. Then $(y_n)\in {\mathbb A}$.
Choose now a sequence $\Delta=(\delta_n)$ of positive reals, $\delta_n<{\rm
dist}(F_0,F_1)/3$, such that if $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ are block bases of $(e_n)$ with $\|x_n-y_n\|<\delta_n$, then $(x_n)\sim_2(y_n)$. Since ${\mathbb A}$ is clearly analytic, it follows by Gowers’ determinacy theorem that for some block basis $(x_n)$ of $(f_n)$, II has a winning strategy to play in ${\mathbb A}_\Delta$ whenever I plays a block basis of $(x_n)$. We now show that some block basis $(v_n)$ of $(x_n)$ is such that any subspace of $[v_n]$ contains a sequence $2K$-equivalent to a subsequence of $(v_n)$, which will give us case (2).
Pick first by Lemma \[independence of I\] a non-empty tree $T$ of finite block sequences of $(x_n)$ such that $[T]\subseteq {\mathbb A}_\Delta$ and for all $(u_0,\ldots,u_m)\in T$ and all block sequences $(z_n)$ there is a block $u_{m+1}$ of $(z_n)$ such that $(u_0,\ldots,u_m, u_{m+1})\in T$. Since $T$ is countable, we can construct inductively a block sequence $(v_n)$ of $(x_n)$ such that for all $(u_0,\ldots,u_m)\in T$ there is some $v_n$ with $(u_0,\ldots,u_m,v_n)\in T$.
We claim that $(v_n)$ works. For if $(z_n)$ is any block sequence of $(v_n)$, we construct inductively a sequence $(u_n)\in {\mathbb A}_\Delta$ as follows. Using inductively the extension property of $T$, we can construct an infinite block sequence $(h^{0}_n)$ of $(z_n)$ that belongs to $[T]$. Since $[T]\subseteq {\mathbb A}_\Delta$, there is a shortest initial segment $(u_0,\ldots, u_{2k_0})\in T$ of $(h^{0}_n)$ such that $d(u_{2k_0},F_0)<\delta_{2k_0}$. Pick now a term $u_{2k_0+1}$ from $(v_n)$ such that $(u_0,\ldots,u_{2k_0},u_{2k_0+1})\in T$.
Again, using the extension property of $T$, there is an infinite block sequence $(h_n^{1})$ of $(z_n)$ such that $$(u_0,\ldots,u_{2k_0},u_{2k_0+1})^\frown(h_n^{1})_n\in[T].$$ Also, as $[T]\subseteq {\mathbb A}_\Delta$, there is a shortest initial segment $$(u_0,\ldots,u_{2k_0},u_{2k_0+1}, \ldots,u_{2k_1})\in T$$ of $$(u_0,\ldots,u_{2k_0},u_{2k_0+1})^\frown(h_n^{(1)})_n$$ that properly extends $(u_0,\ldots,u_{2k_0},u_{2k_0+1})$ and such that $d(u_{2k_1},F_0)<\delta_{2k_1}$. We then pick a term $u_{2k_1+1}$ of $(v_n)$ such that $(u_0,\ldots,u_{2k_1},u_{2k_1+1})\in T$. We continue in the same fashion.
At infinity, we then have a block sequence $(u_n)\in {\mathbb A}_\Delta$ and integers $k_0<k_1<\ldots$ such that $d(u_{2n},F_0)<\delta_{2n}$ if and only if $n=k_i$ for some $i$ and such that for every $i$, $u_{2k_i+1}$ is a term of $(v_n)$. Let now $(w_n)\in {\mathbb A}$ be such that $\|w_n-u_n\|<\delta_n$. Then, as $\delta_n<{\rm dist}(F_0,F_1)/3$, we have that $w_{2n}\in F_0$ if and only if $n=k_i$ for some $i$ and $w_{2n}\in F_1$ otherwise. Moreover, as $(w_n)\in {\mathbb A}$, $$[w_{2k_i+1}]_{i\in {\mathbb N}}=[w_{2n+1}]_{w_{2n}\in F_0}\sqsubseteq_K [w_{2n+1}]_{w_{2n}\in F_1}=[w_{2n+1}]_{n\neq k_i}.$$ So by the choice of $\delta_n$ we have $$\begin{split}
[u_{2k_i+1}]_{i\in {\mathbb N}}
&\sqsubseteq_2[w_{2k_i+1}]_{i\in {\mathbb N}}\sqsubseteq_K [w_{2n+1}]_{n\neq k_i}\sqsubseteq_2 [u_{2n+1}]_{n\neq k_i}.
\end{split}$$ Since $ [u_{2n+1}]_{n\neq k_i}$ is a subspace of $[z_n]$ and $(u_{2k_i+1})$ a subsequence of $(v_n)$ this finishes the proof.
If for some constant $C$, all subspaces of $[e_n]$ contain a $C$-isomorphic copy of a subsequence of $(e_n)$, we say that $(e_n)$ is [*subsequentially $C$-minimal*]{}. Our proof shows that condition (2) in Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\] may be improved to “For some constant $C$ the basic sequence $(x_n)$ is subsequentially $C$-minimal”.
It is interesting to notice that if $(x_n)$ is hereditarily subsequentially minimal, then there is some $C$ and a block sequence $(v_n)$ of $(x_n)$ such that $(v_n)$ is hereditarily subsequentially $C$-minimal with the obvious definition. To see this, we first notice that by Proposition \[opposite\], $(x_n)$ can have no block bases $(y_n)$ such that further block subspaces with disjoint ranges are incomparable. So, by the proof of Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\], for any block base $(y_n)$ there is a constant $C$ and a further block basis $(z_n)$ which is subsequentially $C$-minimal. A simple diagonalisation using Lemma \[block uniformisation\] now shows that by passing to a block $(v_n)$ the $C$ can be made uniform. We do not know if any subsequentially minimal basis is necessarily subsequentially $C$-minimal for some $C$, nor do we know if any hereditarily subsequentially minimal basis is hereditarily subsequentially $C$-minimal for some $C$. Recall that Gowers also proved that a quasi minimal space must contain a further subspace which is $C$-quasi minimal [@g:dicho].
We also indicate a variation on Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\], relating the Casazza property to a slightly stronger form of sequential minimality. This answers the original problem of Gowers left open in [@g:dicho]. This variation is probably of less interest than Theorem \[reflexionsdansunbus\] because the Casazza property does not seem to imply tightness and also because the stronger form of sequential minimality may look somewhat artificial (although it is satisfied by Tsirelson’s space and is reminiscent of Schlumprecht’s notion of Class 1 space [@S:notes]).
We say that two block sequences $(x_n)$ and $(y_n)$ [*alternate*]{} if either $x_1<y_1<x_2<y_2<\cdots$ or $y_1<x_1<y_2<x_2<\cdots$.
Let $E$ be a Banach space with a basis $(e_n)$. Then there exists a block sequence $(x_n)$ with one of the following properties, which are exclusive and both possible:
1. $[x_n]$ has the Casazza property, i.e., no alternating block sequences in $[x_n]$ are equivalent.
2. There exists a family ${\mathcal B}$ of block sequences saturating $[x_n]$ and such that any two block sequences in ${\mathcal B}$ have subsequences which alternate and are equivalent.
In particular, in case (2), $E$ contains a block subspace $U=[u_n]$ such that for every block sequence of $U$, there is a further block sequence equivalent to, and alternating with, a subsequence of $(u_n)$.
If $(e_n)$ does not have a block sequence satisfying (1), then any block sequence of $(e_n)$ has a further block sequence in ${\mathbb A}=\{(y_n){ \; \big| \;}(y_{2n}) \sim (y_{2n+1})\}$. Let $\Delta$ be small enough so that ${{\mathbb A}}_{\Delta}={\mathbb A}$. By Gowers’ theorem, let $(x_n)$ be some block sequence of $(e_n)$ so that II has a winning strategy to play in ${{\mathbb A}}_{\Delta}$ whenever plays a block sequence of $(x_n)$. Let $T$ be the associated tree given by Lemma \[independence of I\]. By construction, for any block sequence $(z_n)$ of $(x_n)$, we may find a further block sequence $(v_n)$ such that for any $(y_0,\ldots,y_m) \in T$, there exists some $v_n$ with $(y_0,\ldots,y_m,v_n) \in T$. We set $f((z_n))=(v_n)$ and ${\mathcal F}=\{f((z_n)){ \; \big| \;}(z_n) {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}(x_n)\}$. Given $(v_n)$ and $(w_n)$ in ${\mathcal F}$, it is then clear that we may find subsequences $(v^{\prime}_n)$ and $(w^{\prime}_n)$ so that $(v_0^{\prime},w_0^{\prime},v_1^{\prime},w_1^{\prime},\ldots) \in T$, and therefore $(v_n^{\prime})$ and $(w_n^{\prime})$ are equivalent.
To conclude we may observe that there is no apparent relation between tightness by range and tightness with constants. Indeed Tsirelson’s space is tight with constants and sequentially minimal. Similarly, Example \[gunc\] will be proved to be tight by support and therefore by range, but is locally minimal. There also exists a space combining the two forms of tightness:
There exists a space with a basis which is tight with constants and tight by range.
The example has a basis that is tight by support and strongly asymptotically $\ell_1$. It is based on techniques of [@ADKM] and will be constructed in Section \[argyros\].
Finally, if a space $X$ is locally minimal and equipped with a basis which is tight by support and therefore unconditional (such as Example \[gunc\]), then the reader will easily check the following. The canonical basis of $X
\oplus X$ is tight (for a block subspace $Y=[y_n]$ of $X \oplus X$ use the sequence of intervals associated to the ranges of $y_n$ with respect to the canonical $2$-dimensional decomposition of $X \oplus X$), but neither tight by range nor with constants. However, a more interesting question remains open: does there exist a tight space which does not contain a basic sequence which is tight by range or with constants?
Refining Gowers’ dichotomies
============================
We recall the list of inevitable classes of subspaces contained in a Banach space given by Gowers in [@g:dicho]. Remember that a space is said to be [*quasi minimal*]{} if any two subspaces have a common $\sqsubseteq$-minorant, and [*strictly quasi minimal*]{} if it is quasi minimal but does not contain a minimal subspace. Two spaces are said to be incomparable in case neither of them embeds into the other, and [*totally incomparable*]{} if no space embeds into both of them.
\[gowers\] Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Then $X$ contains a subspace $Y$ with one of the following properties, which are all possible and mutually exclusive.
1. $Y$ is hereditarily indecomposable,
2. $Y$ has an unconditional basis such that no two disjointly supported block subspaces are isomorphic,
3. $Y$ has an unconditional basis and is strictly quasi minimal,
4. $Y$ has an unconditional basis and is minimal.
In case (2) the condition that any two disjointly supported block subspaces are non-isomorphic may be replaced by the condition that any two such subspaces are incomparable, or even totally incomparable. It is easy to see that any space in case (2) is tight. Indeed if any two disjointly supported block subspaces in $E=[e_n]$ are totally incomparable, then in particular $(e_n)$ is tight by range. For this reason condition (2) is also called tightness by support.
Theorem \[main\] improves the list of Gowers in case (3). Indeed any strictly quasi minimal space contains a tight subspace, but the space $S(T^{(p)})$, $1<p<+\infty$ is strictly quasi minimal and not tight: it is saturated with subspaces of $T^{(p)}$, which is strictly quasi minimal, and, as was already observed, it is not tight because its canonical basis is symmetric.
Concerning case (1), properties of HI spaces imply that any such space contains a tight subspace, but it remains open whether every HI space with a basis is tight. It is worth remembering that, by the study of Example \[OdellSchlumprecht\], there exists a tight HI space $X$ such that no basic sequence in $X$ is tight with constants.
Is every HI space with a basis tight?
Combining Theorem \[gowers\] with Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[main2\], we refine the list of inevitable spaces of Gowers as follows:
\[gowersbis\] Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional Banach space. Then $X$ contains a subspace $Y$ with one of the following properties, which are all mutually exclusive.
1. $Y$ is hereditarily indecomposable and has a basis such that no two block subspaces with disjoint ranges are comparable,
2. $Y$ is hereditarily indecomposable and has a basis which is tight and sequentially minimal,
3. $Y$ has an unconditional basis such that no two disjointly supported block subspaces are isomorphic,
4. $Y$ has an unconditional basis such that no two block subspaces with disjoint ranges are comparable, and is quasi minimal,
5. $Y$ has an unconditional basis which is tight and sequentially minimal,
6. $Y$ has an unconditional basis and is minimal.
We conjecture that the space of Gowers and Maurey is of type (1), although we have no proof of this fact. Instead we prove that an asymptotically unconditional HI space constructed by Gowers [@g:asymptotic] is of type (1). The proof requires some familiarity with Gowers and Maurey’s techniques and is postponed until the end of article.
We do not know whether type (2) spaces exist. If they do, they may be thought of as HI versions of type (5) spaces, i.e., of Tsirelson like spaces, so one might look for an example in the family initiated by the HI asymptotically $\ell_1$ space of Argyros and Deliyanni, whose “ground” space is a mixed Tsirelson’s space based on the sequence of Schreier families [@AD].
In relation with the $\lambda Id+K$ problem, it is not difficult to show that if $X$ is a complex hereditarily indecomposable Banach space with a basis such that some block subspace $Y$ embeds into a block subspace with disjoint range, then there exists an operator $S: Y \rightarrow X$ which is strictly singular and non-compact. So candidates for solving the $\lambda Id + K$ problem by the positive should probably be looked for among type (1) spaces.
The first example of type (3) was built by Gowers [@g:hyperplanes] and further analysed in [@GM2]. We provide various other examples of such spaces in the end of this article.
Type (4) means that for any two block subspaces $Y$ and $Z$ with disjoint ranges, $Y$ does not embed into $Z$, but some further block subspace $Y'$ of $Y$ does ($Y'$ therefore has disjoint support but not disjoint range from $Z$). It is unknown whether there exist spaces of type (4). Gowers sketched the proof of a weaker result, namely the existence of a strictly quasi minimal space with an unconditional basis and with the Casazza property, i.e., such that for no block sequence the sequence of odd vectors is equivalent to the sequence of even vectors, but his example was never actually checked. Alternatively, results of [@KLMT] Section 4 suggest that a mixed Tsirelson space example might be looked for.
The main example of a space of type (5) is Tsirelson’s space. Actually since spaces of type (1) to (4) are either HI or satisfy the Casazza property, they are never isomorphic to a proper subspace. Therefore for example spaces with a basis saturated with block subspaces isomorphic to their hyperplanes must contain a subspace of type (5) or (6). So our results may reinforce the idea that Tsirelson’s space is the canonical example of classical space without a minimal subspace.
It is worth noting that as a consequence of the theorem of James, spaces of type (3), (4) and (5) are always reflexive.
Finally it is interesting to note that a new refinement can be made to this list thanks to the 5th dichotomy and to a stabilisation theorem of A. Tcaciuc [@T] generalising a result of [@FFKR]. We shall only indicate here how this refines the cases of type (5) and (6) - the classical cases. A general picture of the complete list of inevitable spaces will be given at the end of the article after new examples of spaces have been analysed. It is easy to see that Tcaciuc’s theorem may be stated as follows: any Banach space contains either a strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ subspace, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}+\infty$, or a subspace $Y$ such that $$\forall\epsilon>0 \exists n \in {\mathbb N}, \forall Y_1,\ldots,Y_n \subseteq Y, \exists y_1, z_1 \in Y_1,
\ldots \exists y_n, z_n \in Y_n: {\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n y_i\rVert} <\epsilon {\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n z_i\rVert},$$ where $y_n, z_n$ may be supposed of norm $1$ in the above statement.
The second property in this dichotomy will be called [*uniform inhomogeneity*]{}. As strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ bases are unconditional, while the HI property is equivalent to uniform inhomogeneity with $n=2$ for all $\epsilon>0$, Tcaciuc’s dichotomy is only relevant for spaces with an unconditional basis. We combine Tcaciuc’s result with Proposition \[dfko\] (see also [@DFKO]), the 5th dichotomy, the fact that asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ spaces are locally minimal, and the classical theorem of James to obtain:
\[further\] Any space of type (5) or (6) in Theorem \[gowersbis\] contains a subspace $Y$ with one of the following properties, which are all mutually exclusive.
- $Y$ has a tight with constants and sequentially minimal unconditional basis, and is uniformly inhomogeneous,
- $Y$ has a tight, locally and sequentially minimal unconditional basis, and is uniformly inhomogeneous,
- $Y$ has a tight with constants, sequentially minimal and strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ basis, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p < +\infty$,
- $Y$ has a tight, sequentially minimal and strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ basis,
- $Y$ has an unconditional basis, is minimal and uniformly inhomogeneous,
- $Y$ has a strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ basis, is minimal, and is reflexive,
- $Y$ is isomorphic to $c_0$ or $\ell_p$, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p <+\infty$.
We know of no space close to being of type (5a) or (5b). A candidate for (5d) could be the dual of some partly modified mixed Tsirelson’s space not satisfying the “blocking principle” due to Casazza, Johnson, and Tzafriri [@CJT] (see [@KLMT]). Fortunately, the remaining cases may be illustrated with well-known examples. The reader will already have identified Tsirelson’s space and its convexifications as the canonical examples of spaces of type (5c). Schlumprecht’s space $S$ [@S1] does not contain an asymptotically $\ell_p$ subspace, therefore it contains a uniformly inhomogeneous subspace, which implies by minimality that $S$ itself is of type (6a) - a direct proof will also be given later on. Finally, the dual of Tsirelson’s space is of type (6b).
The interest of Proposition \[further\] lies in the fact that it provides a first idea of a natural list of inevitable spaces such that the “nicest” class is, as it should be, the class of spaces $c_0$ and $\ell_p$. It would of course be interesting to refine Tcaciuc’s criterium, that is to see whether uniform inhomogeneity implies some stronger property on some further subspace. Maybe some property related to operators, like Schlumprecht’s definition of “Class 2” spaces [@S], could be deduced from it, so that (6a) could be replaced by some more informative assumption. Proposition \[further\] also gives lines of research for finding new examples of “pure” Banach spaces: type (5a), (5b), and (5d) properties are obvious directions to follow.
For completeness we should mention that R. Wagner has also proved a dichotomy between asymptotic unconditionality and a strong form of the HI property [@W]. His result could be used to refine the cases of type (1) and (2).
Concerning the operators living on the spaces of different types, it is known that if $X$ is a complex HI space and $Y$ is a subspace, then any operator from $Y$ into $X$ is a strictly singular perturbation of the inclusion map [@ferenczi:operators]; similar results hold in the real case [@ferenczi:hdn]. Also, Gowers proves in [@g:dicho] a structure theorem on operators on spaces that are tight by support. However, his proof is not quite correct and we therefore take the opportunity to give a direct short proof of this result here based on his ideas.
Let $E=[e_n]$ be a space with an unconditional basis such that any two disjointly supported subspaces are incomparable. Suppose $(y_n)$ and $(z_n)$ are block bases and $T\colon y_n\mapsto z_n$ an isomorphism. Then there is an invertible diagonal operator $D\colon E{\rightarrow}E$ such that $T-D|_{[y_n]}$ and $T{^{-1}}- D{^{-1}}|_{[z_n]}$ are strictly singular.
For simplicity, let $(e_n)$ be $1$-unconditional and let $c,C$ be positive constants such that for all $x\in Y=[y_n]$ we have $c\|x\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\|Tx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}C\|x\|$. Define a partition $J\cup K\cup L$ of ${\mathbb N}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
m\in J &{\Leftrightarrow}{\exists}n\quad 2C|e^*_m(y_n)|<|e^*_m(z_n)|,\\
m\in K &{\Leftrightarrow}{\exists}n\quad 0< \frac c2|e^*_m(y_n)|<|e^*_m(z_n)|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2C|e^*_m(y_n)|,\\
m\in L &{\Leftrightarrow}{\exists}n \quad |e^*_m(z_n)|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac c2|e^*_m(y_n)|.\end{aligned}$$ Now define $D\colon E{\rightarrow}E$ by $$\begin{aligned}
D(e^*_m(y_n)e_m)&=e^*_m(z_n)e_m &\textrm{for $m\in K$},\\
D(e_m)&=e_m&\textrm{otherwise}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the basis is unconditional, $D$ is an isomorphism.
Now, by the definition of $L$ and since the basis $(e_n)$ is $1$-unconditional, we have for all $x\in [y_n]$ $$\|LTx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac c2\|Lx\|.$$ Also by $1$-unconditionality $$c\|Lx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}c\|x\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\|Tx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}C\|x\|,$$ whence $$2\|LTx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}c\|Lx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\|Tx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\|LTx\|+\|(J+K)Tx\|,$$ and thus $$\|LTx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\|(J+K)Tx\|.$$ So $$c\|x\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\|Tx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2\|(J+K)Tx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2\|Tx\|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2C\|x\|,$$ and therefore the map $x\mapsto (J+K)Tx$ is an isomorphism on $Y$. Similarly, using the the definition of $J$ and $1$-unconditionality, one proves that the map $x\mapsto (K+L)x$ is an isomorphism on $Y$.
So $Y$ is isomorphic with subspaces of $E$ supported on respectively $[e_n]_{n\in J+K}$ and $[e_n]_{n\in K+L}$, and therefore, as disjointly supported subspaces are totally incomparable, any operator from $Y$ into either $[e_n]_{n\in L}$ or from $Y$ into $[e_n]_{n\in J}$ is strictly singular. In particular, this applies to $J\colon Y{\rightarrow}E$, $L\colon Y{\rightarrow}E$, $JT\colon Y{\rightarrow}E$ and $LT\colon Y{\rightarrow}E$. Now, on $Y$ we have $$\begin{split}
T-D&=JT+KT+LT-JD-KD-LD\\
&=JT+KT+LT-J-KT-L\\
&=JT+LT-J-L,
\end{split}$$ which is strictly singular. A similar argument applies to $T{^{-1}}-D{^{-1}}$.
Chains and strong antichains {#chains and posets}
============================
The results in this section are in response to a question of Gowers from his fundamental study [@g:dicho] and concern what types of quasi orders can be realised as the set of (infinite-dimensional) subspaces of a fixed Banach space under the relation of isomorphic embeddability.
\[g:prob\] Given a Banach space $X$, let $P(X)$ be the set of all equivalence classes of subspaces of $X$, partially ordered as above. For which posets $P$ does there exist a Banach space $X$ such that every subspace $Y$ of $X$ contains a further subspace $Z$ with $P(Z) = P$?
Gowers noticed himself that by a simple diagonalisation argument any poset $P(X)$ must either have a minimal element, corresponding to a minimal space, or be uncountable. We shall now use our notion of tightness to show how to attack this problem in a uniform way and improve on several previous results.
Suppose that $X$ is a separable Banach space and $E$ is an analytic equivalence relation on a Polish space $P$. We say that $X$ has an $E$-[*antichain*]{}, if there is a Borel function $f\colon P{\rightarrow}SB(X)$ such that for $x,y\in P$
1. if $xEy$, then $f(x)$ and $f(y)$ are biembeddable,
2. if $x\not\mathrel{E}y$, then $f(x)$ and $f(y)$ are incomparable.
We say that $X$ has a [*strong $E$-antichain*]{} if there is a Borel function $f\colon P{\rightarrow}SB(X)$ such that for $x,y\in P$
1. if $xEy$, then $f(x)$ and $f(y)$ are isomorphic,
2. if $x\not\mathrel{E}y$, then $f(x)$ and $f(y)$ are incomparable.
For example, if $=_{\mathbb R}$ is the equivalence relation of identity on ${\mathbb R}$, then $=_{\mathbb R}$-antichains and strong $=_{\mathbb R}$-antichains simply correspond to a perfect antichain in the usual sense, i.e., an uncountable Borel set of pairwise incomparable subspaces. Also, having a strong $E$-antichain implies, in particular, that $E$ Borel reduces to the isomorphism relation between the subspaces of $X$.
The main result of [@flr] reformulated in this language states that if $E_{{{\boldsymbol}\Sigma}_1^1}$ denotes the complete analytic equivalence relation, then $C[0,1]$ has a strong $E_{{{\boldsymbol}\Sigma}_1^1}$-antichain.
We will now prove a result that simultaneously improves on two results due respectively to the first and the second author. In [@ergodic], the authors proved that a Banach space not containing a minimal space must contain a perfect set of non-isomorphic subspaces. This result was improved by Rosendal in [@incomparable], in which it was shown that if a space does not contain a minimal subspace it must contain a perfect set of pairwise incomparable spaces. And Ferenczi proved in [@subsurfaces] that if $X$ is a separable space without minimal subspaces, then $E_0$ Borel reduces to the isomorphism relation between the subspaces of $X$. Recall that $E_0$ is the equivalence relation defined on $2^{{\mathbb N}}$ by $x E_0 y$ if and only if $\exists m\;
\forall n {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}m\; x_n=y_n$.
\[E\_0-antichain\] Let $X$ be a separable Banach space. Then $X$ either contains a minimal subspace or has a strong $E_0$-antichain.
Suppose $X$ has no minimal subspace. By Theorem \[3rddichotomy\] and Lemma \[ramsey tight\], we can find a basic sequence $(e_n)$ in $X$ and a continuous function $f\colon [{\mathbb N}]{\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that for all $A, B\in [{\mathbb N}]$, if $B$ is disjoint from an infinite number of intervals $[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]$, then $[e_n]_{n\in A}$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n\in B}$. We claim that there is a continuous function $h\colon {{2^{\mathbb N}}}{\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ such that
1. if $xE_0y$, then $|h(x)\setminus h(y)|=|h(y)\setminus h(x)|<\infty$,
2. if $x\not\mathrel{E_0}y$, then $[e_n]_{n\in h(x)}$ and $[e_n]_{n\in h(y)}$ are incomparable spaces.
This will clearly finish the proof using the fact that subspaces of the same finite codimension in a common superspace are isomorphic.
We will construct a partition of ${\mathbb N}$ into intervals $$I_0^0<I_0^1<I_0^2<I_1^0<I_1^1<I_1^2<\ldots$$ such that if we set $J_n^0=I_n^0\cup I_n^2$ and $J_n^1=I_n^1$, the following conditions hold:
1. for all $n$, $|J_n^0|=|J_n^1|$,
2. if $s\in 2^n$, $a=J_0^{s_0}\cup J_1^{s_1}\cup\ldots \cup J_{n-1}^{s_{n-1}}\cup I_n^0$, and $A\in [a,{\mathbb N}]$, then for some $i$, $$[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]\subseteq I_n^0,$$
3. if $s\in 2^n$, $a=J_0^{s_0}\cup J_1^{s_1}\cup\ldots \cup J_{n-1}^{s_{n-1}}\cup I_n^1$, and $A\in [a,{\mathbb N}]$, then for some $i$, $$[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]\subseteq I_n^1.$$
Assuming this is done, for $x\in {{2^{\mathbb N}}}$ we set $h(x)=J_0^{x_0}\cup J_1^{x_1}\cup\ldots$. Then for all $n$ there is an $i$ such that $$[f(h(x))_{2i},f(h(x))_{2i+1}]\subseteq J_n^{x_n}.$$
Therefore, if $x\not\mathrel{E_0}y$, then $h(y)=J_0^{y_0}\cup J_1^{y_1}\cup\ldots$ is disjoint from an infinite number of $J^{x_n}_n$ and thus also from an infinite number of intervals $[f(h(x))_{2i},f(h(x))_{2i+1}]$, whence $[e_n]_{n\in h(x)}$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n\in h(y)}$. Similarly, $[e_n]_{n\in h(y)}$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n\in h(x)}$.
On the other hand, if $xE_0y$, then clearly $|h(x)\setminus h(y)|=|h(y)\setminus h(x)|<\infty$.
It therefore only remains to construct the intervals $I_n^i$. So suppose by induction that $I_0^0<I_0^1<I_0^2<\ldots<I_{n-1}^0<I_{n-1}^1<I_{n-1}^2$ have been chosen (the initial step being $n=0$) such that the conditions are satisfied. Let $m=\max J_{n-1}^1+1=\max I_{n-1}^2+1$. For each $s\in 2^n$ and $a=J_0^{s_0}\cup J_1^{s_1}\cup\ldots \cup J_{n-1}^{s_{n-1}}$, there are by continuity of $f$ some $k_s>m$, some interval $m{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}M_s{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k_s$ and an integer $i_s$ such that for all $A\in \big[a\cup\; [m,k_s],{\mathbb N}\big]$, we have $$[f(A)_{2i_s},f(A)_{2i_s+1}]=M_s.$$ Let now $k=\max_{s\in 2^n}k_s$ and $I_n^0=[m,k]$. Then if $s\in 2^n$ and $a=J_0^{s_0}\cup \ldots \cup J_{n-1}^{s_{n-1}}$, we have for all $A\in [a\cup I_n^0,{\mathbb N}]$ some $i$ such that $$[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]\subseteq I_n^0.$$
Again for each $s\in 2^n$ and $a=J_0^{s_0}\cup J_1^{s_1}\cup\ldots \cup J_{n-1}^{s_{n-1}}$ there are by continuity of $f$ some $l_s>k+1$, some interval $k+1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}L_s{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}l_s$ and an integer $j_s$ such that for all $A\in \big[a\cup\; [k+1,l_s],{\mathbb N}\big]$, we have $$[f(A)_{2j_s},f(A)_{2j_s+1}]=L_s.$$ Let now $l=\max_{s\in 2^n}l_s+k$ and $I_n^1=[k+1,l]$. Then if $s\in 2^n$ and $a=J_0^{s_0}\cup \ldots \cup J_{n-1}^{s_{n-1}}$, we have for all $A\in [a\cup I_n^1,{\mathbb N}]$ some $j$ such that $$[f(A)_{2j},f(A)_{2j+1}]\subseteq I_n^1.$$ Finally, we simply let $I_n^2=[l+1,l+|I_n^1|-|I_n^0|]$. This finishes the construction.
We define a quasi order $\subseteq^*$ and a partial order $\subseteq_0$ on the space $[{\mathbb N}]$ of infinite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$ by the following conditions: $$A\subseteq^* B{\Leftrightarrow}A\setminus B \textrm{ is finite}$$ and $$A\subseteq_0 B{\Leftrightarrow}\Big(A=B \textrm { or }{\exists}n\in B\setminus A\colon\; A\subseteq B\cup [0,n[\Big).$$ Also, if $(a_n)$ and $(b_n)$ are infinite sequences of integers, we let $$(a_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(b_n){\Leftrightarrow}{\forall}^\infty n\; a_n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}b_n.$$
We notice that $\subseteq_0$ is a partial order refining the quasi order $\subseteq^*$, namely, whenever $A\subseteq^*B$ we let $A\subseteq_0B$ if $B
\not\subseteq^* A$ or $A=B$ or $A\triangle B$ admits a greatest element which belongs to $B$.
\[orders\]
1. Any closed partial order on a Polish space Borel embeds into $\subseteq_0$.
2. Any partial order on a set of size at most $\aleph_1$ embeds into $\subseteq_0$.
3. The quasi order $\subseteq^*$ embeds into $\subseteq_0$, but does not Borel embed.
4. And finally $\subseteq_0$ Borel embeds into $\subseteq^*$.
\(1) By an unpublished result of A. Louveau [@louveau], any closed partial order on a Polish space Borel embeds into $({\mathcal}P({\mathbb N}),\subseteq)$. And if we let $(J_n)$ be a partition of ${\mathbb N}$ into countable many infinite subsets, we see that $({\mathcal}P({\mathbb N}),\subseteq)$ Borel embeds into $\subseteq^*$ and $\subseteq_0$ by the mapping $A\mapsto \bigcup_{n\in A}J_n$.
\(2) $\&$ (3) It is well-known that any partial order of size at most $\aleph_1$ embeds into $\subseteq^*$ and if we let $s\colon [{\mathbb N}]{\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ be any function such that $|A\triangle B|<\infty{\Leftrightarrow}s(A)=s(B)$ and $|A\triangle s(A)|<\infty$, i.e., $s$ is a selector for $E_0$, then $s$ embeds $\subseteq^*$ into $\subseteq_0$. To see that there cannot be a Borel embedding of $\subseteq^*$ into $\subseteq_0$, we notice that if $h\colon [{\mathbb N}]{\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ was a Borel function such that $A\subseteq^*B{\Leftrightarrow}h(A)\subseteq_0h(B)$, then, in particular, $|A\triangle B| \textrm { is finite }{\Leftrightarrow}h(A)=h(B)$, contradicting that $E_0$ is a non-smooth equivalence relation on $[{\mathbb N}]$.
\(4) To see that $\subseteq_0$ Borel embeds into $\subseteq^*$, we define for an infinite subset $A$ of ${\mathbb N}$ a sequence of integers $g(A)=(a_n)$ by $$a_n=\sum_{i\in A\cap [0,n]}2^i.$$ Suppose now that $g(A)=(a_n)$ and $g(B)=(b_n)$. Then for each $n$, $$a_n=b_n{\Leftrightarrow}A\cap[0,n]=B\cap [0,n]$$ and $$a_n<b_n{\Leftrightarrow}{\exists}m\in B\setminus A,\; m{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n,\; A\cap [0,n]\subseteq B\cup [0,m[.$$ Thus, we have $a_n=b_n$ for infinitely many $n$ if and only if $A=B$, and if $a_n<b_n$ for infinitely many $n$, then either $B\setminus A$ is infinite or for some $m\in B\setminus A$ we have $A\subseteq B\cup [0,m[$. Moreover, if $B\setminus A$ is infinite, then for infinitely many $n$, $a_n<b_n$. So $$B\not\subseteq^*A{\Rightarrow}(b_n)\not{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n){\Rightarrow}\big( B\not\subseteq^*A \textrm{ or } A\subseteq_0B\big),$$ and thus by contraposition $$(b_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n){\Rightarrow}B\subseteq^*A.$$ Also, if $(b_n)\not{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n)$, then $B\not\subseteq^*A$ or $A\subseteq_0B$, so if moreover $B\subseteq_0A$, we would have $A\subseteq_0B$ and hence $A=B$, contradicting $g(B)=(b_n)\not{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n)=g(A)$. Thus, $$B\subseteq_0A{\Rightarrow}(b_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n).$$ To see that also $$(b_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n){\Rightarrow}B\subseteq_0A,$$ notice that if $(b_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n)$ but $B\not\subseteq_0A$, then, as $B\subseteq^*A$, we must have $A\subseteq_0B$ and hence $(a_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(b_n)$. But then $a_n=b_n$ for almost all $n$ and thus $A=B$, contradicting $B\not\subseteq_0A$. Therefore, $$B\subseteq_0A{\Leftrightarrow}(b_n){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*(a_n),$$ and we thus have a Borel embedding of $\subseteq_0$ into the quasi order ${\ensuremath{\leqslant}}^*$ on the space ${\mathbb N}^{\mathbb N}$. It is well-known and easy to see that this latter Borel embeds into $\subseteq^*$ and hence so does $\subseteq_0$.
\[poset\] Any Banach space without a minimal subspace contains a subspace with an F.D.D. $(F_n)$ satisfying one of the two following properties:
- if $A,B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ are infinite, then $$\sum_{n\in A}F_n\sqsubseteq \sum_{n\in B}F_n{\Leftrightarrow}A\subseteq^*B,$$
- if $A,B\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ are infinite, then $$\sum_{n\in A}F_n\sqsubseteq \sum_{n\in B}F_n{\Leftrightarrow}A\subseteq_0B.$$
Suppose $X$ is a Banach space without a minimal subspace. Then by Theorem \[3rddichotomy\], we can find a continuously tight basic sequence $(e_n)$ in $X$. Using the infinite-dimensional Ramsey Theorem for analytic sets, we can also find an infinite set $D\subseteq {\mathbb N}$ such that
- either for all infinite $B\subseteq D$, $[e_i]_{i\in B}$ embeds into its hyperplanes,
- or for all $B\subseteq D$, $[e_i]_{i\in B}$ is not isomorphic to a proper subspace.
And, by Lemma \[ramsey tight\], we can after renumbering the sequence $(e_n)_{n\in D}$ as $(e_n)_{n\in {\mathbb N}}$ suppose that there is a continuous function $f\colon [{\mathbb N}]{\rightarrow}[{\mathbb N}]$ that for $A, B\in [{\mathbb N}]$, if $B$ is disjoint from an infinite number of intervals $[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]$, then $[e_n]_{n\in A}$ does not embed into $[e_n]_{n\in B}$.
We now construct a partition of ${\mathbb N}$ into intervals $$I_0<I_1<I_2<\ldots$$ such that the following conditions hold:
- for all $n$, $|I_0\cup\ldots \cup I_{n-1}|<|I_n|$,
- if $A\in [{\mathbb N}]$ and $I_n\subseteq A$, then for some $i$, $$[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]\subseteq I_n.$$
Suppose by induction that $I_0<I_1<\ldots<I_{n-1}$ have been chosen such that the conditions are satisfied. Let $m=\max I_{n-1}+1$. For each $a\subseteq [0,m[$ there are by continuity of $f$ some $l_a>m$, some interval $m{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}M_a{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}l_a$ and an integer $i_a$ such that for all $A\in \big[a\cup\; [m,l_a],{\mathbb N}\big]$, we have $$[f(A)_{2i_a},f(A)_{2i_a+1}]=M_a.$$ Let now $l> \max_{a\subseteq [0,m[}l_a$ be such that $|I_0\cup\ldots \cup I_{n-1}|<l-m$, and set $I_n=[m,l[$. Then if $a\subseteq[0,m[$, we have for all $A\in [a\cup I_n,{\mathbb N}]$ some $i$ such that $$[f(A)_{2i},f(A)_{2i+1}]\subseteq I_n,$$ which ends the construction.
Let now $F_n=[e_i]_{i\in I_n}$. Clearly, $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{\rm dim}F_i<{\rm dim}F_n$, and if $A\setminus B$ is infinite and we let $A'=\bigcup_{n\in A} I_n$ and $B'=\bigcup_{n\in B}I_n$, then $B'$ will be disjoint from an infinite number of the intervals defined by $f(A')$ and hence $\sum_{n\in A}F_n=[e_n]_{n\in A'}$ does not embed into $\sum_{n\in B}F_n=[e_n]_{n\in B'}$.
In case of (i) we have that for all infinite $C\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, $$(e_n)_{n\in C}\sqsubseteq(e_n)_{n\in C'}\sqsubseteq(e_n)_{n\in C''}\sqsubseteq(e_n)_{n\in C'''}\sqsubseteq\ldots,$$ where $D'$ denotes $D\setminus \min D$. So, in particular, for any infinite $A\subseteq {\mathbb N}$, $ \sum_{n\in A}F_n$ embeds into all of its finite codimensional subspaces and thus if $A\setminus B$ is finite, then $\sum_{n\in A}F_n \sqsubseteq \sum_{n\in B}F_n$. This gives us (a).
In case (ii), if $A\subseteq_0B$ but $B\not\subseteq_0 A$, we have, as ${\rm dim}F_n>\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}{\rm dim}F_i$, that $\sum_{n\in A}F_n$ embeds as a proper subspace of $\sum_{n\in B}F_n$. Conversely, if $\sum_{n\in A}F_n\sqsubseteq\sum_{n\in B}F_n$, then $A\setminus B$ is finite and so either $A\subseteq_0B$ or $B\subseteq_0A$. But if $B\subseteq_0A$ and $A\not\subseteq_0B$, then $\sum_{n\in B}F_n$ embeds as a proper subspace into $\sum_{n\in A}F_n$ and thus also into itself, contradicting (ii). Thus, $A\subseteq_0B$. So assuming (ii) we have the equivalence in (b).
We may observe that Tsirelson’s space satisfies case (a) of Proposition \[poset\], while case (b) is verified by Gowers–Maurey’s space, or more generally by any space of type (1) to (4).
By Proposition \[orders\] and Proposition \[poset\] we now have the following result.
Let $X$ be an infinite-dimensional separable Banach space without a minimal subspace and let $SB_\infty(X)$ be the standard Borel space of infinite-dimensional subspaces of $X$ ordered by the relation $\sqsubseteq$ of isomorphic embeddability. Then $\subseteq_0$ Borel embeds into $SB_\infty(X)$ and by consequence
- any partial order of size at most $\aleph_1$ embeds into $SB_\infty(X)$,
- any closed partial order on a Polish space Borel embeds into $SB_\infty(X)$.
We notice that this proves a strong dichotomy for the partial orders of Problem \[g:prob\], namely, either they must be of size $1$ or must contain any partial order of size at most $\aleph_1$ and any closed partial order on a Polish space. In particular, in the second case we have well-ordered chains of length $\omega_1$ and also ${\mathbb R}$-chains. This completes the picture of [@survey].
Tight spaces of the type of Gowers and Maurey {#gowers-maurey}
=============================================
In this section we prove that the dual of the type (3) space $G_u$ constructed by Gowers in [@g:hyperplanes] is locally minimal of type (3), that Gowers’ hereditarily indecomposable and asymptotically unconditional space $G$ defined in [@g:asymptotic] is of type (1), and that its dual $G^*$ is locally minimal of type (1). Theses spaces are natural variation on Gowers and Maurey’s space $GM$, and so familiarity with that construction will be assumed: we shall not redefine the now classical notation relative to $GM$, such as R.I.S. sequences, special functionals, the sets ${\bf Q}$, $K$, $L$, etc., instead we shall try to give details on the parts in which $G_u$ or $G$ differ from $GM$.
The idea of the proofs is similar to [@g:hyperplanes]. The HI property for Gowers-Maurey’s spaces is obtained as follows. Some vector $x$ is constructed such that ${\lVertx\rVert}$ is large, but so that if $x'$ is obtained from $x$ by changing signs of the components of $x$, then $x^*(x')$ is small for any norming functional $x^*$, and so ${\lVertx'\rVert}$ is small. The upper bound for $x^*(x')$ is obtained by a combination of unconditional estimates (not depending on the signs) and of conditional estimates (i.e., based on the fact that $|\sum_{i=1}^n \epsilon_i|$ is much smaller than $n$ if $\epsilon_i=(-1)^i$ for all $i$).
For our examples we shall need to prove that some operator $T$ is unbounded. Thus we shall construct a vector $x$ such that say $Tx$ has large norm, and such that $x^*(x)$ is small for any norming $x^*$. The upper bound for $x^*(x)$ will be obtained by the same unconditional estimates as in the HI case, while conditional estimates will be trivial due to the disjointness of the supports of the corresponding component vectors and functionals. The method will be similar for the dual spaces.
Recall that if $X$ is a space with a bimonotone basis, an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$ is a normalised vector of the form $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i$, where $x_1<\cdots<x_n$ and ${\lVertx_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1+\epsilon}{n}$ for all $i$. An $\ell_{\infty+}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$ is a normalised vector of the form $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i$, where $x_1<\cdots<x_n$ and ${\lVertx_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{1+\epsilon}$ for all $i$. Recall that the function $f$ is defined by $f(n)=\log_2(n+1)$. The space $X$ is said to satisfy a lower $f$-estimate if for any $x_1<\cdots<x_n$, $$\frac{1}{f(n)}\sum_{i=1}^n {\lVertx_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n x_i\rVert}.$$
\[linftyn\] Let $X$ be a reflexive space with a bimonotone basis and satisfying a lower $f$-estimate. Let $(y_k^*)$ be a normalised block sequence of $X^*$, $n \in {\mathbb N}$, $\epsilon,\alpha>0$. Then there exists a constant $N(n,\epsilon)$, successive subsets $F_i$ of $[1,N(n,\epsilon)]$, and vectors $x_i^*$ of the form $\lambda \sum_{k \in F_i} y_k^*$, such that $x^*=\sum_{i=1}^n
x_i^*$ is an $\ell_{\infty +}^n$- average with constant $1+\epsilon$. Furthermore, if for each $i$, $x_i$ is such that ${\rm range}\;x_i \subseteq {\rm range}\;x_i^*$ and $x_i^*(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\alpha {\lVertx_i^*\rVert}$, then $x=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i$ is an $\ell_{1+}^n$-vector with constant $\frac{1+\epsilon}{\alpha}$ such that $x^*(x) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{\alpha}{1+\epsilon}{\lVertx\rVert}$.
Since $X$ satisfies a lower $f$-estimate, it follows by duality that any sequence of successive functionals $x_1^*<\cdots<x_n^*$ in $G_u^*$ satisfies the following upper estimate: $$1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}f(n) \max_{1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}i {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n}{\lVertx_i^*\rVert}.$$ Let $N=n^k$ where $k$ is such that $(1+\epsilon)^k>
f(n^k)$. Assume towards a contradiction that the result is false for $N(n,\epsilon)=N$, then $$y^*=(y_1^*+\ldots+y_{n^{k-1}}^*)+\ldots+(y_{(n-1)n^{k-1}+1}^*+\ldots+y_{n_k}^*)$$ is not an $\ell_{\infty +}^n$-vector with constant $1+\epsilon$, and therefore, for some $i$, $${\lVerty_{i n^{k-1}+1}^*+\ldots+y_{(i+1)n^{k-1}}^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{1+\epsilon}{\lVerty^*\rVert}.$$ Applying the same reasoning to the above sum instead of $y^*$, we obtain, for some $j$, $${\lVerty_{j n^{k-2}+1}^*+\ldots+y_{(j+1)n^{k-2}}^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{(1+\epsilon)^2}{\lVerty^*\rVert}.$$ By induction we obtain that $$1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{(1+\epsilon)^k} {\lVerty^*\rVert}
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{(1+\epsilon)^k} f(n^k),$$ a contradiction.
Let therefore $x^*$ be such an $\ell_{\infty +}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$ of the form $\sum_i x_i^*$. Let for each $i$, $x_i$ be normalised such that ${\rm range}(x_i) \subseteq {\rm range}(x_i^*)$ and $x_i^*(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\alpha {\lVertx_i^*\rVert}$. Then $${\lVert\sum_i x_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}x^*(\sum_i x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{\alpha n}{1+\epsilon} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{\alpha}{1+\epsilon}{\lVert\sum_i x_i\rVert},$$ and in particular for each $i$, $${\lVertx_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1+\epsilon}{\alpha n}{\lVert\sum_i x_i\rVert}.$$
The following lemma is fundamental and therefore worth stating explicitly. It appears for example as Lemma 4 in [@g:asymptotic]. Recall that an $(M,g)$-form is a functional of the form $g(M)^{-1}(x_1^*+\ldots+x_M^*)$, with $x_1^*<\cdots<x_M^*$ of norm at most $1$.
\[fundamental\] Let $f,g\in\mathcal F$ with $g{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\sqrt f$, let $X$ be a space with a bimonotone basis satisfy a lower $f$-estimate, let $\epsilon>0$, let $x_1,\ldots,x_N$ be a R.I.S. in X for $f$ with constant $1+\epsilon$ and let $x=\sum_{i=1}^Nx_i$. Suppose that $${\lVertEx\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\sup\Bigl\{|x^*(Ex)|:M{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2, x^*\ \hbox{is an $(M,g)$-form}
\Bigr\}$$ for every interval $E$ such that ${\lVertEx\rVert}\ge 1/3$. Then ${\lVertx\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}(1+\epsilon+\epsilon')Ng(N)^{-1}$.
A locally minimal space tight by support
----------------------------------------
Let $G_u$ be the space defined in [@g:hyperplanes]. This space has a suppression unconditional basis, is tight by support and therefore reflexive, and its norm is given by the following implicit equation, for all $x \in c_{00}$:
$${\lVertx\rVert}={\lVertx\rVert}_{c_0}\vee\ \sup\Bigl\{f(n)^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n{\lVertE_i x\rVert}{ \; \Big| \;}2 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n, E_1<\ldots<E_n\Bigr\}$$ $$\vee\ \sup\Bigl\{|x^*(x)|{ \; \Big| \;}k \in K, x^* \hbox{ special of length } k \Bigr\}$$
where $E_1, \ldots, E_n$ are successive subsets (not necessarily intervals) of ${\mathbb N}$.
\[gu\] The dual $G_u^*$ of $G_u$ is tight by support and locally minimal.
Given $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\epsilon=1/10$ we may by Lemma \[linftyn\] find some $N$ such that there exists in the span of any $x_1^*<\ldots<x_N^*$ an $\ell_{\infty}^{n+}$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$. By unconditionality we deduce that any block-subspace of $G_u^*$ contains $\ell_{\infty}^n$’s uniformly, and therefore $G_u^*$ is locally minimal.
Assume now towards a contradiction that $(x_n^*)$ and $(y_n^*)$ are disjointly supported and equivalent block sequences in $G_u^*$, and let $T: [x_n^*] \rightarrow [y_n^*]$ be defined by $Tx_n^*=y_n^*$.
We may assume that each $x_n^*$ is an $\ell_{\infty +}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$. Using Hahn-Banach theorem, the $1$-unconditionality of the basis, and Lemma \[linftyn\], we may also find for each $n$ an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average $x_n$ with constant $1+\epsilon$ such that ${\rm supp}\ x_n \subseteq {\rm supp}\ x_n^*$ and $x_n^*(x_n) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/2$. By construction, for each $n$, $Tx_n^*$ is disjointly supported from $[x_k]$, and up to modifying $T$, we may assume that $Tx_n^*$ is in ${\bf Q}$ and of norm at most $1$ for each $n$.
If $z_1,\ldots,z_m$ is a R.I.S. of these ${\ell}_{1+}^n$-averages $x_n$ with constant $1+\epsilon$, with $m \in [\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, and $z_1^*,\ldots,z_m^*$ are the functionals associated to $z_1,\ldots,z_m$, then by [@g:hyperplanes] Lemma 7, the $(m,f)$-form $z^*=f(m)^{-1}(z_1^*+\ldots+z_m^*)$ satisfies $$z^*(z_1+\ldots+z_m) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{m}{2f(m)} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{4}{\lVertz_1+\ldots+z_m\rVert},$$ and furthermore $Tz^*$ is also an $(m,f)$-form. Therefore we may build R.I.S. vectors $z$ with constant $1+\epsilon$ of arbitrary length $m$ in $[\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, so that $z$ is $4^{-1}$-normed by an $(m,f)$-form $z^*$ such that $Tz^*$ is also an $(m,f)$-form. We may then consider a sequence $z_1,\ldots,z_k$ of length $k \in K$ of such R.I.S. vectors of length $m_i$, and some corresponding $(m_i,f)$-forms $z_1^*,\ldots,z_k^*$ (i.e $z_i^*$ $4^{-1}$-norms $z_i$ and $Tz_i^*$ is also an $(m_i,f)$-form for all $i$), such that $Tz_1^*,\ldots,Tz_k^*$ is a special sequence. Then we let $z=z_1+\cdots+z_k$ and $z^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(z_1^*+\ldots+z_k^*)$. Since $Tz^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(Tz_1^*+\ldots+Tz_k^*)$ is a special function it follows that $${\lVertTz^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}1.$$Our aim is now to show that ${\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}3kf(k)^{-1}$. It will then follow that $${\lVertz^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}z^*(z)/{\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(k)^{1/2}/12.$$ Since $k$ was arbitrary in $K$ this will imply that $T^{-1}$ is unbounded and provide the desired contradiction.
The proof is now almost exactly the same as in [@g:hyperplanes]. Let $K_0=K \setminus \{k\}$ and let $g$ be the corresponding function given by [@g:hyperplanes] Lemma 6. To prove that ${\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}3kf(k)^{-1}$ it is enough by [@g:hyperplanes] Lemma 8 and Lemma \[fundamental\] to prove that for any interval $E$ such that ${\lVertEz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/3$, $Ez$ is normed by some $(M,g)$-form with $M {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2$.
By the discussion in the proof of the main theorem in [@g:hyperplanes], the only possible norming functionals apart from $(M,g)$-forms are special functionals of length $k$. So let $w^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(w_1^*+\cdots+w_k^*)$ be a special functional of length $k$, and $E$ be an interval such that ${\lVertEz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/3$. We need to show that $w^*$ does not norm $Ez$.
Let $t$ be minimal such that $w_t^* \neq Tz_t^*$. If $i \neq j$ or $i=j>t$ then by definition of special sequences there exist $M \neq N \in L$, $\min(M,N) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}j_{2k}$, such that $w_i^*$ is an $(M,f)$-form and $z_j$ is an R.I.S. vector of size $N$ and constant $1+\epsilon$. By [@g:hyperplanes] Lemma 8, $z_j$ is an $\ell_{1+}^{N^{1/10}}$-average with constant $2$. If $M<N$ then $2M<\log \log \log N$ so, by [@g:hyperplanes] Corollary 3, $|w_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}6f(M)^{-1}$. If $M>N$ then $\log \log \log M>2N$ so, by [@g:hyperplanes] Lemma 4, $|w_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2f(N)/N$. In both cases it follows that $|w_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k^{-2}$.
If $i=j=t$ we have $|w_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}1$. Finally if $i=j<t$ then $w_i^*=Tz_i^*$. Since $Tz_i^*$ is disjointly supported from $[x_k]$ and therefore from $z_j$, it follows simply that $w_i^*(Ez_j)=0$ in that case.
Summing up we have obtained that $$|w^*(Ez)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}f(k)^{-1/2}(k^2. k^{-2}+1)=2f(k)^{-1/2} < 1/3 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVertEz\rVert}.$$ Therefore $w^*$ does not norm $Ez$ and this finishes the proof.
It may be observed that $G_u^*$ is uniformly inhomogeneous. We state this in a general form which implies the result for $G_u$, $S$ and $S^*$ as well.
\[spaceswithtcaciuc\] Let $f \in {\mathcal F}$ and let $X$ be a space with a bimonotone basis satisfying a lower $f$-estimate. Let $\epsilon_0=1/10$, and assume that for every $n \in [\log N, \exp N], N \in L$, $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ a R.I.S. in $X$ with constant $1+\epsilon_0$ and $x=\sum_{i=1}^Nx_i$, $${\lVertEx\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\sup\Bigl\{|x^*(Ex)|:M{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2, x^*\ \hbox{is an $(M,f)$-form}
\Bigr\}$$ for every interval $E$ such that ${\lVertEx\rVert}\ge 1/3$. Then $X$ and $X^*$ are uniformly inhomogeneous.
Given $\epsilon>0$, let $m \in L$ be such that $f(m) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}16\epsilon^{-1}$. Let $Y_1,\ldots,Y_m$ be arbitrary block subspaces of $X$. By the classical method for spaces with a lower $f$ estimate, we may find a R.I.S. sequence $y_1<\cdots<y_m$ with constant $1+\epsilon_0$ with $y_i \in Y_i, \forall i$. By Lemma \[fundamental\], $${\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2mf(m)^{-1}.$$ Let on the other hand $n \in [m^{10},\exp m]$ and $E_1<\cdots<E_m$ be sets such that $\bigcup_{j=1}^m E_j=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $|E_j|$ is within $1$ of $\frac{n}{m}$ for all $j$. We may construct a R.I.S. sequence $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ with constant $1+\epsilon_0$ such that $x_i \in Y_j$ whenever $i \in E_j$. By Lemma \[fundamental\], $${\lVert\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}(1+2\epsilon_0)(\frac{n}{m}+1)f(\frac{n}{m}-1)^{-1} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2nf(n)^{-1} m^{-1}.$$ Let $z_j={\lVert\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i\rVert}^{-1}\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i$. Then $z_j \in
Y_j$ for all $j$ and $${\lVert\sum_{j=1}^m z_j\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(n)^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^m \big({\lVert\sum_{i \in
E_j}x_i\rVert}^{-1}\sum_{i \in E_j}{\lVertx_i\rVert}\big) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}m/2.$$ Therefore $${\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}4f(m)^{-1}{\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m z_i\rVert}
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\epsilon {\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m z_i\rVert}.$$
The proof concerning the dual is quite similar and uses the same notation. Let $Y_{1*},\ldots,Y_{m*}$ be arbitrary block subspaces of $X^*$. By Lemma \[linftyn\] we may find a R.I.S. sequence $y_1<\cdots<y_m$ with constant $1+\epsilon_0$ and functionals $y_i^* \in Y_{i*}$ such that ${\rm range}\ y_i^* \subseteq {\rm range}\ y_i$ and $y_i^*(y_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/2$ for all $i$. Since ${\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2mf(m)^{-1}$, it follows that $${\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}{\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i\rVert}^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^m
y_i^*(y_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(m)/4.$$ On the other hand we may construct a R.I.S. sequence $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ with constant $1+\epsilon_0$ and functionals $x_i^*$ such that ${\rm range}\ x_i^* \subseteq {\rm range}\ x_i$, $x_i^*(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/2$ for all $i$, and such that $x_i^* \in Y_{j*}$ whenever $i \in E_j$. Since ${\lVert\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2nf(n)^{-1} m^{-1}$, it follows that $${\lVert\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{n}{2m}\frac{mf(n)}{2n}=f(n)/4.$$
Let $z_j^*={\lVert\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i^*\rVert}^{-1}\sum_{i \in E_j}x_i^*$. Then $z_j^* \in
Y_{j*}$ for all $j$ and $${\lVert\sum_{j=1}^m z_j^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{4}{f(n)}f(n)=4.$$ Therefore $${\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m z_i^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}16f(m)^{-1}{\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i^*\rVert}
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\epsilon {\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m y_i^*\rVert}.$$
The spaces $S$, $S^*$, $G_u$, and $G_u^*$ are uniformly inhomogeneous.
Two HI spaces tight by range
----------------------------
We show that Gowers’ space $G$ constructed in [@g:asymptotic] and its dual are of type (1). The proof is a refinement of the proof that $G_u$ or $G_u^*$ is of type (3), in which we observe that the hypothesis of unconditionality may be replaced by asymptotic unconditionality. The idea is to produce constituent parts of vectors or functionals in Gowers’ construction with sufficient control on their supports (and not just on their ranges, as would be enough to obtain the HI property for example).
The space $G$ has a norm defined by induction as in $GM$, with the addition of a new term which guarantees that its basis $(e_n)$ is $2$-asymptotically unconditional, that is for any sequence of normalised vectors $N<x_1<\ldots<x_N$, any sequence of scalars $a_1,\ldots,a_N$ and any sequence of signs $\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_N$, $${\lVert\sum_{n=1}^N \epsilon_n a_n x_n\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2{\lVert\sum_{n=1}^N a_n x_n\rVert}.$$ The basis is bimonotone and, although this is not stated in [@g:asymptotic], it may be proved as for $GM$ that $G$ is reflexive. It follows that the dual basis of $(e_n)$ is also $2$-asymptotically unconditional. For the definition, the norm on $G$ is given by the implicit equation, for all $x \in c_{00}$:
$${\lVertx\rVert}={\lVertx\rVert}_{c_0}\vee\ \sup\Bigl\{f(n)^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n{\lVertE_i x\rVert}{ \; \Big| \;}2 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n, E_1<\ldots<E_n\Bigr\}$$ $$\vee\ \sup\Bigl\{|x^*(Ex)|{ \; \Big| \;}k \in K, x^* \hbox{ special of length } k, E \subseteq {\mathbb N}\Bigr\}$$ $$\vee\ \sup\Bigl\{{\lVertSx\rVert}{ \; \Big| \;}S \hbox{ is an admissible operator}\Bigr\},$$
where $E$, $E_1,\ldots,E_n$ are intervals of integers, and $S$ is an [*admissible operator*]{} if $Sx=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^N \epsilon_n E_n x$ for some sequence of signs $\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_N$ and some sequence $E_1,\ldots,E_N$ of intervals which is [*admissible*]{}, i.e. $N<E_1$ and $1+\max E_i=\min E_{i+1}$ for every $i<N$.
and [*special pairs*]{} are considered in [@g:asymptotic]; first we shall need a more general definition of these. Let $x_1,\ldots,x_m$ be a R.I.S. with constant $C$, $m \in [\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, and let $x_1^*,\ldots, x_m^*$ be successive normalised functionals. Then we call [*generalised R.I.S. pair with constant $C$*]{} the pair $(x,x^*)$ defined by $x={\lVert\sum_{i=1}^m x_i\rVert}^{-1}(\sum_{i=1}^m x_i)$ and $x^*=f(m)^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^m x_i^*$.
Let $z_1,\ldots,z_k$ be a sequence of successive normalised R.I.S. vectors with constant $C$, and let $z_1^*,\ldots, z_k^*$ be a special sequence such that $(z_i,z_i^*)$ is an R.I.S. pair for each $i$. Then we shall call [*generalised special pair with constant $C$*]{} the pair $(z,z^*)$ defined by $z=\sum_{i=1}^k z_i$ and $z^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(\sum_{i=1}^k z_i^*)$. The pair $({\lVertz\rVert}^{-1}z,z^*)$ will be called [*normalised generalised special pair*]{}.
\[critical\] Let $(z,z^*)$ be a generalised special pair of length $k \in K$ with constant $2$ in $G$ such that ${\rm supp}\ z^* \cap {\rm supp}\ z = \emptyset$. Then $${\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{5k}{f(k)}.$$
The proof follows classically the methods of [@GM] or [@g:hyperplanes]. Let $K_0=K \setminus \{k\}$ and let $g$ be the corresponding function given by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 5. To prove that ${\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}5kf(k)^{-1}$ it is enough by Lemma \[fundamental\] to prove that for any interval $E$ such that ${\lVertEz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/3$, $Ez$ is normed by some $(M,g)$-form with $M {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2$.
By the discussion in [@g:asymptotic] after the definition of the norm, the only possible norming functionals apart from $(M,g)$-forms are of the form $Sw^*$ where $w^*$ is a special functional of length $k$ and $S$ is an “acceptable” operator. We shall not state the definition of an acceptable operator $S$, we shall just need to know that since such an operator is diagonal of norm at most $1$, it preserves support and $(M,g)$-forms, [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 6. So let $w^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(w_1^*+\cdots+w_k^*)$ be a special functional of length $k$, $S$ be an acceptable operator, and $E$ be an interval such that ${\lVertEz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/3$. We need to show that $Sw^*$ does not norm $Ez$.
Let $t$ be minimal such that $w_t^* \neq z_t^*$. If $i \neq j$ or $i=j>t$ then by definition of special sequences there exist $M \neq N \in L$, $\min(M,N) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}j_{2k}$, such that $w_i^*$ and therefore $Sw_i^*$ is an $(M,f)$-form and $z_j$ is an R.I.S. vector of size $N$ and constant $2$. By [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 8, $z_j$ is an $\ell_{1+}^{N^{1/10}}$-average with constant $4$. If $M<N$ then $2M<\log \log \log N$ so, by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 2, $|Sw_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}12f(M)^{-1}$. If $M>N$ then $\log \log \log M>2N$ so, by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 3, $|Sw_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}3f(N)/N$. In both cases it follows that $|Sw_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k^{-2}$.
If $i=j=t$ we simply have $|Sw_i^*(Ez_j)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}1$. Finally if $i=j<t$ then $w_i^*=z_i^*$. and since ${\rm supp}\ Sz^*_i \subseteq {\rm supp}\ z_i^*$ and ${\rm supp}\ Ez_i \subseteq {\rm supp}\ z_i,$ it follows that $Sw_i^*(Ez_j)=0$ in that case.
Summing up we have obtained that $$|Sw^*(Ez)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}f(k)^{-1/2}(k^2. k^{-2}+1)=2f(k)^{-1/2} < 1/3 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVertEz\rVert}.$$ Therefore $Sw^*$ does not norm $Ez$ and this finishes the proof.
The next lemma is expressed in a version which may seem technical but this will make the proof that $G$ is of type (1) more pleasant to read. At a first reading, the reader may simply assume that $T=Id$ in its hypothesis.
\[average\] Let $(x_i)$ be a normalised block basis in $G$ and $T:[x_i] \rightarrow G$ be an isomorphism such that $(Tx_i)$ is also a normalised block basis. Then for any $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\epsilon>0$, there exist a finite interval $F$ and a multiple $x$ of $\sum_{i \in F}x_i$ such that $Tx$ is an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$, and a normalised functional $x^*$ such that $x^*(x) >1/2$ and ${\rm supp}\ x^* \subseteq \bigcup_{i \in F}{\rm range}\ x_i$.
The proof from [@g:asymptotic] that the block basis $(Tx_i)$ contains an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$ is the same as for $GM$, and gives that such a vector exists of the form $Tx=\lambda \sum_{i \in F}Tx_i$ with $|F| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n^k$, where $k=\min\{i { \; \big| \;}f(n^i) < (1+\epsilon)^i\}$. We may therefore assume that $2|F|-1<{\rm supp}\ x$. Let $y^*$ be a unit functional which norms $x$ and such that ${\rm range}\; y^* \subseteq {\rm range}\; x$. Let $x^*=Ey^* $ where $E$ is the union of the $|F|$ intervals ${\rm range}\; x_i, i \in F$. Then $x^*(x)=y^*(x)=1$ and by unconditional asymptoticity of $G^*$, ${\lVertx^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{3}{2}{\lVerty^*\rVert}<2$.
The proof that $G$ is HI requires defining “extra-special sequences” after having defined special sequences in the usual $GM$ way. However, to prove that $G$ is tight by range, we shall not need to enter that level of complexity and shall just use special sequences.
\[type1\] The space $G$ is of type (1).
Assume some normalised block-sequence $(x_n)$ is such that $[x_n]$ embeds into $Y=[e_i, i \notin \bigcup_n {\rm range}\ x_n]$ and look for a contradiction. Passing to a subsequence and by reflexivity we may assume that there is some isomorphism $T:[x_n] \rightarrow Y$ satisfying the hypothesis of Lemma \[average\], that is, $(Tx_n)$ is a normalised block basis in $Y$. Fixing $\epsilon=1/10$ we may construct by Lemma \[average\] some block-sequence of vectors in $[x_n]$ which are $1/2$-normed by functionals in ${\bf Q}$ of support included in $\bigcup_n {\rm range}\; x_n$, and whose images by $T$ form a sequence of increasing length ${\ell}_{1+}^n$-averages with constant $1+\epsilon$. If $Tz_1,\ldots,Tz_m$ is a R.I.S. of these ${\ell}_{1+}^n$-averages with constant $1+\epsilon$, with $m \in [\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, and $z_1^*,\ldots,z_m^*$ are the functionals associated to $z_1,\ldots,z_m$, then by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 7, the $(m,f)$-form $z^*=f(m)^{-1}(z_1^*+\ldots+z_m^*)$ satisfies $$z^*(z_1+\ldots+z_m) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{m}{2f(m)} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{4}{\lVertTz_1+\ldots+Tz_m\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert})^{-1}{\lVertz_1+\dots+z_m\rVert}.$$ Therefore we may build R.I.S. vectors $Tz$ with constant $1+\epsilon$ of arbitrary length $m$ in $[\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, so that $z$ is $(4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert})^{-1}$-normed by an $(m,f)$-form $z^*$ of support included in $\bigcup_n {\rm range}\;x_n$. Therefore $(Tz,z^*)$ is a generalised R.I.S. pair. We then consider a sequence $Tz_1,\ldots,Tz_k$ of length $k \in K$ of such R.I.S. vectors, some special sequence of corresponding functionals $z_1^*,\ldots,z_k^*$, and finally the pair $(z,z^*)$ where $z=z_1+\cdots+z_k$ and $z^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(z_1^*+\ldots+z_k^*)$: observe that the support of $z^*$ is still included in $\bigcup_n {\rm range}\;x_n$. Since $(Tz,z^*)$ is a generalised special pair, it follows from Lemma \[critical\] that $${\lVertTz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}5kf(k)^{-1}.$$ On the other hand, $${\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}z^*(z) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert})^{-1}k f(k)^{-1/2}.$$ Since $k$ was arbitrary in $K$ this implies that $T^{-1}$ is unbounded and provides the desired contradiction.
As we shall now prove, the dual $G^*$ of $G$ is of type (1) as well, but also locally minimal.
\[linftynbis\] Let $(x_i^*)$ be a normalised block basis in $G^*$. Then for any $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\epsilon>0$, there exists $N(n,\epsilon)$, a finite interval $F
\subseteq [1,N(n,\epsilon)]$ and a multiple $x^*$ of $\sum_{i \in F}x_i^*$ which is an $\ell_{\infty +}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$ and an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average $x$ with constant $2$ such that $x^*(x) >1/2$ and ${\rm supp}\ x \subseteq \bigcup_{i \in F}{\rm range}\ x_i^*$.
We may assume that $\epsilon<1/6$. By Lemma \[linftyn\] we may find for each $i
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n$ an interval $F_i$, with $|F_i| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2\min F_i$, and a vector $y_i^*$ of the form $\lambda \sum_{k \in F_i} x_k^*$, such that $y^*=\sum_{i=1}^n y_i^*$ is an $\ell_{\infty +}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$. Let, for each $i$, $x_i$ be normalised such that $y_i^*(x_i)={\lVerty_i^*\rVert}$ and ${\rm range}\ x_i \subseteq {\rm range}\ y_i^*$. Let $y_i=E_i x_i$, where $E_i$ denotes the canonical projection on $[e_n, n \in \bigcup_{k \in F_i}{\rm range}\ x_k^*]$. By the asymptotic unconditionality of $(e_n)$, we have that ${\lVerty_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}3/2$. Let $y_i^{\prime}={\lVerty_i\rVert}^{-1}y_i$, then $$y_i^*(y_i^{\prime})={\lVerty_i\rVert}^{-1}y_i^*(y_i)={\lVerty_i\rVert}^{-1}y_i^*(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{2}{3}{\lVerty_i^*\rVert}.$$ By Lemma \[linftyn\], the vector $x=\sum_i y_i^{\prime}$ is an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average with constant less than $2$, such that $x^*(x)
>{\lVertx\rVert}/2$, and clearly ${\rm supp}\ x \subseteq \bigcup_{i \in F}{\rm range}\ x_i^*$.
The space $G^*$ is locally minimal and tight by range.
By Lemma \[linftynbis\] we may find in any finite block subspace of length $N(n,\epsilon)$ and supported after $N(n,\epsilon)$ an $\ell_{\infty+}^n$-average with constant $1+\epsilon$. By asymptotic unconditionality we deduce that uniformly, any block-subspace of $G^*$ contains $\ell_{\infty}^n$’s, and therefore $G^*$ is locally minimal.
We prove that $G^*$ is tight by range. Assume towards a contradiction that some normalised block-sequence $(x_n^*)$ is such that $[x_n^*]$ embeds into $Y=[e_i^*, i \notin \bigcup_n {\rm range}\ x_n^*]$ and look for a contradiction. If $T$ is the associated isomorphism, we may by passing to a subsequence and perturbating $T$ assume that $Tx_n^*$ is successive.
Let $\epsilon=1/10$. By Lemma \[linftynbis\], we find in $[x_k^*]$ and for each $n$, an $\ell_{\infty+}^n$-average $y_n^*$ with constant $1+\epsilon$ and an $\ell_{1+}^n$-average $y_n$ with constant $2$, such that $y_n^*(y_n) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/2$ and ${\rm supp}\ y_n \subseteq \bigcup_k {\rm range}\ x_k^*$. By construction, for each $n$, $Ty_n^*$ is disjointly supported from $[x_k^*]$, and up to modifying $T$, we may assume that $Ty_n^*$ is in ${\bf Q}$ and of norm at most $1$ for each $n$.
If $z_1,\ldots,z_m$ is a R.I.S. of these ${\ell}_{1+}^n$-averages $y_n$ with constant $2$, with $m \in [\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, and $z_1^*,\ldots,z_m^*$ are the ${\ell}_{\infty+}^n$-averages associated to $z_1,\ldots,z_m$, then by [@g:hyperplanes] Lemma 7, the $(m,f)$-form $z^*=f(m)^{-1}(z_1^*+\ldots+z_m^*)$ satisfies $$z^*(z_1+\ldots+z_m) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{m}{2f(m)} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{6}{\lVertz_1+\ldots+z_m\rVert},$$ and furthermore $Tz^*$ is also an $(m,f)$-form. Therefore we may build R.I.S. vectors $z$ with constant $2$ of arbitrary length $m$ in $[\log N, \exp N]$, $N \in L$, so that $z$ is $6^{-1}$-normed by an $(m,f)$-form $z^*$ such that $Tz^*$ is also an $(m,f)$-form. We may then consider a sequence $z_1,\ldots,z_k$ of length $k \in K$ of such R.I.S. vectors of length $m_i$, and some corresponding functionals $z_1^*,\ldots,z_k^*$ (i.e., $z_i^*$ $6^{-1}$-norms $z_i$ and $Tz_i^*$ is also an $(m_i,f)$-form for all $i$), such that $Tz_1^*,\ldots,Tz_k^*$ is a special sequence. Then we let $z=z_1+\cdots+z_k$ and $z^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(z_1^*+\ldots+z_k^*)$, so that $(z,Tz^*)$ is a generalised special pair. Since $Tz^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(Tz_1^*+\ldots+Tz_k^*)$ is a special function it follows that $${\lVertTz^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}1.$$ But it follows from Lemma \[critical\] that ${\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}5kf(k)^{-1}$. Therefore $${\lVertz^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}z^*(z)/{\lVertz\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(k)^{1/2}/30.$$ Since $k$ was arbitrary in $K$ this implies that $T^{-1}$ is unbounded and provides the desired contradiction.
It remains to check that $G^*$ is HI. The proof is very similar to the one in [@g:asymptotic] that $G$ is HI, and we shall therefore not give all details. There are two main differences between the two proofs. In [@g:asymptotic] some special vectors and functionals are constructed, and the vectors are taken alternatively in arbitrary block subspaces $Y$ and $Z$ of $G$. In our case we need to take the functionals in arbitrary subspaces $Y_*$ and $Z_*$ of $G^*$ instead. This is possible because of Lemma \[linftyn\]. We also need to correct what seems to be a slight imprecision in the proof of [@g:asymptotic] about the value of some normalising factors, and therefore we also get worst constants for our estimates.
Let $\epsilon=1/10$. Following Gowers we define an [*R.I.S. pair*]{} of size $N$ to be a generalised R.I.S. pair $(x,x^*)$ with constant $1+\epsilon$ of the form $({\lVertx_1+\ldots+x_N\rVert}^{-1}(x_1+\ldots,x_N),
f(N)^{-1}(x_1^*+\dots+x_N^*))$, where $x_n^*(x_n){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(1/3)$ and ${\rm range}\ x_n^* \subset{\rm range}\ x_n$ for each $n$. A [*special pair*]{} is a normalised generalised special pair with constant $1+\epsilon$ of the form $(x,x^*)$ where $x={\lVertx_1+\ldots+x_k\rVert}^{-1}(x_1+\ldots+x_k)$ and $x^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(x_1^*+\dots+x_k^*)$ with ${\rm range}\ x_n^* \subseteq {\rm range}\ x_n$ and for each $n$, $x_n^*\in\bf
Q$, $|x_n^*(x_n)-(1/2)|<10^{-\min{\rm supp}\ x_n}$. By [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 8, $z$ is a R.I.S. vector with constant $2$ whenever $(z,z^*)$ is a special pair. We shall also require that $k {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\min{\rm supp}\ x_1$, which will imply by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 9 that for $m<k^{1/10}$, $z$ is a $\ell_{1+}^m$-average with constant 8 (see the beginning of the proof of Proposition \[GstarHI\]).
Going up a level of “specialness”, a [*special R.I.S.-pair*]{} is a generalised R.I.S.-pair with constant 8 of the form $({\lVertx_1+\ldots+x_N\rVert}^{-1}(x_1+\ldots,x_N),
f(N)^{-1}(x_1^*+\dots+x_N^*))$, where ${\rm range}\ x_n^* \subset{\rm range}\ x_n$ for each $n$, and with the additional condition that $(x_n,x_n^*)$ is a special pair of length at least $\min {\rm supp}\ x_n$. Finally, an [*extra-special pair*]{} of size $k$ is a normalised generalised special pair $(x,x^*)$ with constant 8 of the form $x={\lVertx_1+\ldots+x_k\rVert}^{-1}(x_1+\ldots+x_k)$ and $x^*=f(k)^{-1/2}(x_1^*+\dots+x_k^*)$ with ${\rm range}\ x_n^* \subseteq {\rm
range}\ x_n$, such that, for each $n$, $(x_n,x_n^*)$ is a special R.I.S.-pair of length $\sigma(x_1^*,\dots,x_{n-1}^*)$.
Given $Y_*,Z_*$ block subspaces of $G^*$ we shall show how to find an extra-special pair $(x,x^*)$ of size $k$, with $x^*$ built out of vectors in $Y_*$ or $Z_*$, such that the signs of these constituent parts of $x^*$ can be changed according to belonging to $Y_*$ or $Z_*$ to produce a vector $x^{\prime*}$ with ${\lVertx^{\prime*}\rVert}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}12f(k)^{-1/2}{\lVertx^*\rVert}$. This will then prove the result.
Consider then an extra-special pair $(x,x^*)$. Then $x$ splits up as $$\nu^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^k\nu_i^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\nu_{ij}^{-1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}x_{ijr}$$ and $x^*$ as $$f(k)^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^k f(N_i)^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}f(k_{ij})^{-1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}x^*_{ijr}\,$$ where the numbers $\nu$, $\nu_i$ and $\nu_{ij}$ are the norms of what appears to the right. These special sequences are chosen far enough “to the right” so that $k_{ij}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\min{\rm supp}\ x_{ij1}$, and also so that $(\max{\rm supp}\ x_{i\,j-1})^2k_{ij}^{-1}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}4^{-(i+j)}$. We shall also write $x_i$ for $\nu_i^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\nu_{ij}^{-1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}x_{ijr}$ and $x_{ij}$ for $\nu_{ij}^{-1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}x_{ijr}$.
We define a vector $x'$ by $$\sum_{i=1}^k\nu_i^{\prime -1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\nu_{ij}^{\prime -1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}(-1)^rx_{ijr},$$ where the numbers $\nu_i^{\prime}$ and $\nu_{ij}^{\prime}$ are the norms of what appears to the right. We shall write $x'_i$ for $\nu_i^{\prime -1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}\nu_{ij}^{\prime -1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}(-1)^rx_{ijr}$ and $x'_{ij}$ for $\nu_{ij}^{\prime -1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}(-1)^rx_{ijr}$.
Finally we define a functional $x^{\prime *}$ as $$f(k)^{-1/2}\sum_{i=1}^k f(N_i)^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}f(k_{ij})^{-1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}(-1)^k x^*_{ijr}.$$
\[GstarHI\] The space $G^*$ is HI.
Fix $Y_*$ and $Z_*$ block subspaces of $G^*$. By Lemma \[linftynbis\] we may construct an extra-special pair $(x,x^*)$ so that $x^*_{ijr}$ belongs to $Y_*$ when $r$ is odd and to $Z_*$ when $r$ is even.
We first discuss the normalisation of the vectors involved in the definition of $x'$. By the increasing condition on $k_{ij}$ and $x_{ijr}$ and by asymptotic unconditionality, we have that $${\lVert\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}} (-1)^r x_{ijr}\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2
{\lVert\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}} x_{ijr}\rVert},$$ which means that $\nu^{\prime}_{ij} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2 \nu_{ij}$. Furthermore it also follows that the functional $(1/2)f(k_{ij})^{-1/2}\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}(-1)^rx^*_{ijr}$ is of norm at most $1$, and therefore we have that ${\lVert\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}(-1)^rx_{ijr}\rVert}{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(1/2)k_{ij}f(k_{ij})^{-1/2}$. Lemma 9 from [@g:asymptotic] therefore tells us that, for every $i,j$, $x'_{ij}$ is an $\ell_{1+}^{m_{ij}}$-average with constant 8, if $m_{ij}<k_{ij}^{1/10}$. But the $k_{ij}$ increase so fast that, for any $i$, this implies that the sequence $x'_{i1},\dots,x'_{i\,N_i}$ is a rapidly increasing sequence with constant 8. By [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 7, it follows that $${\lVert\sum_{j=1}^{N_i} x_{ij}^{\prime}\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}9 N_i/f(N_i).$$ Therefore by the $f$-lower estimate in $G$ we have that $\nu^{\prime}_i {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}9\nu_i$.
We shall now prove that ${\lVertx'\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}12kf(k)^{-1}$. This will imply that $${\lVertx_*^{\prime}\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{x_*^{\prime}(x')}{{\lVertx'\rVert}}
{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{f(k)}{12k}[f(k)^{-1/2}
\sum_{i=1}^k f(N_i)^{-1}\nu_i^{\prime -1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}f(k_{ij})^{-1}\nu_{ij}^{\prime -1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}x_{ijr}^*(x_{ijr})]$$ $${\ensuremath{\geqslant}}f(k)^{1/2}(12k)^{-1}.18^{-1}
[\sum_{i=1}^k f(N_i)^{-1}\nu_i^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{N_i}f(k_{ij})^{-1}\nu_{ij}^{-1}
\sum_{r=1}^{k_{ij}}x_{ijr}^*(x_{ijr})]$$ $$= f(k)^{1/2} (216k)^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^k x_i^*(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}648^{-1}
f(k)^{1/2}.$$ By construction of $x^*$ and $x^{\prime *}$ this will imply that $${\lVerty^*-z^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}648^{-1}f(k)^{1/2}{\lVerty^*+z^*\rVert}$$ for some non zero $y^* \in Y_*$ and $z^* \in Z_*$, and since $k \in K$ was arbitrary, as well as $Y_*$ and $Z_*$, this will prove that $G^*$ is HI.
The proof that ${\lVertx'\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}12kf(k)^{-1}$ is given in three steps:
#### Step 1
[*The vector $x'$ is a R.I.S. vector with constant 11.*]{}
We already know the sequence $x'_{i1},\dots,x'_{i\,N_i}$ is a rapidly increasing sequence with constant 8. Then by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 8 we get that $x'_i$ is also an $\ell_{1+}^{M_i}$-average with constant 11, if $M_i<N_i^{1/10}$. Finally, this implies that $x'$ is an R.I.S.-vector with constant 11, as claimed.
#### Step 2
[*Let $K_0=K\setminus\{k\}$, let $g\in\mathcal F$ be the corresponding function given by [@g:asymptotic] Lemma 5. For every interval $E$ such that ${\lVertEx'\rVert}{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/3$, $Ex'$ is normed by an $(M,g)$-form.*]{}
The proof is exactly the same as the one of Step 2 in the proof of Gowers concerning $G$, apart from some constants which are modified due to the change of constant in Step 1 and to the normalising constants relating $\nu_i$ and $\nu_{ij}$ respectively to $\nu_i^{\prime}$ and $\nu_{ij}^{\prime}$. The reader is therefore referred to [@g:asymptotic].
#### Step 3
[*The norm of $x'$ is at most $12kg(k)^{-1}=12kf(k)^{-1}$*]{}
This is an immediate consequence of Step 1, Step 2 and of Lemma \[fundamental\].
We conclude that the space $G^*$ is HI, and thus locally minimal of type (1).
Let us observe that the examples of locally minimal, non-minimal, spaces we have produced so far could be said to be so for trivial reasons: since they hereditarily contain $\ell_{\infty}^n$’s uniformly, any Banach space is crudely finitely representable in any of their subspaces. It remains open whether there exists a tight and locally minimal Banach space which does not contain $\ell_{\infty}^n$’s uniformly, i.e., which has finite cotype.
Tight spaces of the type of Argyros and Deliyanni {#argyros}
=================================================
By Proposition \[spaceswithtcaciuc\], spaces built on the model of Gowers-Maurey’s spaces are uniformly inhomogeneous. We shall now consider a space of Argyros-Deliyanni type, more specifically of the type of a space constructed by Argyros, Deliyanni, Kutzarova and Manoussakis [@ADKM], with the opposite property, i.e., with a basis which is strongly asymptotically $\ell_1$. This space will also be tight by support. By Proposition \[dfko\] this basis will therefore be tight with constants as well, making this example the “worst” known so far in terms of minimality.
A strongly asymptotically $\ell_1$ space tight by support
---------------------------------------------------------
In [@ADKM] an example of HI space $X_{hi}$ is constructed, based on a “boundedly modified” mixed Tsirelson space $X_{M(1),u}$. We shall construct an unconditional version $X_u$ of $X_{hi}$ in a similar way as $G_u$ is an unconditional version of $GM$. The proof that $X_u$ is of type (3) will be based on the proof that $X_{hi}$ is HI, conditional estimates in the proof of [@ADKM] becoming essentially trivial in our case due to disjointness of supports.
Fix a basis $(e_n)$ and ${\mathcal M}$ a family of finite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$. Recall that a family $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ is [*${\mathcal
M}$-admissible*]{} if $x_1<\cdots<x_n$ and $\{\min {\rm supp}\
x_1,\ldots,\min {\rm supp}\ x_n\} \in {\mathcal M}$, and [*${\mathcal M}$-allowable*]{} if $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are vectors with disjoint supports such that $\{\min {\rm supp}\ x_1,\ldots,\min {\rm
supp}\ x_n\} \in {\mathcal M}$. Let ${\mathcal S}$ denote the family of Schreier sets, i.e., of sets $F$ such that $|F| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\min F$, ${\mathcal M}_j$ be the subsequence of the sequence $({\mathcal
F}_k)$ of Schreier families associated to sequences of integers $t_j$ and $k_j$ defined in [@ADKM] p 70.
We need to define a new notion. For $W$ a set of functionals which is stable under projections onto subsets of ${\mathbb N}$, we let ${\rm
conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}W$ denote the set of rational convex combinations of elements of $W$. By the stability property of $W$ we may write any $c^* \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}W$ as a rational convex combination of the form $\sum_i \lambda_i x_i^*$ where $x_i^* \in W$ and ${\rm supp}\
x_i^* \subseteq {\rm supp}\ c^*$ for each $i$. In this case the set $\{x_i^* \}_i$ will be called a $W$-compatible decomposition of $c^*$, and we let $W(c^*) \subseteq W$ be the union of all $W$-compatible decompositions of $c^*$. Note that if ${\mathcal M}$ is a family of finite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$, $(c_1^*,\ldots,c_d^*)$ is ${\mathcal M}$-admissible, and $x_i^* \in W_i(c_i^*)$ for all $i$, then $(x_1^*,\ldots,x_d^*)$ is also ${\mathcal M}$-admissible.
Let ${\mathcal B}=\{\sum_{n}\lambda_n e_n: (\lambda_n)_n \in c_{00},
\lambda_n \in {\mathbb Q}\cap [-1,1]\}$ and let $\Phi$ be a 1-1 function from ${\mathcal B}^{<{\mathbb N}}$ into $2{\mathbb N}$ such that if $(c_1^*,\ldots,c_k^*) \in {\mathcal B}^{<{\mathbb N}}$, $j_1$ is minimal such that $c_1^* \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}{\mathcal A}_{j_1}$, and $j_l=\Phi(c_1^*,\ldots,c_{l-1}^*)$ for each $l=2,3,\ldots$, then $\Phi(c_1^*,\ldots,c_k^*)>\max\{j_1,\ldots,j_k\}$ (the set ${\mathcal A}_j$ is defined in [@ADKM] p 71 by ${\mathcal
A}_j=\cup_n(K_j^n \setminus K^0)$ where the $K_j^n$’s are the sets corresponding to the inductive definition of $X_{M(1),u}$).
For $j=1,2,\ldots $, we set $L_j^0=\{ \pm e_n:n\in {\mathbb N}\}$. Suppose that $\{ L_j^n\}_{j=1}^{\infty }$ have been defined. We set $L^n=\cup_{j=1}^{\infty}L^n_j$ and $$L_1^{n+1}=\pm L_1^n\cup\{\frac{1}{2}(x_1^{*}+\ldots +x_d^{*}):d\in {\mathbb N},x_i^{*}\in L^n,$$
$$(x_1^{*},\ldots,x_d^{*})\;{\rm is}\; \ {\mathcal S}-{\rm allowable}\},$$ and for $j{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1$, $$L_{2j}^{n+1}=\pm L_{2j}^n\cup\{\frac{1}{m_{2j}}(x_1^{\ast }+\ldots
+x_d^{*}):d\in {{\mathbb N}},x_i^{*}\in L^n,$$ $$(x_1^{*},\ldots ,x_d^{*})\;{\rm is}\;
{\mathcal M}_{2j}-{\rm admissible }\},$$
$$L_{2j+1}^{\prime\;n+1}=\pm L_{2j+1}^n\cup \{\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(x_1^{\ast
}+\ldots +x_d^{\ast }):d\in {{\mathbb N}} {\rm\ such\ that}$$ $$\exists (c_1^,\ldots,c_d^*)\;{\mathcal M}_{2j+1}-{\rm admissible\ and\ }
k>2j+1 {\rm\ with\ }c_1^* \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L_{2k}^n, x_1^*\in
L_{2k}^n(c_1^*),$$
$$c_i^* \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L_{\Phi (c_1^{\ast },\ldots ,c_{i-1}^{\ast })}^n,
x_i^{\ast }\in L_{\Phi (c_1^{\ast },\ldots ,c_{i-1}^{\ast
})}^n(c_i^*) \;{\rm for}\;1<i{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}d\},$$
$$L_{2j+1}^{n+1}=\{ Ex^{\ast }:x^{\ast }\in L_{2j+1}^{\prime\;n+1},
s\in {{\mathbb N}}, E {\rm\ subset\ of\ } {\mathbb N}\}.$$
We set ${\mathcal B}_j=\cup_{n=1}^{\infty }(L_j^n\setminus L^0)$ and we consider the norm on $c_{00}$ defined by the set $L=L^0\cup (\cup_{j=1}^{\infty }{\mathcal B}_j)$. The space $X_u$ is the completion of $c_{00}$ under this norm.
In [@ADKM] the space $X_{hi}$ is defined in the same way except that $E$ is an [**interval**]{} of integers in the definition of $L_{2j+1}^{n+1}$, and the definition of $L_{2j+1}^{\prime\;n+1}$ is simpler, i.e., the coding $\Phi$ is defined directly on ${\mathcal
M}_{2j+1}$-admissible families $x_1^*,\ldots,x_d^*$ in $L^{<{\mathbb N}}$ and in the definition each $x_i^*$ belongs to $L_{\Phi
(x_1^{\ast},\ldots ,x_{i-1}^{\ast})}^n$. To prove the desired properties for $X_u$ one could use the simpler definition of $L_{2j+1}^{\prime\;n+1}$; however this definition doesn’t seem to provide enough special functionals to obtain interesting properties for the dual as well.
The ground space for $X_{hi}$ and for $X_u$ is the space $X_{M(1),u}$ associated to a norming set $K$ defined by the same procedure as $L$, except that $K_{2j+1}^n$ is defined in the same way as $K_{2j}^n$, i.e. $$K_{2j}^{n+1}=\pm K_{2j}^n\cup\{\frac{1}{m_{2j}}(x_1^{\ast }+\ldots
+x_d^{*}):d\in {{\mathbb N}},x_i^{*}\in K^n,$$ $$(x_1^{*},\ldots ,x_d^{*})\;{\rm is}\;
{\mathcal M}_{2j+1}-{\rm admissible }\}.$$
For $n=0,1,2,\ldots ,$ we see that $L_j^n$ is a subset of $K_j^n$, and therefore $L \subseteq K$. The norming set $L$ is closed under projections onto [**subsets**]{} of ${\mathbb N}$, from which it follows that its canonical basis is unconditional, and has the property that for every $j$ and every ${\mathcal M}_{2j}$–admissible family $f_1,
f_2, \ldots f_d$ contained in $L$, $f=\frac{1}{m_{2j}}(f_1+\cdots
+f_d)$ belongs to $L$. The [*weight*]{} of such an $f$ is defined by $w(f)=1/m_{2j}$. It follows that for every $j=1,2,\ldots$ and every ${\mathcal M}_{2j}$–admissible family $x_1<x_2<\ldots<x_n$ in $X_u$, $$\|\sum_{k=1}^nx_k\|{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{k=1}^n\| x_k\|.$$ Likewise, for ${\mathcal S}$–allowable families $f_1,\ldots,f_n$ in $L$, we have $f=\frac{1}{2}(f_1+\cdots+f_d) \in L$, and we define $w(f)=1/2$. The weight is defined similarly in the case $2j+1$.
The canonical basis of $X_u$ is strongly asymptotically $\ell_1$.
Fix $n{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}x_1,\ldots,x_n$ where $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are normalised and disjointly supported. Fix $\epsilon>0$ and let for each $i$, $f_i \in L$ be such that $f_i(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(1+\epsilon)^{-1}$ and ${\rm supp}\ f_i \subseteq
{\rm supp}\ x_i$. The condition on the supports may be imposed because $L$ is stable under projections onto subsets of ${\mathbb N}$. Then $\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n \pm f_i \in L$ and therefore $${\lVert\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda_i x_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n |\lambda_i|
f_i(x_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{2(1+\epsilon)}\sum_{i=1}^n |\lambda_i|,$$ for any $\lambda_i$’s. Therefore $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ is $2$-equivalent to the canonical basis of $\ell_1^n$.
It remains to prove that $X_u$ has type (3). Recall that an analysis $(K^s(f))_s$ of $f \in K$ is a decomposition of $f$ corresponding to the inductive definition of $K$, see the precise definition in Definition 2.3 [@ADKM] . We shall combine three types of arguments. First $L$ was constructed so that $L \prec K$, which means essentially that each $f \in L$ has an analysis $(K^s(f))_s$ whose elements actually belong to $L$ (see the definition on page 74 of [@ADKM]); so all the results obtained in Section 2 of [@ADKM] for arbitrary $\tilde{K} \prec K$ (and in particular the crucial Proposition 2.9) are valid in our case. Then we shall produce estimates similar to those valid for $X_{hi}$ and which are of two forms: unconditional estimates, in which case the proofs from [@ADKM] may be applied directly up to minor changes of notation, and thus we shall refer to [@ADKM] for details of the proofs; and conditional estimates, which are different from those of $X_{hi}$, but easier due to hypotheses of disjointness of supports.
Recall that if ${\mathcal F}$ is a family of finite subsets of ${\mathbb N}$, then $${\mathcal F}^{\prime}=\{A \cup B: A, B \in {\mathcal F}, A \cap
B=\emptyset\}.$$ Given $\varepsilon >0$ and $j=2,3,\ldots $, an $(\varepsilon ,j)$-[*basic special convex combination ($(\varepsilon ,j)$- basic s.c.c.) (relative to $X_{M(1),u})$*]{} is a vector of the form $\sum_{k\in F}a_ke_k$ such that: $F\in {\mathcal
M}_j,a_k{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}0, \sum_{k\in F}a_k=1$, $\{a_k\}_{k\in F}$ is decreasing, and, for every $G\in {\mathcal F}^{\prime
}_{t_j(k_{j-1}+1)}$, $\sum_{k\in G}a_k< \varepsilon $.
Given a block sequence $(x_k)_{k\in {\bf N}}$ in $X_{u}$ and $j{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2$, a convex combination $\sum_{i=1}^na_ix_{k_i}$ is said to be an $(\varepsilon ,j)$-[*special convex combination*]{} of $(x_k)_{k\in {\bf N}}$ ($(\varepsilon
,j)$-s.c.c), if there exist $l_1<l_2<\ldots <l_n$ such that $2<{\rm
supp}\ x_{k_1}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}l_1<{\rm supp}\ x_{k_2}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}l_2< \ldots <{\rm
supp}\ x_{k_n}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}l_n$, and $\sum_{i=1}^na_ie_{l_i}$ is an $(\varepsilon , j)$-basic s.c.c. An $(\varepsilon ,j)$-s.c.c. $\sum_{i=1}^n a_ix_{k_i}$ is called [*seminormalised*]{} if $\| x_{k_i}\|=1,\; i=1,\ldots ,n$ and $$\|\sum_{i=1}^na_ix_{k_i}\|{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{2}.$$
Rapidly increasing sequences and $(\varepsilon , j)$–R.I. special convex combinations in $X_u$ are defined by [@ADKM] Definitions 2.8 and 2.16 respectively, with $\tilde{K}=L.$
Using the lower estimate for ${\mathcal M}_{2j}$-admissible families in $X_u$ we get as in [@ADKM] Lemma 3.1.
\[scc\] For $\epsilon>0$, $j=1,2,\ldots$ and every normalised block sequence $\{ x_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty }$ in $X_u$, there exists a finite normalised block sequence $(y_s)_{s=1}^n$ of $(x_k)$ and coefficients $(a_s)_{s=1}^ n$ such that $\sum_{s=1}^na_sy_s$ is a seminormalised $(\epsilon,2j)$–s.c.c..
The following definition is inspired from some of the hypotheses of [@ADKM] Proposition 3.3.
Let $j>100$. Suppose that $\{ j_k\}_{k=1}^n$, $\{ y_k\}_{k=1}^n$, $\{ c_k^{\ast }\}_{k=1}^n$ and $\{b_k\}_{k=1}^n$ are such that
[(i)]{} There exists a rapidly increasing sequence $$\{ x_{(k,i)}:\; k=1,\ldots ,n,\; i=1,\ldots ,n_k\}$$ with $x_{(k,i)}<x_{(k,i+1)}<x_{(k+1,l)}$ for all $k<n$, $i<n_k$, $l{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n_{k+1},$ such that:
[(a)]{} Each $x_{(k,i)}$ is a seminormalised $(\frac{1}{m^4_{j_{(k,i)}}}, j_{(k,i)})$–s.c.c. where, for each $k$, $2j_k+2<j_{(k,i)},\; i=1,\ldots n_k.$
[(b)]{} Each $y_k$ is a $(\frac{1}{m^4_{2j_k}},2j_k)$– R.I.s.c.c. of $\{ x_{(k,i)}\}_{i=1}^{n_k}$ of the form $y_k=\sum _{i=1}^{n_k}b_{(k,i)}x_{(k,i)}.$
[(c)]{} The sequence $\{ b_k\}_{k=1}^n$ is decreasing and $\sum _{k=1}^nb_ky_k$ is a $(\frac{1} {m^4_{2j+1}},
2j+1)$–s.c.c.
[(ii)]{} $c_k^{\ast }\in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L_{2j_k}$, and $\max({\rm
supp}\ c_{k-1}^{\ast } \cup {\rm supp}\ y_{k-1}) < \min({\rm supp}\
c_k^* \cup {\rm supp}\ y_k)$, $\forall k$.
[(iii)]{} $j_1>2j+1$ and $2j_k=\Phi (c_1^{\ast },\ldots
,c_{k-1}^{\ast })$, $k=2,\ldots ,n$.
Then $(j_k,y_k,c_k^*,b_k)_{k=1}^n$ is said to be a [*$j$-quadruple*]{}.
The following proposition is essential. It is the counterpart of Lemma \[critical\] for the space $G$.
\[criticalbis\] Assume that $(j_k,y_k,c_k^*,b_k)_{k=1}^n$ is a $j$-quadruple in $X_u$ such that ${\rm supp}\ c_k^* \cap {\rm supp}\ y_k=\emptyset$ for all $k=1,\ldots,n$. Then $${\lVert\sum_{k=1}^n b_km_{2j_k}y_k\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{75}{m_{2j+1}^2}.$$
Our aim is to show that for every $\varphi\in\cup_{i=1}^{\infty }{\mathcal B}_i$, $$\varphi (\sum_{k=1}^n b_k m_{2j_k}y_k){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{75}{m_{2j+1}^2}.$$ The proof is given in several steps.
[1st Case]{}: $w(\varphi)=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}$. Then $\varphi$ has the form $\varphi =\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(Ey^*_{1}+\cdots
+Ey^*_{k_2}+Ey^*_{k_2+1}+\cdots Ey^*_d)$ where $E$ is a subset of ${\mathbb N}$ and where $y_k^* \in L_{2j_k}(c_k^*)\ \forall k {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k_2$ and $y_k^* \in L_{2j_k}(d_k^*)\ \forall k {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}k_2+1$, with $d_{k_2+1}^*
\neq c_{k_2+1}^*$ (this is similar to the form of such a functional in $X_{hi}$ but with $k_1=1$).
If $k {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k_2$ then $c_s^*$ and therefore $y_s^*$ is disjointly supported from $y_k$, so $Ey_s^*(y_k)=0$ for all $s$, and therefore $\varphi(y_k)=0$. If $k=k_2+1$ then we simply have $|\varphi(y_k)|
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}{\lVerty_k\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}17m_{2j_k}^{-1}$, [@ADKM] Corollary 2.17. Finally if $k>k_2+1$ then since $\Phi$ is 1-1, we have that $j_{k_2+1} \neq j_k$ and for all $s=k_2+1,\ldots,d$, $d_s^*$ and therefore $y_s^*$ belong to ${\mathcal B}_{2t_s}$ with $t_s \neq
j_k$. It is then easy to check that we may reproduce the proof of [@ADKM] Lemma 3.5, applied to $Ey_1^*,\ldots,Ey_d^*$, to obtain the unconditional estimate $$|\varphi(m_{2j_k}y_k)| {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}^2}.$$ In particular instead of [@ADKM] Proposition 3.2, which is a reformulation of [@ADKM] Corollary 2.17 for $X_{hi}$, we simply use [@ADKM] Corollary 2.17 with $\tilde{K}=L$.
Summing up these estimates we obtain the desired result for the 1st Case.
[2nd Case]{}: $w(\varphi ){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j+2}}.$ Then we get an unconditional estimate for the evaluation of $\varphi (\sum
_{k=1}^{n} b_k m_{2j_k}y_k)$ directly, reproducing the short proof of [@ADKM] Lemma 3.7, using again [@ADKM] Corollary 2.17 instead of [@ADKM] Proposition 3.2. Therefore
$$|\varphi (\sum_{k=1}^nb_km_{2j_k}y_k)|
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{35}{m_{2j+2}} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{35}{m_{2j+1}^2}.$$
[3rd Case]{}: $w(\varphi)>\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}$. We have $y_k=\sum_{i=1}^{n_k}b_{(k,i)}x_{(k,i)}$ and the sequence $\{ x_{(k,i)},k=1,\ldots n,i=1,\ldots n_k\}$ is a R.I.S. w.r.t. $L$. By [@ADKM] Proposition 2.9 there exist a functional $\psi\in K^{\prime }$ (see the definition in [@ADKM] p 71) and blocks of the basis $u_{(k,i)}$, $k=1,\ldots ,n$, $i=1,\ldots ,n_k$ with ${\rm supp}\ u_{(k,i)}\subseteq {\rm supp}\ x_{(k,i)}$, $\| u_k\|_{\ell_1}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}16$ and such that $$|\varphi (\sum_{k=1}^nb_km_{2j_k}
(\sum_{i=1}^{n_k}b_{(k,i)}x_{(k,i)}))|{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m_{2j_1}b_1b_{(1,1)}+\psi
(\sum_{k=1}^nb_k
m_{2j_k}(\sum_{i=1}^{k_n}b_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)}))+\frac{1}{m_{2j+2}^2}$$ $${\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\psi (\sum_{k=1}^nb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_{i=1}^{k_n}
b_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)}))+\frac{1}{m_{2j+2}}.$$ Therefore it suffices to estimate $$\psi(\sum_{k=1}^nb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_{i=1}^{n_k}
b_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)})).$$
In [@ADKM] $\psi$ is decomposed as $\psi_1+\psi_2$ and different estimates are applied to $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$. Our case is simpler as we may simply assume that $\psi_1=0$ and $\psi_2=\psi$. We shall therefore refer to some arguments of [@ADKM] concerning $\psi_2$ keeping in mind that $\psi_2=\psi$.
Let $D_1^k,\ldots,D_4^k$ be defined as in [@ADKM] Lemma 3.11 (a). Then as in [@ADKM], $$\bigcup_{p=1}^4D_p^k=\bigcup _{i=1}^{n_k}
{\rm supp}\ u_{(k,i)}\cap {\rm supp}\ \psi.$$ The proof that $$\psi|_{\bigcup_kD_2^k}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)}))
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j+2}}, \leqno (1)$$ $$\psi|_{\bigcup_kD_3^k}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)}))
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{16}{m_{2j+2}}, \leqno (2)$$ and $$\psi|_{\bigcup_kD_1^k}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}
u_{(k,i)})){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j+2}}. \leqno (3)$$ may be easily reproduced from [@ADKM] Lemma 3.11. The case of $D_4^k$ is slightly different from [@ADKM] and therefore we give more details. We claim
[*Claim:*]{} Let $D=\bigcup_k D_4^k$. Then $$\psi|_{D}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)}))
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{64}{m_{2j+2}}, \leqno (4)$$
Once the claim is proved it follows by adding the estimates that the 3rd Case is proved, and this concludes the proof of the Proposition.
[*Proof of the claim:*]{} Recall that $D_4^k$ is defined by $$D_4^k=\{
m\in\bigcup_{i=1}^{n_k}A_{(k,i)} : {\rm for\ all}\ f\in\bigcup_sK^s(\psi)\
{\rm with}\; m\in {\rm supp}f, w(f) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j_k}}\;{\rm
and}$$ $${\rm there}\;{\rm
exists}\; f\in\bigcup_sK^s(\psi)\;{\rm with}\; m\in {\rm supp}f,
w(f)=\frac{1}{m_{2j_k}}{\rm and}$$ $${\rm for}\;{\rm
every}\;g\in\bigcup_sK^s(\psi)\; {\rm with}\; {\rm supp}\ f \subset
{\rm supp}\ g {\rm \ strictly}, w(g){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\}.$$
For every $k=1,\ldots ,n$, $i=1,\ldots ,n_k$ and every $m\in {\rm supp}\ u_{(k,i)}\cap D_4^k,$ there exists a unique functional $f^{(k,i,m)}\in \bigcup _sK^s(\psi)$ with $m\in {\rm
supp}\ f$, $w(f)=\frac{1}{m_{2j_k}}$ and such that, for all $g\in
\bigcup_sK^s(\psi)$ with ${\rm supp}\ f \subseteq {\rm supp}\ g$ strictly, $w(g){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}.$ By definition, for $k\neq
p$ and $i=1,\ldots ,n_k$, $m\in {\rm supp}\ u_{(k,i)}$, we have ${\rm supp}f^{(k,i,m)}\cap D^p_4=\emptyset.$ Also, if $f^{(k,i,m)}\neq f^{(k,r,n)},$ then ${\rm supp}\ f^{(k,i,m)}\cap
{\rm supp}\ f^{(k,r,n)}=\emptyset.$
For each $k=1,\ldots ,n$, let $\{ f^{k,t}\}_{t=1}^{r_k}\subseteq \bigcup
K^s(\varphi ) $ be a selection of mutually disjoint such functionals with $D^k_4=\bigcup _{t=1}^{r_k} {\rm supp}\ f^{k,t}.$ For each such functional $f^{k,t}$, we set $$a_{f^{k,t}}=\sum_{i=1}^{n_k}b_{(k,i)}\sum_{m\in {\rm supp}\ f^{k,t}} a_m.$$ Then, $$f^{k,t}(b_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)})){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}b_ka_{f^{k,t}}.\leqno (5)$$ We define as in [@ADKM] a functional $g\in K^{\prime }$ with $|g|_{2j}^{\ast }{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}1$ (see definition [@ADKM] p 71), and blocks $u_k$ of the basis so that $\|
u_k\|_{\ell_1}{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}16$, ${\rm supp}\ u_k\subseteq \bigcup_i{\rm supp}\
u_{(k,i)}$ and $$\psi|_{D_4}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)}))
{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}g(2\sum_kb_ku_k),$$ hence by [@ADKM] Lemma 2.4(b) we shall have the result.
For $f=\frac{1}{m_q}\sum_{p=1}^df_p\in\bigcup_sK^s(\psi|_{D_4})$ we set $$J=\{ 1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}d: f_p=f^{k,t}\;{\rm for}\;{\rm some}\; k=1\ldots ,n, \;
t=1,\ldots , r_k\},$$ $$T=\{ 1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}d:\;{\rm there}\;{\rm exists}\;f^{k,t}\;{\rm with}\;
{\rm supp}f^{k,t} \subseteq {\rm supp}f_p \; {\rm strictly}\}.$$
For every $f\in\bigcup_sK^s(\psi|_{D_4})$ we shall define by induction a functional $g_f$, by $g_f=0$ when $J\cup T=\emptyset$, while if $J\cup T\neq\emptyset $ we shall construct $g_f$ with the following properties. Let $D_f= \bigcup_{p\in J\cup T}{\rm supp}f_p$ and $u_k=\sum a_{f^{k,t}}e_{f^{k,t}}$, where $e_{f^{k,t}}=e_{\min{\rm
supp} f^{k,t}}$, then:
\(a) ${\rm supp}\ g_f\subseteq {\rm supp}\ f$.
\(b) $g_f\in K^{\prime }$ and $w(g_f){\ensuremath{\geqslant}}w(f)$,
\(c) $f|_{D_f}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)})) {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}g_f(2\sum_kb_ku_k)$.
Let $s>0$ and suppose that $g_f$ have been defined for all $f\in\bigcup_{t=0}^{s-1}K^t(\psi|_{D_4})$ and let $f=\frac{1}{m_q}(f_1+\ldots +f_d)\in K^s(\psi|_{D_4})\backslash
K^{s-1}(\psi|_{D_4})$ where the family $(f_p)_{p=1}^d$ is ${\mathcal
M}_q$-admissible if $q>1$, or ${\mathcal S}$-allowable if $q=1$. The proofs of case (i) ($1/m_q=1/m_{2j_k}$ for some $k {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}n$) and case (ii) ($1/m_q>1/m_{2j+1}$) are identical with [@ADKM] p 106. Assume therefore that case (iii) holds, i.e., $1/m_q=1/m_{2j+1}$. For the same reasons as in [@ADKM] we have that $T=\emptyset$.
Summing up we assume that $f \in K^s(\psi|_{D_4})\backslash
K^{s-1}(\psi|_{D_4})$ is of the form $$f=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum_{p=1}^d
f_p=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(Ey_1^*+\ldots+Ey_{k_2}^*+Ey_{k_2+1}^*+\ldots+Ey_d^*),$$ where $(y_i^*)_i$ is associated to $(c_1^*,\ldots,c_{k_2}^*,d_{k_2+1}^*,\ldots)$ with $d_{k_2+1}^* \neq
c_{k_2+1}^*$, that $T=\emptyset$ and $J \neq \emptyset$, and it only remains to define $g_f$ satisfying (a)(b)(c).
Now by the proof of [@ADKM] Proposition 2.9, $\psi=\psi_{\varphi}$ was defined through the analysis of $\varphi$, in particular by [@ADKM] Remark 2.19 (a), $$\psi=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum_{k \in I}\psi_{Ey_k^*}$$ for some subset $I$ of $\{1,\ldots,d\}$. Furthermore, for $l \in I$, $l {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k_2$ and $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}k {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}d$, ${\rm supp}\ Ey_l^* \cap {\rm
supp}\ x_k=\emptyset$, therefore there is no functional in a family of type I and II w.r.t. $\overline{x_k}$ of support included in ${\rm supp}\ Ey_l^*$ (see [@ADKM] Definition 2.11 p 77). This implies that $D_{Ey_l^*}=\emptyset$ ([@ADKM] Definition p. 85), and therefore that $\psi_{Ey_l^*}=0$ ([@ADKM] bottom of p. 85).
For $l \in I$, $l>k_2+1$, then since $\Phi$ is $1-1$, $w(Ey_l^*)=w(Ed_l^*) \neq 1/m_{2j_k} \forall k$. Therefore $w(\psi_{Ey_l^*}) \neq 1/m_{2j_k} \forall k$, [@ADKM] Remark 2.19 (a). Then by the definition of $D_4^k$, ${\rm supp}\ \psi_{Ey_l^*} \cap D_4^k=\emptyset$ for all $k$.
Finally this means that $\psi_{|D_4}=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\psi_{Ey^*_{k_2+1}|D_4}$ and $J=\{k_2+1\}$, $D_f={\rm supp}\ f_{k_2+1}$. Write then $f_{k_2+1}=f^{k_0,t}$ and set $g_f=\frac{1}{2}e^*_{f_{k_2+1}}$, therefore (a)(b) are trivially verified. It only remains to check (c). But by (5), $$f|_{D_f}(\sum_kb_km_{2j_k}(\sum_ib_{(k,i)}u_{(k,i)})){\ensuremath{\leqslant}}b_{k_0} a_{f_{k_2+1}}$$ $$=b_{k_0} a_{f_{k_2+1}} e^*_{f_{k_2+1}}(e_{f_{k_2+1}})
=g_f(2b_{k_0} a_{f_{k_2+1}}e_{f_{k_2+1}})$$ $$=g_f(2\sum_t b_{k_0} a^{f_{k,t}}e_{f^{k,t}})
=g_f(2\sum_kb_ku_k).$$ So (c) is proved. Therefore $g_f$ is defined for each $f$ by induction, and the Claim is verified. This concludes the proof of the Proposition.
The space $X_u$ is of type (3).
Assume towards a contradiction that $T$ is an isomorphism from some block-subspace $[x_n]$ of $X_u$ into the subspace $[e_i, i \notin \bigcup_n
{\rm supp}\ x_n]$. We may assume that $\max({\rm supp}\ x_n,{\rm
supp}\ Tx_n) < \min({\rm supp}\ x_{n+1},{\rm supp}\ Tx_{n+1})$ and $\min{\rm supp}\ x_n<\min{\rm supp}\ Tx_n$ for each $n$, and by Lemma \[scc\], that each $x_n$ is a $(\frac{1}{m_{2n}^4},2n)$ R.I.s.c.c. ([@ADKM] Definition 2.16). We may write $$x_n=\sum_{t=1}^{p_n} a_{n,t}x_{n,t}$$ where $(x_{n,1},\ldots,x_{n,p_n})$ is ${\mathcal M}_{2n}$-admissible. Let for each $n,t$, $x_{n,t}^* \in
L$ be such that ${\rm supp}\ x_{n,t}^* \subseteq {\rm supp}\ Tx_{n,t}$ and such that $$x_{n,t}^*(Tx_{n,t}) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{2}{\lVertTx_{n,t}\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert}},$$ and let $x_n^*=\frac{1}{m_{2n}}(x_{n,1}^*+\ldots+x_{n,p_n}^*) \in L_{2n}$. Note that ${\rm supp}\ x_n^* \cap {\rm supp}\ x_n=\emptyset$ and that $$x_n^*(Tx_n) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{m_{2n}}\sum_{t=1}^{p_n}
\frac{a_{n,t}}{4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert}}= (4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert}m_{2n})^{-1}.$$ We may therefore for any $j>100$ construct a $j$-quadruple $(j_k,y_k,c_k^*,b_k)_{k=1}^n$ satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition \[criticalbis\] and such that $y_k \in [x_i]_i$ and $c_k^*(Ty_k) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert}m_{2j_k})^{-1}$ for each $k$ (note that we may assume that $c_k^* \in L_{j_{2k}}$ for each $k$). From Proposition \[criticalbis\] we deduce $${\lVert\sum_{k=1}^n b_k m_{2j_k}y_k\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{75}{m_{2j+1}^2}.$$ On the other hand $\psi=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum_{k=1}^n c_k^*$ belongs to $L$ therefore $${\lVertT(\sum_{k=1}^n b_k m_{2j_k}y_k)\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\psi(\sum_{k=1}^n b_k m_{2j_k}Ty_k) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{4{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert}m_{2j+1}}.$$ We deduce finally that $$m_{2j+1} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}300 {\lVertT\rVert}{\lVertT^{-1}\rVert},$$ which contradicts the boundedness of $T$.
A strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ space tight by support
----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the canonical basis of $X_u$ is tight and unconditional, it follows that $X_u$ is reflexive. In particular this implies that the dual basis of the canonical basis of $X_u$ is a strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ basis of $X_u^*$. It remains to prove that this basis is tight with support.
It is easy to prove by duality that for any ${\mathcal
M}_{2j}$-admissible sequence of functionals $f_1,\ldots,f_n$ in $X_u^*$, we have the upper estimate $${\lVert\sum_i f_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m_{2j}\sup_i {\lVertf_i\rVert}.$$ We use this observation to prove a lemma about the existence of s.c.c. normed by functionals belonging to an arbitrary subspace of $X_u^*$. The proof is standard except that estimates have to be taken in $X_u^*$ instead of $X_u$.
\[sccbis\] For $\epsilon>0$, $j=1,2,\ldots$ and every normalised block sequence $\{f_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty }$ in $X_u^*$, there exists a normalised functional $f \in [f_k]$ and a seminormalised $(\epsilon,2j)$–s.c.c. $x$ in $X_u$ such that ${\rm
supp}\ f \subseteq {\rm supp}\ x$ and $f(x) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/2$.
For each $k$ let $y_k$ be normalised such that ${\rm supp}\ y_k={\rm
supp}\ f_k$ and $f_k(y_k)=1$. Recall that the integers $k_n$ and $t_n$ are defined by $k_1=1$, $2^{t_n}{\ensuremath{\geqslant}}m_n^2$ and $k_n=t_n(k_{n-1}+1)+1$, and that ${\mathcal M}_j={\mathcal F}_{k_j}$ for all $j$.
Applying Lemma \[scc\] we find a successive sequence of $(\epsilon,2j)$–s.c.c. of $(y_k)$ of the form $(\sum_{i \in I_k}a_i y_i)_k$ with $\{f_i, i \in I_k\}$ ${\mathcal F}_{k_{2j-1}+1}$-admissible. If ${\lVert\sum_{i \in
I_k}f_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2$ for some $k$, we are done, for then $$(\sum_{i \in I_k}f_i)(\sum_{i \in I_k}a_i y_i) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{1}{2}{\lVert\sum_{i
\in I_k}f_i\rVert}.$$ So assume ${\lVert\sum_{i \in I_k}f_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2$ for all $k$, apply the same procedure to the sequence $f_k^1={\lVert\sum_{i \in I_k}f_i\rVert}^{-1}\sum_{i \in I_k}f_i$, and obtain a successive sequence of $(\epsilon,2j)$–s.c.c. of the sequence $(y_k^1)_k$ associated to $(f_k^1)_k$, of the form $(\sum_{i \in I_k^1}a_i^1 y_i^1)_k$, with $\{f_l: {\rm supp}\ f_l
\subseteq \sum_{i \in I_k^1}f_i^1\}$ a ${\mathcal
F}_{k_{2j-1}+1}[{\mathcal F}_{k_{2j-1}+1}]$-admissible, and therefore ${\mathcal M}_{2j}$-admissible set. Then we are done unless ${\lVert\sum_{i \in I_k^1}f_i^1\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2$ for all $k$, in which case we set $$f_k^2={\lVert\sum_{j \in I_k^1}f_j^1\rVert}^{-1}
\sum_{j \in I_k^1}f_j^1$$ and observe by the upper estimate in $X_u^*$ that $$1={\lVertf_k^2\rVert}={\lVert\sum_{j \in I_k^1}\sum_{i \in I_j}{\lVert\sum_{j \in
I_k^1}f_j^1\rVert}^{-1} {\lVert\sum_{i \in I_j}f_i\rVert}^{-1} f_i\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m_{2j}/4.$$ Repeating this procedure we claim that we are done in at most $t_{2j}$ steps. Otherwise we obtain that the set $$A=\{f_l:
{\rm supp}\ f_l \subseteq \sum_{i \in
I_k^{t_{2j-1}}}f_i^{t_{2j-1}}\}$$ is ${\mathcal M}_{2j}$-admissible. Since $f_k^{t_{2j}}=\sum_{f_l \in A}\alpha_l f_l$, where the normalising factor $\alpha_l$ is less than $(1/2)^{t_{2j}}$ for each $l$, we deduce from the upper estimate that $$1={\lVertf_k^{t_{2j}}\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}2^{-t_{2j}}m_{2j},$$ a contradiction by definition of the integers $t_i$’s.
To prove the last proposition of this section we need to make two observations. First if $(f_1,\ldots,f_n) \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L$ is ${\mathcal
M}_{2j}$-admissible, then $\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{k=1}^n f_k \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L_{2j}.$ Indeed we may easily find convex rational coefficients $\lambda_i$ such that each $f_k$ is of the form $$f_k=\sum_i \lambda_i f_i^k,\ f_i^k \in L,\ {\rm supp}\ f_i^k
\subseteq {\rm supp}\ f_k\ \forall i.$$ Then $\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{k=1}^n f_k=\sum_i \lambda_i
(\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{k=1}^n f_i^k)$ and each $\frac{1}{m_{2j}}\sum_{k=1}^n f_i^k$ belongs to $L_{2j}$.
Likewise if $\psi=\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}(c_1^*+\ldots+c_d^*)$, $k>2j+1$, $c_1^* \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}} L_{2k}$ and $c_l^* \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}
L_{\Phi(c_1^*,\ldots,c_{l-1}^*)}\ \forall l {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2$, then $\psi \in
{\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}} L$. Indeed as above we may write $$\psi=\sum_i \lambda_i (\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum_{l=1}^d f_i^l),\
f_i^1 \in L_{2k}, f_i^l \in L_{\Phi(c_1^*,\ldots,c_{i-1}^*)}(c_i^*)\
\forall l {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}2,$$ and each $\frac{1}{m_{2j+1}}\sum_{l=1}^d f_i^l$ belongs to $L_{2j+1}^{\prime n+1} \subseteq L$.
The space $X_u^*$ is of type (3).
Assume towards a contradiction that $T$ is an isomorphism from some block-subspace $[f_n]$ of $X_u^*$ into the subspace $[e_i^*, i \notin
\cup_n {\rm supp}\ f_n]$. We may assume that $\max({\rm supp}\
f_n,{\rm supp}\ Tf_n) < \min({\rm supp}\ f_{n+1},{\rm supp}\
Tf_{n+1})$ and $\min{\rm supp}\ Tf_n<\min{\rm supp}\ f_n$ for each $n$. Since the closed unit ball of $X_u^*$ is equal to $\overline{{\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L}$ we may also assume that $f_n \in {\rm
conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L$ for each $n$. Applying Lemma \[sccbis\], we may also suppose that each $f_n$ is associated to a $(\frac{1}{m_{2n}^4},2n)$ s.c.c. $x_n$ with $Tf_n(x_n) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}1/3$ and ${\rm supp}\ x_n \subset
{\rm supp}\ Tf_n$, and we shall also assume that ${\lVertTf_n\rVert}=1$ for each $n$. Build then for each $k$ a $(\frac{1}{m_{2k}^4},2k)$ R.I.s.c.c. $y_k=\sum_{n \in A_k}a_n x_n$ such that $(Tf_n)_{n \in
A_k}$ and therefore $(f_n)_{n \in A_k}$ is ${\mathcal
M}_{2k}$-admissible. Then we note that by the first observation before this proposition, $$c_k^*:=m_{2k}^{-1}\sum_{n \in A_k}f_n \in {\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L_{2k},$$ and we observe that ${\rm supp}\ c_k^* \cap {\rm supp}\
y_k=\emptyset$ and that $Tc_k^*(y_k) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(3m_{2k})^{-1}$.
We may therefore for any $j>100$ construct a $j$-quadruple $(j_k,y_k,c_k^*,b_k)_{k=1}^n$ satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition \[criticalbis\] and such that $c_k^* \in [f_i]_i$ and $Tc_k^*(y_k) {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}(3m_{2j_k})^{-1}$ for each $k$. From Proposition \[criticalbis\] we deduce $${\lVert\sum_{k=1}^n b_k m_{2j_k}y_k\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}\frac{75}{m_{2j+1}^2}.$$ Therefore $${\lVert\sum_{k=1}^d Tc_k^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{\sum_{k=1}^d b_k m_{2j_k}Tc_k^*(y_k)}{{\lVert\sum_{k=1}^n b_k
m_{2j_k}y_k\rVert}} {\ensuremath{\geqslant}}\frac{m_{2j+1}^2}{225},$$ but on the other hand $${\lVert\sum_{k=1}^d c_k^*\rVert} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}m_{2j+1}$$ since by the second observation the functional $m_{2j+1}^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^d c_k^*$ belongs to ${\rm conv}_{{\mathbb Q}}L$. We deduce finally that $$m_{2j+1} {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}225 {\lVertT\rVert},$$ which contradicts the boundedness of $T$.
Open problems
=============
In the following theorem, we present the final list of possible classes of spaces contained in a Banach space, obtained by combining the five dichotomies and the dichotomy of Tcaciuc. We obtain 19 inevitable classes of spaces, and examples for 8 of them. The class (2) is divided into two subclasses and the class (4) into four subclasses, which are not made explicit here for lack of an example of space of type (2) or (4) to begin with. Recall that the spaces contained in any of the 12 subclasses of type (1)-(4) are never isomorphic to their proper subspaces, and in this sense these subclasses may be labeled “exotic”. On the contrary “classical” pure spaces must belong to one of the 7 subclasses of type (5)-(6).
\[final\] Any infinite dimensional Banach space contains a subspace of one of the types listed in the following diagram:
Type Properties Examples
------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
(1a) HI, tight by range and with constants ?
(1b) HI, tight by range, locally minimal $G^*$
(2) HI, tight, sequentially minimal ?
(3a) tight by support and with constants, uniformly inhomogeneous ?
(3b) tight by support, locally minimal, uniformly inhomogeneous $G_u^*$
(3c) tight by support, strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p <\infty$ $X_u$
(3d) tight by support, strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ $X_u^*$
(4) unconditional basis, quasi minimal, tight by range ?
(5a) unconditional basis, tight with constants, sequentially minimal, ?
uniformly inhomogeneous
(5b) unconditional basis, tight, sequentially and locally minimal, ?
uniformly inhomogeneous
(5c) tight with constants, sequentially minimal, $T$, $T_p$
strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p<\infty$
(5d) tight, sequentially minimal, strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ ?
(6a) unconditional basis, minimal, uniformly inhomogeneous $S$
(6b) minimal, reflexive, strongly asymptotically $\ell_{\infty}$ $T^*$
(6c) isomorphic to $c_0$ or $l_p$, $1 {\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p<\infty$ $c_0$, $\ell_p$
We finally conclude with a list of open problems.
1. Does there exist a tight Banach space admitting a basis which is not tight?
2. Does there exist a tight, locally block minimal and unconditional basis?
3. Find a locally minimal and tight Banach space with finite cotype.
4. Does there exist a tight Banach space which does not contain a basic sequence that is either tight by range or tight with constants? In other words, does there exist a locally and sequentially minimal space without a minimal subspace?
5. Suppose $[e_n]$ is sequentially minimal. Does there exist a block basis all of whose subsequences are subsequentially minimal?
6. Is every HI space tight?
7. Is every tight basis continuously tight?
8. Do there exist spaces of type (2), (4), (5a), (5b), (5d)?
9. Suppose $(e_n)$ is tight with constants. Does $(e_n)$ have a block sequence that is (strongly) asymptotically $\ell_p$ for some $1{\ensuremath{\leqslant}}p< \infty$?
10. Does there exist a separable HI space $X$ such that $\subseteq^*$ Borel embeds into $SB_\infty(X)$?
11. If $X$ is a separable Banach space without a minimal subspace, does $\subseteq^*$ Borel embed into $SB_\infty(X)$? What about more complicated quasi orders, in particular, the complete analytic quasi order ${\ensuremath{\leqslant}}_{{\bf \Sigma}_1^1}$?
[999]{}
S. Argyros and I. Deliyanni, [*Examples of asymptotic $\ell_1$ Banach spaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), 973–995.
S. Argyros, I. Deliyanni, D. Kutzarova and A. Manoussakis, [ *Modified mixed Tsirelson spaces*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 159 (1998), 43–109.
J. Bagaria and J. López-Abad, [*Weakly Ramsey sets in Banach spaces*]{}, Adv. Math. 160 (2001), no. 2, 133–174.
P.G. Casazza, W.B. Johnson, and L. Tzafriri, [*On Tsirelson’s space*]{}, Israel J. Math. 47 (1984), no. 2-3, 81–98.
P.G. Casazza and T. Shura, [*Tsirelson’s space*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1363. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
S. Dilworth, V. Ferenczi, D. Kutzarova, and E. Odell, [*On strongly asymptotically $\ell_p$ spaces and minimality*]{}, Journal of the London Math. Soc.75, 2 (2007), 409–419.
V. Ferenczi, [*Operators on subspaces of hereditarily indecomposable Banach spaces*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. 29 (1997), no. 3, 338–344.
V. Ferenczi, [*Hereditarily finitely decomposable Banach spaces*]{}, Studia Mathematica 123 (2) (1997), 135–149.
V. Ferenczi, [*Minimal subspaces and isomorphically homogeneous sequences in a Banach space*]{}, Israel J. Math. 156 (2006), 125–140.
V. Ferenczi, A. Louveau, and C. Rosendal, [*The complexity of classifying separable Banach spaces up to isomorphism*]{}, preprint.
V. Ferenczi and C. Rosendal, [*Ergodic Banach spaces*]{}, Adv. Math. 195 (2005), no. 1, 259–282.
V. Ferenczi and C. Rosendal, [*Complexity and homogeneity in Banach spaces*]{}, Banach Spaces and their Applications in Mathematics, Ed. Beata Randrianantoanina and Narcisse Randrianantoanina, 2007, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, p. 83–110.
T. Figiel, R. Frankiewicz, R.A. Komorowski, and C. Ryll-Nardzewski, [*Selecting basic sequences in $\phi$-stable Banach spaces*]{}, Dedicated to Professor Aleksander Pełczyński on the occasion of his 70th birthday, Studia Math. 159 (2003), no. 3, 499–515.
W.T. Gowers, [*A solution to Banach’s hyperplane problem*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. 26 (1994), no. 6, 523–530.
W.T. Gowers, [*A hereditarily indecomposable space with an asymptotic unconditional basis*]{}, Geometric aspects of functional analysis (Israel, 1992–1994), 112–120, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 77, Birkhauser, Basel, 1995.
W.T. Gowers, [*A new dichotomy for Banach spaces*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. 6 (1996), no. 6, 1083–1093.
W.T. Gowers, [*An infinite Ramsey theorem and some Banach space dichotomies*]{}, Ann. of Math (2) 156 (2002), 3, 797–833.
W.T. Gowers and B. Maurey, [*The unconditional basic sequence problem*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1993), no. 4, 851–874.
W. T. Gowers and B. Maurey, [*Banach spaces with small spaces of operators*]{}, Math. Ann. 307 (1997), 543–568.
W.B. Johnson, [*A reflexive Banach space which is not sufficiently Euclidean*]{}, Studia Math. 55 (1978), 201–205.
A. S. Kechris, [*Classical descriptive set theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York 1995.
D. Kutzarova, D. Leung, A. Manoussakis, and W.K. Tang, [ *Minimality properties of Tsirelson type spaces*]{}, preprint.
J. Lindenstrauss and L. Tzafriri, [*Classical Banach spaces*]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin (1979).
J. López-Abad, [*Coding into Ramsey sets*]{}, Math. Ann. 332 (2005), no. 4, 775–794.
A. Louveau, [*Closed orders and their vincinity*]{}, preprint 2001.
B. Maurey, V. Milman, and N. Tomczak-Jaegermann, [*Asymptotic infinite-dimensional theory of Banach spaces*]{}, Geometric aspects of functional analysis (Israel, 1992–1994), 149–175, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 77, Birkhauser, Basel, 1995.
E. Odell and T. Schlumprecht, [*The distortion problem*]{}, Acta Math. 173 (1994), no. 2, 259–281.
E. Odell and T. Schlumprecht, [*On the richness of the set of $p$’s in Krivine’s theorem*]{} Geometric aspects of functional analysis (Israel, 1992–1994), 177–198, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 77, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995.
E. Odell and T. Schlumprecht, [*A Banach space block finitely universal for monotone bases.*]{} Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), no. 4, 1859–1888.
A. M. Pełczar, [*Subsymmetric sequences and minimal spaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2003) 3, 765-771.
A. Pełczyński, [*Universal bases*]{}, Studia Math. 32 (1969), 247–268.
C. Rosendal, [*Incomparable, non-isomorphic and minimal Banach spaces*]{}, Fund. Math. 183 (2004) 3, 253–274.
C. Rosendal, [*Infinite asymptotic games*]{}, preprint.
T. Schlumprecht, [*An arbitrarily distortable Banach space*]{}, Israel J. Math. 76 (1991), no. 1-2, 81–95.
T. Schlumprecht, [*How many operators exist on a Banach space?*]{}, Trends in Banach spaces and operator theory (Memphis, TN, 2001), 295–333, Contemp. Math., 321, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2003.
T. Schlumprecht, unpublished notes.
A. Tcaciuc, [*On the existence of asymptotic-$\ell_p$ structures in Banach spaces*]{}, Bull. Canadian Math. Society, to appear.
B.S. Tsirelson, [*Not every Banach space contains $\ell_p$ or $c_0$*]{}, Functional Anal. Appl. 8 (1974), 138–141.
R. Wagner, [*Gowers’ dichotomy for asymptotic structure*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), no. 10, 3089–3095.
[*Address of V. Ferenczi:*]{}\
Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu,\
Projet Analyse Fonctionnelle,\
Université Pierre et Marie Curie - Paris 6,\
Boîte 186, 4, Place Jussieu,\
75252, Paris Cedex 05,\
France.\
`[email protected]`
[*Current address:*]{}\
Departamento de Matemática,\
Instituto de Matemática e Estat' istica,\
Universidade de São Paulo.\
05311-970 São Paulo, SP,\
Brazil.\
`[email protected]`
[*Address of C. Rosendal:*]{}\
Department of Mathematics,\
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,\
273 Altgeld Hall, MC 382,\
1409 W. Green Street,\
Urbana, IL 61801, USA.\
`[email protected]`
[^1]: The second author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS 0556368 and by FAPESP
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
=1
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
This article is motivated by the recent results of Nowak and Stempak [@Symmetrized] and the author’s papers [@L2; @L3]. In [@L2] we investigated Sobolev and potential spaces related to discrete Jacobi function expansions. The main achievement of [@L2] is a suitable definition of the Sobolev–Jacobi spaces so that they are isomorphic with the potential spaces with appropriately chosen parameters. The article [@L2] is a continuation and extension of a similar study conducted in the setting of ultraspherical expansions by Betancor et al. [@betancor]. The other author’s paper [@L3] contains further investigations of the Jacobi potential spaces. The most important outcome of [@L3] is a characterization of the potential spaces by means of suitably defined fractional square functions. The research in [@L3] was inspired by another paper of Betancor et al. [@betsq], in which a general technique of using square functions in analysis of potential spaces associated with discrete and continuous orthogonal expansions was developed.
On the other hand, in [@Symmetrized] Nowak and Stempak proposed a symmetrization procedure in a context of general discrete orthogonal expansions related to a second-order differential operator $L$, a ‘Laplacian’. This procedure, combined with a unified conjugacy scheme established in an earlier article by the same authors [@NoSt], allows one to associate, via a suitable embedding, a differential-difference ‘Laplacian’ $\mathbb{L}$ with the initially given orthogonal system of eigenfunctions of $L$ so that the resulting extended conjugacy scheme has the natural classical shape. In particular, the related ‘partial derivatives’ decomposing $\mathbb{L}$ are skew-symmetric in an appropriate $L^2$ space and they commute with Riesz transforms and conjugate Poisson integrals. Thus the symmetrization procedure overcomes the main inconvenience of the theory postulated in [@NoSt], that is the lack of symmetry in the principal objects and relations resulting in essential deviations of the theory from the classical shape. The price is, however, that the ‘Laplacian’ $\mathbb{L}$ and the associated ‘derivatives’ are not differential, but differential-difference operators. It was shown in [@Symmetrized] that the symmetrization is supported by a good $L^2$ theory. Moreover, in [@L1] the author verified that further support comes from the $L^p$ theory, at least when the Jacobi polynomial context is considered.
In the present paper we apply the above mentioned symmetrization procedure to the setting of Jacobi function expansions considered in [@L2; @L3]. Then we define and study the associated potential spaces and Sobolev spaces. As the main results, we establish an isomorphism between these spaces (Theorem \[thm:sob1\]) and characterize the potential spaces by means of suitably defined fractional square functions (Theorems \[thm:char\] and \[equivfun’\]). Among further results, we prove structural and embedding theorems for the potential spaces, in particular we obtain a counterpart of the classical Sobolev embedding theorem in the Jacobi setting (see Theorems \[thm:struc\] and \[thm:embed\]). All of this extends the results from [@L2; @L3] to the symmetrized situation.
The general strategy we use to prove the results in the symmetrized setting relies on two steps. In the first step we exploit symmetries of the operators under consideration in order to reduce the analysis essentially to the initial non-symmetrized case. Then the second step consists in taking advantage of the results already existing in the literature, mostly from author’s previous articles [@L2; @L3]. Even though the general line of reasoning is relatively easy, some details occur to be rather technical and complex.
An important aspect, and in fact also a partial motivation of our research, is the suggestion from [@Symmetrized Section 5] that the symmetrization could have a significant impact on developing the theory of Sobolev spaces related to orthogonal expansions. This concerns, in particular, higher-order ‘derivatives’ leading to appropriate Sobolev spaces. It turns out, however, that in our symmetrized framework the relevant higher-order ‘derivatives’ are not constructed from the first-order ‘derivative’ (see Proposition \[prop:neg\]), as one would perhaps expect after reading the optimistic comments in [@NoSt Section 5]. Thus these derivatives are even more exotic than the variable index derivatives that are suitable in the initial non-symmetrized Jacobi setting. So it seems that the symmetrization brings no improvement in dealing with Sobolev spaces, at least in the Jacobi setting considered. This makes a noteworthy contrast to the conjugacy scheme which benefits a lot from the symmetrization.
Sobolev and potential spaces related to different classical orthogonal expansions were investigated in recent years by various authors, see, e.g., [@BaUr1; @BaUr2; @betancor; @betsq; @BT1; @BT2; @Graczyk; @L2; @L3; @RT]. On the other hand, harmonic analysis in several frameworks of Jacobi expansions was in the last decade studied in (see also [@CRS; @CRS2]), among others. Our present work contributes to both of these lines of research.
An interesting study of variable exponent Sobolev spaces for Jacobi expansions is contained in the recent paper by Almeida, Betancor, Castro, Sanabria and Scotto [@varex]. The results of [@varex] are related to those in the author’s papers [@L2; @L3], but were obtained independently. In particular, there is a partial overlap in characterizations of the Jacobi potential spaces via fractional square functions obtained in [@L3] and [@varex]. We thank one of the referees for bringing [@varex] to our attention.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
Throughout the paper, we use a fairly standard notation with essentially all symbols referring either to the measure space $((-\pi,\pi),d\theta)$ or the restricted space $((0,\pi),d\theta)$. Given a function $f$ on $(-\pi,\pi)$, we denote by $f^{+}$ its restriction to the subinterval $(0,\pi)$, and by $f_{\textrm{even}}$ and $f_{\textrm{odd}}$ its even and odd parts, respectively, $$\begin{gathered}
f_{\textrm{even}}(\theta) = \frac{f(\theta)+f(-\theta)}2, \qquad
f_{\textrm{odd}}(\theta) = \frac{f(\theta)-f(-\theta)}2.\end{gathered}$$ We let $$\begin{gathered}
\langle f_1,f_2 \rangle = \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f_1(\theta)\overline{f_2(\theta)}\, d\theta, \qquad
\langle h_1,h_2 \rangle_{+} = \int_0^{\pi} h_1(\theta)\overline{h_2(\theta)} \, d\theta,\end{gathered}$$ whenever the integrals make sense. For $1 \le p \le \infty$, $p'$ denotes its conjugate exponent, $1/p+1/p'=1$. When writing estimates, we will use the notation $X \lesssim Y$ to indicate that $X \le CY$ with a positive constant $C$ independent of significant quantities. We shall write $X \simeq Y$ when simultaneously $X \lesssim Y$ and $Y \lesssim X$.
Preliminaries {#sec:prel}
=============
Given parameters $\alpha, \beta>-1$, consider the Jacobi differential operator $$\begin{gathered}
L_{\alpha,\beta}= -\frac{d^2}{d\theta^2}
-\frac{1-4\alpha^2}{16\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2}}-\frac{1-4\beta^2}{16\cos^2\frac{\theta}{2}}
= D_{\alpha,\beta}^* D_{\alpha,\beta} + A^2_{\alpha,\beta};\end{gathered}$$ here $A_{\alpha,\beta}=(\alpha+\beta+1)/2$ is a constant, and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{der_ini}
D_{\alpha,\beta}=\frac{d}{d\theta}-\frac{2\alpha+1}{4}\cot\frac{\theta}{2}+\frac{2\beta+1}{4}\tan\frac{\theta}{2},
\qquad D_{\alpha,\beta}^* = D_{\alpha,\beta}-2\frac{d}{d\theta},\end{gathered}$$ are the first-order ‘derivative’ naturally associated with $L_{\alpha,\beta}$ and its formal adjoint in $L^2(0,\pi)$, respectively. It is well known that $L_{\alpha,\beta}$, defined initially on $C_c^2(0,\pi)$, has a non-negative self-adjoint extension in $L^2(0,\pi)$ whose spectral decomposition is discrete and given by the Jacobi functions $\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$, $n \ge 0$. The corresponding eigenvalues are $\lambda_n^{\alpha,\beta} = (n+A_{\alpha,\beta})^2$, and the system $\{\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\colon n\ge 0\}$ constitutes an orthonormal basis in $L^2(0,\pi)$. Some problems in harmonic analysis related to $L_{\alpha,\beta}$ were investigated recently in .
When ${\alpha,\beta} \ge -1/2$, the functions $\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ belong to all $L^p(0,\pi)$, $1\le p \le \infty$. However, if $\alpha< -1/2$ or $\beta < -1/2$, then $\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ are in $L^p(0,\pi)$ if and only if $p < -1/\min(\alpha+1/2,\beta+1/2)$. This leads to the restriction $p'({\alpha,\beta}) < p < p({\alpha,\beta})$ for $L^p$ mapping properties of various operators associated with $L_{\alpha,\beta}$, where $$\begin{gathered}
p({\alpha,\beta}):= \begin{cases}
\infty, & {\alpha,\beta} \ge -1/2, \\
-1/\min(\alpha+1/2,\beta+1/2), & \textrm{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ Consequently, many results in harmonic analysis of $L_{\alpha,\beta}$ are restricted to $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$, $$\begin{gathered}
E({\alpha,\beta}) := \big(p'({\alpha,\beta}),p({\alpha,\beta})\big).\end{gathered}$$
In this work we shall consider the setting related to the larger interval $(-\pi,\pi)$ equipped with Lebesgue measure. An application of the symmetrization procedure from [@Symmetrized] to the context of $L_{\alpha,\beta}$ brings in the following symmetrized Jacobi ‘Laplacian’ and the associated ‘derivative’: $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}=-\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^2+A_{\alpha,\beta}^2,\end{gathered}$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}f=\frac{df}{d\theta}-\left(\frac{2\alpha+1}{4}
\cot\frac{\theta}{2}-\frac{2\beta+1}{4}\tan\frac{\theta}{2}\right)\check{f}=D_{\alpha,\beta}f_{\textrm{even}}-D_{\alpha,\beta}^*f_{\textrm{odd}},\end{gathered}$$ where $\check{f}(\theta)=f(-\theta)$ is the reflection of $f$, and $D_{\alpha,\beta}$ and $D_{\alpha,\beta}^*$ are given on $(-\pi,\pi)$ by . Note that, due to the reflection occurring in $\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}$, we deal here with a Dunkl type operator. For more details concerning Jacobi–Dunkl operators we refer to [@chouchene], see also [@BK Section 7].
Also, the following remark is in order. Formally, the space underlying the symmetrized setting is the sum $(-\pi,0) \cup (0,\pi)$. Nevertheless, often it can (and will) be identified with the interval $(-\pi,\pi)$, since for some aspects of the theory the single point $\theta=0$ is negligible. A typical example here are $L^p$ inequalities which “do not see” sets of null measure. On the other hand, some objects in the symmetrized situation may not even be properly defined at $\theta=0$ (the latter may in addition depend on the parameters of type), hence this point must be excluded from some considerations like, for instance, continuity or smoothness questions. That is why in what follows several times $(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \{0\}$ appears rather than $(-\pi,\pi)$.
The orthonormal basis in $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$ arising from the symmetrization procedure applied to the system of Jacobi functions is $$\begin{gathered}
\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{cases}\phi_{n/2}^{\alpha,\beta},& \textrm{$n$ even},\\
-\big(\lambda_{(n+1)/2}^{\alpha,\beta}-\lambda_0^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-1/2} D_{\alpha,\beta}\phi_{(n+1)/2}^{\alpha,\beta}, &
\textrm{$n$ odd},
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ where $\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ are even extensions (denoted still by the same symbol) to $(-\pi, \pi)$ of the Jacobi functions. More precisely, $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta) = c_n^{\alpha,\beta} \Psi^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta) P_n^{\alpha,\beta}(\cos\theta),
\qquad \theta \in (-\pi,\pi), \quad n \ge 0,\end{gathered}$$ where $c_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ are suitable normalizing constants, $P_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ are the classical Jacobi polynomials as defined in Szegő’s monograph [@Sz], and $$\begin{gathered}
\Psi^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta) := \left|\sin\frac{\theta}2\right|^{\alpha+1/2}\left(\cos\frac{\theta}2\right)^{\beta+1/2}.\end{gathered}$$ Observe that $D_{\alpha,\beta}f$ is an odd (even) function if $f$ is even (odd). Consequently, $\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ is even (odd) if and only if $n$ is an even (odd) number. By using [@L2 formula (5)] we find that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Phi}
\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta), \qquad
\Phi_{2n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \operatorname{sign}(\theta)\phi_{n}^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}(\theta), \qquad n \ge 0.\end{gathered}$$ Notice that when $\alpha \ge -1/2$, all $\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$, $n \ge 0$, are continuous functions on $(-\pi,\pi)$; on the other hand, for $\alpha < -1/2$ and $n$ even a singularity at $\theta = 0$ occurs. It is a nice coincidence that in our setting $\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ are essentially $\phi_k^{\alpha,\beta}$ or $\phi_k^{\alpha,\beta}$ with shifted parameters. Roughly speaking, this makes the analysis in the symmetrized situation reducible to the analysis in the initial, non-symmetrized setting. In general, and even in other Jacobi contexts (see, e.g., [@L1]), things are more complicated.
According to [@Symmetrized Lemma 3.5], each $\Phi_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}$ is an eigenfunction of the symmetrized Jacobi operator. More precisely, $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta} = \lambda^{\alpha,\beta}_{\langle n \rangle} \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta},
\qquad n \ge 0,\end{gathered}$$ where we use the notation $\langle n \rangle=\big\lfloor\frac{n+1}2 \big\rfloor$ introduced in [@Symmetrized] (here $\lfloor\cdot\rfloor$ denotes the floor function). Thus $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}$, considered initially on $C_c^{2}((-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \{0\})$, has a natural self-adjoint extension to $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$, denoted by the same symbol, and given by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta} f = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \lambda_{\langle n \rangle}^{\alpha,\beta}
\langle f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta} \rangle \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\end{gathered}$$ on the domain $\operatorname{Dom}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}$ consisting of all functions $f\in L^2(-\pi, \pi)$ for which the defining series converges in $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$; see [@Symmetrized Section 4].
Next, we gather some facts about potential operators associated with $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}$. Let $\sigma > 0$. We consider the [Riesz type potentials]{} $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$ assuming that $\alpha+\beta\neq -1$ (when $\alpha+\beta = -1$, the bottom eigenvalue of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is $0$) and the [Bessel type potentials]{} $(\operatorname*{Id}+\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-\sigma}$ with no restrictions on $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Clearly, these operators are well defined spectrally and bounded in $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$. The spectral decomposition of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\big(\lambda_{\langle n\rangle}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-\sigma}
\langle f,\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}, \qquad f\in L^2(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$ Splitting $f$ into its even and odd parts, we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma} f = \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma} f_{\textrm{even}}
+ \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma} f_{\textrm{odd}} \\ \nonumber
\hphantom{\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma} f}{} = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \big(\lambda_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-\sigma} \langle f_{\textrm{even}},
\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta} \rangle \Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta} + \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \big(\lambda_{n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-\sigma}
\langle f_{\textrm{odd}}, \Phi_{2n+1}^{\alpha,\beta} \rangle \Phi_{2n+1}^{\alpha,\beta} \\
\hphantom{\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma} f}{} \equiv (\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{e}}f_{\textrm{even}}
+ (\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{o}}f_{\textrm{odd}}. \label{dec}\end{gathered}$$ This is the decomposition of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f$ into its even and odd parts, since the two terms in are even and odd functions, respectively. Clearly, an analogous decomposition holds for $(\operatorname*{Id}+ \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-\sigma}$. We shall use these facts in the sequel.
\[ogr\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$ and $\sigma > 0$. Assume that $p > p'({\alpha,\beta})$ and $1 \le q < p({\alpha,\beta})$. Then $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$, $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$, and $(\operatorname*{Id}+\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-\sigma}$, defined initially on $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$, extend to bounded operators from $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ to $L^q(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}q \ge \frac{1}{p} - 2\sigma.\end{gathered}$$
Moreover, these operators extend to bounded operators from $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ to $L^{\infty}(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $$\begin{gathered}
{\alpha,\beta}\geq-1/2\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad \frac{1}{p}<2\sigma.\end{gathered}$$
We consider only the Riesz type potentials since the arguments for the Bessel type potentials are parallel. Define the restricted operators acting initially on the smaller space $L^2(0,\pi)$: $$\begin{gathered}
(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{e}}^+ h = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \big(\lambda_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-\sigma}
\big\langle h, \big(\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+ \big\rangle_{+} \big(\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+,\qquad h\in L^{2}(0,\pi),\\
(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{o}}^+ h = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \big(\lambda_{n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-\sigma}
\big\langle h, \big(\Phi_{2n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+ \big\rangle_{+} \big(\Phi_{2n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+,\qquad h\in L^{2}(0,\pi).\end{gathered}$$ Since $\|F\|_q \simeq \|F_{\textrm{even}}\|_q + \|F_{\textrm{odd}}\|_{q}$, taking into account we have, for $f \in L^2(-\pi,\pi)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\|\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f\|_{L^q(-\pi,\pi)} \simeq
\big\|(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{e}}f_{\textrm{even}}\big\|_{L^q(-\pi,\pi)}
+ \big\|(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{o}}f_{\textrm{odd}}\big\|_{L^q(-\pi,\pi)} \\
\hphantom{\|\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f\|_{L^q(-\pi,\pi)}}{} = 2^{1/q} \Big( \big\|(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{e}}^+f^+_{\textrm{even}}\big\|_{L^q(0,\pi)}
+ \big\|(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{o}}^+f_{\textrm{odd}}^+\big\|_{L^q(0,\pi)} \Big).\end{gathered}$$ Thus the assertion we must prove is equivalent to the following: $(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{e}}^+$ and $(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{o}}^+$, defined initially on $L^2(0,\pi)$, extend simultaneously to bounded operators from $L^p(0,\pi)$ to $L^q(0,\pi)$ if and only if $\frac{1}q \ge \frac{1}p - 2\sigma$; moreover, these operators extend simultaneously to bounded operators from $L^p(0,\pi)$ to $L^{\infty}(0,\pi)$ if and only if ${\alpha,\beta} \ge -1/2$ and $\frac{1}p < 2\sigma$.
Now it is enough to observe that, in view of and the identity $\lambda_{n+1}^{\alpha,\beta} = \lambda_n^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}$, the operators $(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{e}}^+$ and $(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma})_{\textrm{o}}^+$ coincide, up to the constant factor $1/2$, with the Riesz type potentials $L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$ and $L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-\sigma}$ related to $L_{\alpha,\beta}$ and investigated in . The conclusion then follows by , see [@L3 Proposition 2.1].
The extensions from Proposition \[ogr\] are unique provided that $p < \infty$. In this case we denote them by still the same and common symbol $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$. It is worth noting that all these extensions are actually realized by an integral operator with a positive kernel. But this fact is irrelevant for our purposes, therefore we omit further details.
Denote $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta} := \operatorname{span}\big\{\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\colon n \ge 0 \big\}.\end{gathered}$$ Since $\{\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\colon n \ge 0\}$ is an orthonormal basis, $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is dense in $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$. The latter property remains true in some $L^p$ spaces.
\[lem:dens\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$ and $1 \le p < p({\alpha,\beta})$. Then $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is a dense subspace of $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
Take $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$. It suffices to approximate separately $f_{\textrm{even}}$ and $f_{\textrm{odd}}$. Recall that the systems $\{\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}\colon n \ge 0\}$ and $\{\Phi_{2n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}\colon n \ge 0\}$ consist of even and odd functions, respectively. Moreover, each of these systems when restricted to $(0,\pi)$ is linearly dense in $L^p(0,\pi)$, see and [@Stempak Lemma 2.3]. Consequently, one can approximate $f_{\textrm{even}}$ and $f_{\textrm{odd}}$ in $ L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ by finite linear combinations of $\Phi_{2n}$, $n \ge 0$, and $\Phi_{2n+1}$, $n \ge 0$, respectively.
\[lem:wsp\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$, $p\in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and assume that $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$. If $\langle f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle =0$ for all $n \ge 0$, then $f \equiv 0$.
It is enough to observe that the lemma holds for $f \in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$ and then use the density of $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$ (see Lemma \[lem:dens\]) in the dual space $(L^p(-\pi,\pi))^* = L^{p'}(-\pi,\pi)$.
\[inj\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$ and $p\in E({\alpha,\beta})$. For each $\sigma>0$, $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$, $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$, and $(\operatorname*{Id}+ \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-\sigma}$ are injective on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
We focus ourselves on $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$ and essentially repeat the arguments from the proof of [@betancor Proposition 1]. Notice that for $f \in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{id}
\langle\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle =
\big(\lambda_{\langle n\rangle}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-\sigma} \langle f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle, \qquad n \ge 0.\end{gathered}$$ By Hölder’s inequality and the $L^p$-boundedness of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$ (see Proposition \[ogr\]), the functionals $$\begin{gathered}
f \mapsto \langle\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad
f \mapsto \langle f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle\end{gathered}$$ are bounded from $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ to $\mathbb{C}$. Since $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is dense in $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, we infer that holds for $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$. Now, if $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}f \equiv 0$ for some $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, then implies $\langle f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\rangle=0$ for all $n \ge 0$ and hence Lemma \[lem:wsp\] gives $f \equiv 0$. Thus $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-\sigma}$ is one-to-one on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
Now we can define the Jacobi potential spaces as the ranges of the potential operators on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi) := \begin{cases}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\big( L^p(-\pi,\pi)\big), & \alpha+\beta \neq -1,\\
(\operatorname*{Id}+\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-s/2}\big( L^p(-\pi,\pi)\big), & \alpha+\beta = -1,
\end{cases} \end{gathered}$$ where $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $s > 0$. Then the formula $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)} := \|g \|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}, \qquad
\begin{cases}
f=\mathbb{L}^{-s/2}_{\alpha,\beta}g, & g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi),
\ \ \alpha+\beta \neq -1,\\ f = (\operatorname*{Id}+\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-s/2}g, & g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi),
\ \ \alpha+\beta = -1,
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ defines a norm on $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ and it is straightforward to check that $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ equipped with this norm is a Banach space.
In order to give a suitable definition of Sobolev spaces in the symmetrized setting we need to understand the structure of the potential spaces. The following result describes the symmetrized potential spaces in terms of the potential spaces related to the initial, non-symmetrized situation. The latter spaces are defined similarly as $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$, see [@L2; @L3] for details.
\[pot\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$, $p\in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $s>0$. Then $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $f_{\rm even}^+\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$ and $f_{\rm odd}^+\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{por}
\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)}\simeq
\|f_{{\rm even}}^+\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(0,\pi)}
+\|f_{{\rm odd}}^+\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{p,s}(0,\pi)}.\end{gathered}$$
We assume that $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$, the opposite case requires only minor modifications which are left to the reader. Let $f \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$. This means that there is $g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ such that $f = \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g$; then $\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)}=\|g\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}$.
Assume, for the time being, that $g$ belongs also to $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$. Then from we see that $$\begin{gathered}
f_{\textrm{even}} = \big( \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\big)_{\textrm{e}} g_{\textrm{even}}, \qquad
f_{\textrm{odd}} = \big( \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\big)_{\textrm{o}} g_{\textrm{odd}}.\end{gathered}$$ Thus $$\begin{gathered}
f_{\textrm{even}}^+ = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \big(\lambda_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-s/2}
\langle g_{\textrm{even}}, \Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta} \rangle \big(\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+
= 2 \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \big(\lambda_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^{-s/2}
\big\langle g_{\textrm{even}}^+, \big(\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+ \big\rangle_+ \big(\Phi_{2n}^{\alpha,\beta}\big)^+ \\
\hphantom{f_{\textrm{even}}^+}{} = L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2} g_{\textrm{even}}^+, \end{gathered}$$ where the last identity is a consequence of . Similarly, $f_{\textrm{odd}}^+ = L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-s/2} g_{\textrm{odd}}^+$.
A general $g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ can be approximated in the $L^p$ norm by functions from $L^p \cap L^2(-\pi,\pi)$. Then combining the above with the $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$-boundedness of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}$ and $L^p(0,\pi)$-boundedness of $L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}$ and $L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-s/2}$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
f_{\textrm{even}}^+ = L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2} g_{\textrm{even}}^+, \qquad
f_{\textrm{odd}}^+ = L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-s/2} g_{\textrm{odd}}^+,\end{gathered}$$ in the general case. Since $$\begin{gathered}
\|g\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} \simeq \|g_{\textrm{even}}^+\|_{L^p(0,\pi)} + \|g_{\textrm{odd}}^+\|_{L^p(0,\pi)},
\qquad g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi),\end{gathered}$$ we see that $f^+_{\textrm{even}} \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$, $f^+_{\textrm{odd}} \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$ and, moreover, holds.
The opposite implication is verified along similar lines. Given a function $f$ on $(-\pi,\pi)$, assume that $f^+_{\textrm{even}} \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$ and $f^+_{\textrm{odd}} \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$. Then $f^+_{\textrm{even}} = L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}h$ and $f^+_{\textrm{odd}} = L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-s/2}\widetilde{h}$ for some $h,\widetilde{h} \in L^p(0,\pi)$. Extending $h$ and $\widetilde{h}$ to even and odd functions on $(-\pi,\pi)$, respectively, we let $g$ be the sum of these extensions. Then we find that $f^+_{\textrm{even}} = (\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g)_{\textrm{even}}^+$, $f^+_{\textrm{odd}} = (\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g)_{\textrm{odd}}^+$, and consequently $f = \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g$ with $g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$. Thus $f\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$.
Sobolev spaces {#sec:sob}
==============
Our aim in this section is to establish a suitable definition of Sobolev spaces in the symmetrized setting. Here “suitable” means existence of an isomorphism between the Sobolev spaces and the potential spaces with properly chosen parameters. Note that such an isomorphism gives also a characterization of the potential spaces with some parameters in terms of appropriate higher-order ‘derivatives’.
According to a general concept, Sobolev spaces $\mathbb{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}$, $m \ge 1$ integer, associated with $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}$, should be defined by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m} := \big\{ f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)\colon \mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi),\,
k=1,\ldots,m \big\}\end{gathered}$$ and equipped with the norm $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{\mathbb{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}} := \sum_{k=0}^{m} \big\|\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ is a suitably defined differential-difference operator of order $k$ playing the role of higher-order derivative, with the differentiation understood in a weak sense; we use the convention $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(0)}:=\operatorname*{Id}$. So the question is how to choose $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$.
It turns out that the seemingly most natural choice $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} = \mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^k$ is not appropriate. Another quite natural attempt is to mimic the variable index derivatives, which lead to a good definition of Sobolev spaces in the non-symmetrized setting, see [@L2 Section 2]. Unfortunately, taking $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} = \mathbb{D}_{\alpha+k-1,\beta+k-1}\circ \cdots\circ
\mathbb{D}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1} \circ \mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is inappropriate as well. Counterexamples for these choices are discussed at the end of this section.
To find suitable higher-order ‘derivatives’ in the symmetrized setting we first introduce the variable index higher-order ‘derivatives’ $$\begin{gathered}
\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} := D_{\alpha+k-1,\beta+k-1} \circ \cdots \circ D_{\alpha+1,\beta+1} \circ D_{\alpha,\beta},
\qquad k \ge 1,\end{gathered}$$ acting on functions on $(-\pi,\pi)$ or $(0,\pi)$; we set $\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(0)}:=\operatorname*{Id}$. In [@L2 Theorem A] we proved that in the non-symmetrized Jacobi function setting the Sobolev spaces $$\begin{gathered}
W_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(0,\pi) =
\big\{ h \in L^p(0,\pi) \colon \mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}h \in L^p(0,\pi), \, k=1,\ldots,m \big\}\end{gathered}$$ equipped with the norm $$\begin{gathered}
\|h\|_{W_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(0,\pi)} = \sum_{k=0}^m \big\|\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}h\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)},\end{gathered}$$ are isomorphic to the potential spaces $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(0,\pi)$. Combining this result with Proposition \[pot\] we get the following.
\[sob\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$, $p\in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $m\ge1$ be integer. Then $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $f_{\rm even}^+\in W_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(0,\pi)$ and $f_{\rm odd}^+\in W_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{p,m}(0,\pi)$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi)}\simeq
\|f_{{\rm even}}^+\|_{W_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(0,\pi)}+\|f_{{\rm odd}}^+\|_{W_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{p,m}(0,\pi)}.\end{gathered}$$
This motivates the following definition of the higher-order ‘derivatives’ $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$.
\[def\] For k=0,1,2,…, let $$\begin{gathered}
\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} f := \mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} f_{{\rm even}}
+\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)} f_{{\rm odd}}.\end{gathered}$$
Note that the ‘derivatives’ $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ are counterintuitive from the point of view of the symmetrization concept, since they do not express via compositions of the symmetrized ‘derivative’ $\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}$. Nevertheless, we have the following result.
\[thm:sob1\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$, $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $m \ge 1$ be integer. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m} = \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi)\end{gathered}$$ in the sense of isomorphism of Banach spaces.
Let $k \ge 0$. For symmetry reasons, we have $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} f\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)} f_{\textrm{even}}^+\in L^p(0,\pi)$ and $\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)} f_{\textrm{odd}}^+\in L^p(0,\pi)$. Furthermore, $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}\simeq
\big\|\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}f_{\textrm{even}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
+\big\|\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)}f_{\textrm{odd}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}.\end{gathered}$$ Thus the assertion follows from Proposition \[sob\].
In the remaining part of this section we look closer at the two already mentioned, seemingly more natural concepts of Sobolev spaces in the symmetrized setting, which in general fail to be isomorphic with the corresponding potential spaces. For $m \ge 1$ denote $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m} := \big\{ f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi) \colon \mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^k f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi), \,
k=1,\ldots,m\big\}, \\
\mathfrak{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m} := \big\{ f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi) \colon
\mathbb{D}_{\alpha+k-1,\beta+k-1} \cdots \mathbb{D}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta} f
\in L^p(-\pi,\pi),\, k=1,\ldots,m\big\},\end{gathered}$$ and equip these spaces with the natural norms.
\[prop:neg\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$ and $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$. For every ${\alpha,\beta} < 1/p-1/2$ there exists $f \in \mathcal{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1} = \mathfrak{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}$ such that $f \notin \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)$. Furthermore, if $\alpha \le -1/p+1/2$ or $\beta \le -1/p+1/2$ then there exists $g\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,2}(-\pi,\pi)$ such that $g\notin \mathfrak{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,2}$.
Let $$\begin{gathered}
f(\theta) = \operatorname{sign}(\theta)\Psi^{-\alpha-1,-\beta-1}(\theta) = \operatorname{sign}(\theta)
\left|\sin\frac{\theta}2\right|^{-\alpha-1/2}\left(\cos\frac{\theta}2\right)^{-\beta-1/2}.\end{gathered}$$ Since $f$ is odd, we have $(\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}f)^+=D_{\alpha,\beta}^*f^+$ and [@L2 formula (9)] reveals that $D_{\alpha,\beta}^*f^+$ vanishes. Therefore $f^+,D_{\alpha,\beta}^{*}f^+ \in L^p(0,\pi)$ for ${\alpha,\beta}$ in question. By symmetry it follows that $f \in \mathcal{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}$.
On the other hand, with the aid of [@L2 formula (8)] we find that $$\begin{gathered}
\big(\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(1)}f\big)^+(\theta) = \big(\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(1)}f\big)^+(\theta)
\gtrsim \theta^{-\alpha-3/2}(\pi-\theta)^{-\beta-3/2}, \qquad \theta \in (0,\pi).\end{gathered}$$ Thus $(\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(1)}f)^+ \notin L^p(0,\pi)$, in view of the assumption $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$. This implies $f \notin \mathbb{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}$. By Theorem \[thm:sob1\], $f \notin \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)$.
To prove the second claim let $$\begin{gathered}
g(\theta) = \operatorname{sign}(\theta)\Psi^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}(\theta) = \operatorname{sign}(\theta)
\left|\sin\frac{\theta}2\right|^{\alpha+3/2}\left(\cos\frac{\theta}2\right)^{\beta+3/2}.\end{gathered}$$ Since $g$ is odd, we have $\big(\mathbb{D}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}g\big)^+=D_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}D_{\alpha,\beta}^*g^+$. Using [@L2 formulas (8) and (9)] we get $$\begin{gathered}
(\mathbb{D}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}g)^+(\theta)
\gtrsim \theta^{\alpha-1/2}(\pi-\theta)^{\beta-1/2}, \qquad \theta \in (0,\pi).\end{gathered}$$ Consequently, for the assumed range of ${\alpha,\beta}$ we have that $(\mathbb{D}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}g)^+$ is not in $L^p(0,\pi)$. Therefore, by symmetry, $g\notin \mathfrak{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,2}$.
On the other hand $\big(\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(1)}g\big)^+ =
\big(\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(1)}g\big)^+=D_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}g^+ =0$, by [@L2 formula (8)]. Consequently, $\big(\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(2)}g\big)^+ =D_{\alpha+2,\beta+2}D_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}g^+ =0$. Since $g^+ \in L^p(0,\pi)$, using again the symmetry we see that $g\in \mathbb{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,2}$. This together with Theorem \[thm:sob1\] implies $g\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,2}(-\pi,\pi)$.
Although Proposition \[prop:neg\] shows that the spaces $\mathcal{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi)$ do not coincide in general, one might still wonder what the relation between them is, if any. The answer is given by the next result.
\[prop:incl\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$, $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $m \ge 1$ be integer. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi) \subset \mathcal{W}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}\end{gathered}$$ in the sense of embedding of Banach spaces.
The proof of Proposition \[prop:incl\] involves higher-order Riesz transforms of the following form. For $k \ge 1$ integer, let $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}=
\begin{cases}
\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}, & \alpha+\beta\neq-1,\\
\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}(\operatorname*{Id}+\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-k/2},& \alpha+\beta=-1.
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ Clearly, $\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k$ is well defined on $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$. But we also need to know that each $\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k$, $k \ge 1$, extends to a bounded operator on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
\[riesz\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$, $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $k\ge 1$. Then the operator $$\begin{gathered}
f\mapsto \mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k f,\qquad f\in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta},\end{gathered}$$ extends uniquely to a bounded linear operator on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
Assuming that this result holds, we now give a short proof of Proposition \[prop:incl\]. Lemma \[riesz\] will be shown subsequently.
We may assume that $\alpha+\beta \neq-1$, since treatment of the opposite case is analogous. Let $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi)$. Then $f=\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-m/2}g$ for some $g\in L^p(-\pi,\pi).$ By the $L^p$-boundedness of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-(m-k)/2}$ (see Proposition \[ogr\]) and Lemma \[riesz\], for any $0\le k\le m$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|\mathbb{D}^k_{\alpha,\beta}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} =
\big\|\mathbb{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-m/2}g\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}=
\big\|\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-(m-k)/2}g\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} \\
\hphantom{\big\|\mathbb{D}^k_{\alpha,\beta}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}}{}
\lesssim \|g\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}= \|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,m}(-\pi,\pi)},\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k$ stands for the extension provided by Lemma \[riesz\] (with the natural interpretation $\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^0=\operatorname*{Id}$). The second identity above is easily justified when $g \in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$, and then it carries over to general $g$ by continuity. The conclusion follows.
It remains to prove Lemma \[riesz\]. The argument relies on a multiplier-transplantation theorem due to Muckenhoupt [@M], see [@L2 Lemma 2.1]. Here we merely sketch the proof, leaving the details to interested readers.
Assume that $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$ (the opposite case is similar) and take $f \in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k f = -(-1)^{\langle k \rangle}
\underbrace{\cdots D_{\alpha,\beta}^*D_{\alpha,\beta}}_{k\;\textrm{components}}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}f\big)_{\textrm{even}}
+ (-1)^{\langle k \rangle} \underbrace{\cdots D_{\alpha,\beta}D_{\alpha,\beta}^*}_{k\; \textrm{components}}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}f\big)_{\textrm{odd}}.\end{gathered}$$ This is the decomposition of $\mathbb{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k f$ into its even and odd parts, respectively, or vice versa, depending on whether $k$ is even or odd. Since (see the proof of Proposition \[pot\]) $$\begin{gathered}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}f\big)_{\textrm{even}}^+ = L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2} f_{\textrm{even}}^+, \qquad
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}f\big)_{\textrm{odd}}^+ = L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-k/2} f_{\textrm{odd}}^+,\end{gathered}$$ it suffices to show the bounds $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|\underbrace{\cdots D_{\alpha,\beta}^*D_{\alpha,\beta}}_{k\;\textrm{components}} L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}h\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
\lesssim \|h\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}, \qquad h \in \operatorname{span}\big\{\phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}\colon n\ge 0\big\}, \label{b1}\\
\big\|\underbrace{\cdots D_{\alpha,\beta}D_{\alpha,\beta}^*}_{k\; \textrm{components}} L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-k/2}h\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
\lesssim \|h\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}, \qquad h \in \operatorname{span}\big\{\phi_n^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}\colon n \ge 0\big\}. \label{b2}\end{gathered}$$ Here is contained in [@L2 Proposition 4.2], since the underlying operator coincides with the Riesz transform $\mathcal{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k$ considered in [@L2]. So it remains to verify .
Taking into account [@L2 formulas (5) and (6)] one finds that $$\begin{gathered}
\underbrace{\cdots D_{\alpha,\beta}D_{\alpha,\beta}^*}_{k\; \textrm{components}} L_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{-k/2}h =
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( 1 - \frac{A_{\alpha,\beta}^2}{\lambda_{n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}}\right)^{-k/2}
\big\langle h,\phi_n^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}\big\rangle_{+}
\begin{cases}
\phi_n^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}, & k \; \textrm{even},\\
-\phi_{n+1}^{\alpha,\beta}, & k \; \textrm{odd}.
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ Now follows from a special case of Muckenhoupt’s multiplier-transplantation theorem [@L2 Lemma 2.1]; see, e.g., the proof of [@L2 Proposition 3.4].
Characterization of potential spaces\
via fractional square functions
=====================================
In this section we give necessary and sufficient conditions, expressed in terms of suitably defined fractional square functions, for a function to belong to the potential space $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$. For the sake of brevity, we restrict our main attention to the case $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$. Nevertheless, after a slight modification the result is valid also when $\alpha + \beta = -1$. This issue is discussed at the end of this section.
Let $\{\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}\colon t \ge 0\}$ be the symmetrized Poisson–Jacobi semigroup, i.e., the semigroup of operators generated by $-\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{1/2}$. In view of the spectral theorem, for $f \in L^2(-\pi,\pi)$ and $t \ge 0$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f
= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \exp\Big({-}t\sqrt{\lambda_{\langle n \rangle }^{\alpha,\beta}} \Big)
\langle f, \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta} \rangle \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta},\end{gathered}$$ the convergence being in $L^2(-\pi,\pi)$. By means of and [@L2 Estimate (1)] one verifies that for $t >0$ the above series converges in fact pointwise in $(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \{0\}$ and, moreover, may serve as a pointwise definition of $\mathbb{H}_{t}^{\alpha,\beta}f$ on $(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \{0\}$, $t > 0$, for $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, $p > p'({\alpha,\beta})$. In the latter case, the resulting function $\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f(\theta)$ is smooth in $(t,\theta) \in (0,\infty) \times [(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \{0\}]$. There is also an integral representation of $\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f$, $t >0$, for $f$ as above, but it will not be needed for our purposes.
Following Segovia and Wheeden and Betancor et al. [@betsq], see also [@L3], we consider the fractional square function $$\begin{gathered}
\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f(\theta) = \left( \int_{0}^{\infty} \left| t^{k-\gamma}
\frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k} \mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f(\theta)\right|^2 \frac{dt}t \right)^{1/2},
\qquad \theta \in (-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \{0\},\end{gathered}$$ where $0 < \gamma < k$ and $k=1,2,\ldots$. Notice that $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f$ is well defined pointwise whenever $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ and $p > p'({\alpha,\beta})$. An analogue of $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}$ was investigated in the non-symmetrized Jacobi function setting in [@L3] and denoted by $g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}$ there. Recall that $$\begin{gathered}
{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}h(\theta) = \left( \int_{0}^{\infty} \left| t^{k-\gamma}
\frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k} {H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}h(\theta)\right|^2 \frac{dt}t \right)^{1/2},
\qquad \theta \in (0,\pi),\end{gathered}$$ where $\gamma$ and $k$ are as before, and $\{H_t^{\alpha,\beta}\}$ is the Poisson–Jacobi semigroup. See [@L3] for more details on $H_t^{\alpha,\beta}$ and $g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}$.
A simple combination of Proposition \[pot\] and [@L3 Theorem 4.1] allows us to get the following description of the symmetrized potential spaces $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ in terms of the non-symmetrized square functions $g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}$.
\[sq\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$ be such that $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$ and let $p\in E({\alpha,\beta})$. Fix $0 < \gamma < k$ with $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Then $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $f \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ and $g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{{\rm even}}^+, g_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{\gamma,k}f_{{\rm odd}}^+ \in L^p(0,\pi)$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi)} \simeq
\big\|g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{{\rm even}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
+\big\|g_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{\gamma,k}f_{{\rm odd}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)},
\qquad f \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
This leads to the following characterization of the symmetrized potential spaces.
\[thm:char\] Let ${\alpha,\beta}>-1$ be such that $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$ and let $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$. Fix $0<\gamma < k$ with $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Then $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $f\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ and $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi)}\simeq
\big\|\mathfrak g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)},
\qquad f \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
Taking into account Proposition \[sq\], it suffices to show the following. Given $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$, $$\begin{gathered}
\big\| \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} \simeq
\big\|g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{\textrm{even}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)} +
\big\|g_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{\gamma,k} f_{\textrm{odd}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)},\end{gathered}$$ uniformly in $f\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, possibly with infinite values on both sides for some $f$.
To proceed, observe that $$\begin{gathered}
\big( \mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta} f_{\textrm{even}}\big)^+(\theta) =
\big( \mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f \big)_{\textrm{even}}^+(\theta) = H_t^{\alpha,\beta}f_{\textrm{even}}^+(\theta),
\qquad \theta \in (0,\pi), \label{crse} \\
\big( \mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta} f_{\textrm{odd}}\big)^+(\theta) =
\big( \mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f \big)_{\textrm{odd}}^+(\theta) = H_t^{\alpha+1,\beta+1}f_{\textrm{odd}}^+(\theta),
\qquad \theta \in (0,\pi). \label{crso}\end{gathered}$$ These identities are easily verified by means of the series representations of $\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}$ and $H_t^{\alpha,\beta}$, since the relevant series converge pointwise.
Next, we claim that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bg}
\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f(\theta) \le \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{\textrm{even}}(\theta)
+ \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k} f_{\textrm{odd}}(\theta) \le
\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f(\theta) + \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f(-\theta).\end{gathered}$$ Here the lower bound is clear, since $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}$ is sublinear. To see the upper bound, we first observe that the operators $\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}$, $t>0$, commute with reflections. It is enough to verify this on $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$. Since $\check{\Phi}_n^{\alpha,\beta} = \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ for $n$ even and $\check{\Phi}_n^{\alpha,\beta} = -\Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}$ for $n$ odd, we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta} \check{\Phi}_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta) =
\exp\Big({-}t\sqrt{\lambda_{\langle n \rangle }^{\alpha,\beta}} \Big) (-1)^n \Phi_{n}^{\alpha,\beta}(\theta)
= \exp\Big({-}t\sqrt{\lambda_{\langle n \rangle }^{\alpha,\beta}} \Big) \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}(-\theta) = \mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta} \Phi_n^{\alpha,\beta}(-\theta).\end{gathered}$$ Consequently, $\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}\check{f}(\theta) = \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f(-\theta)$. Using now the identities $f_{\textrm{even}} = (f+\check{f})/2$ and $f_{\textrm{odd}} = (f-\check{f})/2$ we arrive at the upper estimate in . The claim follows.
Using and then , , together with the symmetries of $\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f_{\textrm{even}}$ and $\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f_{\textrm{odd}}$, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\big\| \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} \simeq
\big\|\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{\textrm{even}}\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}
+ \big\|\mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{\textrm{odd}}\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} \\
\hphantom{\big\| \mathfrak{g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)} }{}
\simeq \big\|g_{\alpha,\beta}^{\gamma,k}f_{\textrm{even}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
+ \big\|g_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{\gamma,k}f_{\textrm{odd}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}.\end{gathered}$$ This finishes the proof.
In the remaining part of this section we deal with the case $\alpha + \beta = -1$, which is not covered by Theorem \[thm:char\]. Actually, only a slight modification is needed, and this is connected with the fact that for $\alpha+\beta=-1$ the potential spaces are defined via the Bessel type potentials $(\operatorname*{Id}+ \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-s/2}$. The main idea of what follows is taken from [@L3 Section 4]. Here we give only a general outline and state the relevant result. The details consist of a combination of the facts and results described at the end of [@L3 Section 4] and the arguments already used in this section. This is left to interested readers.
Consider the modified symmetrized Jacobi ‘Laplacian’ $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{\mathbb{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}:=\big(\operatorname*{Id}+ \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{1/2}\big)^2\end{gathered}$$ and the related modified Riesz type potentials $\widetilde{\mathbb{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}$. Since the spectrum of $\widetilde{\mathbb{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is separated from $0$, the latter operators are well defined spectrally. Moreover, they extend to bounded operators on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$. Since these extensions are one-to-one on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, one can define for $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$ the modified potential spaces as $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi) :=
\widetilde{\mathbb{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\big(L^p(-\pi,\pi)\big),\end{gathered}$$ with the norm $\|f\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)} := \|g\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}$, where $g$ is such that $f = \widetilde{\mathbb{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g$. These are Banach spaces, and the crucial fact is that they are isomorphic to the non-modified potential spaces $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$.
The Poisson semigroup related to $\widetilde{\mathbb{L}}_{\alpha,\beta}$ is generated by $-\operatorname*{Id}-\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{1/2}$, hence it has the form $\{e^{-t}\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}\}$. Consequently, the relevant square function is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{\mathfrak g}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\,\gamma,k}f(\theta) =\left(\int_0^{\infty}\left|t^{k-\gamma}
\frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k} \big[e^{-t}\mathbb{H}_t^{\alpha,\beta}f(\theta)\big]\right|^2\frac{dt}{t}\right)^{1/2},
\qquad \theta \in (-\pi,\pi) {\setminus} \{0\},\end{gathered}$$ where $0 < \gamma < k$ and $k=1,2,\ldots$.
The desired alternative characterization of $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ reads as follows.
\[equivfun’\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$ and $p\in E({\alpha,\beta})$. Fix $0 < \gamma < k$ with $k \in \mathbb{N}$. Then $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi)$ if and only if $f\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ and $\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\,\gamma,k}f\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$. Moreover, $$\begin{gathered}
\|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi)} \simeq
\big\|\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{\,\gamma,k}f\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)},
\qquad f\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,\gamma}(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
Structural and embedding theorems for potential spaces {#sec:struc}
======================================================
We now show some results revealing relations between the symmetrized potential spaces with different parameters and also establishing mapping properties of certain operators with respect to the potential spaces. At the end of this section we state an analogue of the classical Sobolev embedding theorem for the symmetrized potential spaces.
The results of Section \[sec:sob\] suggest the following alternative definition of Riesz transforms in the symmetrized setting. For $k \ge 1$ integer, we let $$\begin{gathered}
\mathfrak{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}=
\begin{cases}
\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}, & \alpha+\beta\neq-1,\\
\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}(\operatorname*{Id}+\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})^{-k/2},& \alpha+\beta=-1.
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$ Notice that $\mathfrak{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}$ is well defined on $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$. In the structural theorem below both $\mathfrak{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^{k}$ and $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ are understood as operators given initially on $\mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$.
\[thm:struc\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$ and $p,q \in E({\alpha,\beta})$. Assume that $s,t>0$ and $k>0$ is even.
- If $p < q$, then $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{q,s}(-\pi,\pi) \subset \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$.
- If $s < t$, then $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,t}(-\pi,\pi) \subset \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi) \subset L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
Moreover, the embeddings in $(i)$ and $(ii)$ are proper and continuous.
- $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-t/2}$ establishes an isometric isomorphism between $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s+t}(-\pi,\pi)$.
- If $k<s$, then $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ extends to a bounded operator from $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ to $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{p,s-k}(-\pi,\pi)$. Moreover, $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ extends to a bounded operator from $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,k}(-\pi,\pi)$ to $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$.
- $\mathfrak{R}_{\alpha,\beta}^k$ extends to a bounded operator from $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ to $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$.
Throughout the proof we assume $\alpha+\beta \neq -1$. The opposite case requires analogous arguments (with (iv) and (v) requiring a little bit more attention) and is left to the reader.
To justify (i) it suffices to observe that $\|\cdot\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}$ is controlled by $\|\cdot\|_{L^q(-\pi,\pi)}$ whenever $p < q$. To demonstrate (ii), let $f\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,t}(-\pi,\pi)$. Then there exists $g\in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ such that $f=\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-t/2}g$, so by Proposition \[ogr\] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{comp}
f=\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-t/2}g=\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-(t-s)/2}g
\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$ Here second identity is straightforward for $g\in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}$, and for $g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi)$ it follows by Proposition \[ogr\] and an approximation argument.
In view of the above, the inclusions in (i) and (ii) are continuous. To see that the inclusion in (i) is proper it suffices to take $f=\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g$ with some $g\in L^p(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} L^q(-\pi,\pi)$. Then obviously $f\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$. On the other hand, $f\notin \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{q,s}(-\pi,\pi)$. Indeed, otherwise there would exist $\widetilde{g}\in L^q(-\pi,\pi)$ such that $f=\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\widetilde{g}$, a contradiction with injectivity of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}$ on $L^p(-\pi,\pi)$, see Proposition \[inj\]. To prove that the inclusions in (ii) are proper we first recall that an analogous result holds in the non-symmetrized setting, see [@L3 Theorem 3.1(i)]. This means that there exist $h_1\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(0,\pi){\setminus} \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,t}(0,\pi)$ and $h_2 \in L^p(0,\pi){\setminus} \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(0,\pi)$. Let $f_1$ and $f_2$ be even extensions of $h_1$ and $h_2$, respectively, to $(-\pi,\pi)$. Then Proposition \[pot\] implies $f_1\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi){\setminus}\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,t}(-\pi,\pi)$ and $f_2\in L^p(-\pi,\pi){\setminus}\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$.
To show that (iii) holds, it suffices to observe that, see , $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-t/2} \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g = \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-(t+s)/2}g, \qquad g \in L^p(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
Proving (iv) is reduced to showing the bound $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}\lesssim\|g\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}, \qquad g \in \mathbb{S}_{\alpha,\beta}.\end{gathered}$$ Since $k$ is even, $\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}g_{\textrm{even}}$ and $\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)}g_{\textrm{odd}}$ are even and odd functions, respectively. Therefore, in view of , $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g
=\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\big)_{\textrm{e}}\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\big)_{\textrm{e}} g_{\textrm{even}}\!
+\!\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\big)_{\textrm{o}} \mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha, \beta}^{-s/2}\big)_{\textrm{o}} g_{\textrm{odd}}.\end{gathered}$$ Now recall that in the non-symmetrized setting, see [@L3 Theorem 3.1(iii)], we have $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|L_{\alpha+k,\beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}h\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
\lesssim\|h\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}, \qquad h \in S_{\alpha,\beta}.\end{gathered}$$ Using this bound and its variant with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ replaced by $\alpha+1$ and $\beta+1$, respectively, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k, \beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}
\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}g\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}\\
\simeq \big\|\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k, \beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\big)_{\textrm{e}}\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}\big)_{\textrm{e}} g_{\textrm{even}}\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}
+\big\|\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha+k, \beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\big)_{\textrm{o}}\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)}
\big(\mathbb{L}_{\alpha, \beta}^{-s/2}\big)_{\textrm{o}} g_{\textrm{odd}}\big\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)}\\
\simeq\big\|L_{\alpha+k, \beta+k}^{(s-k)/2}\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}L_{\alpha,\beta}^{-s/2}
g_{\textrm{even}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
+\big\|L_{\alpha+1+k, \beta+1+k}^{(s-k)/2}\mathfrak{d}_{\alpha+1,\beta+1}^{(k)}
L_{\alpha+1, \beta+1}^{-s/2}g_{\textrm{odd}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}\\
\lesssim \big\|g_{\textrm{even}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}
+\big\|g_{\textrm{odd}}^+\big\|_{L^p(0,\pi)}\simeq\|g\|_{L^p(-\pi,\pi)},\end{gathered}$$ as required.
Finally, (v) is a consequence of (iv) and the boundedness of $\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{-k/2}$ from $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ to $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s+k}(-\pi,\pi)$, see (iii).
Parts (iv) and (v) of Theorem \[thm:struc\], as stated, do not hold when $k$ is an odd number. Roughly speaking, this is because in such a case $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ switches symmetry of functions from even to odd and vice versa. However, a slight modification of $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ makes the statements (iv) and (v) true for all $k \ge 1$. Indeed, one easily verifies that the arguments proving (iv) and (v) go through with $\mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ replaced by $\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}$ defined by $\widetilde{\mathfrak{D}}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}f(\theta)= \operatorname{sign}^k(\theta) \mathfrak{D}_{\alpha,\beta}^{(k)}f(\theta)$.
Another interesting question is whether there are any inclusions between potential spaces with different parameters of type. It turns out that in general the answer is negative.
Let $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta>-1$ be such that $(\alpha,\beta)\neq (\gamma, \delta)$. Assume that $p \in E({\alpha,\beta}) \cap E(\gamma,\delta)$ and $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \le -1/p+1/2$. Then neither the inclusion $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)\subset
\mathcal{L}_{\gamma, \delta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)$ nor the inclusion $\mathcal{L}_{\gamma, \delta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)\subset \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)$ holds.
Take $f_1 = \Psi^{\alpha,\beta}$ and $f_2 = \Psi^{\gamma,\delta}$. With the aid of [@L2 formula (8)] one verifies that $f_1^+, f_2^+$, $D_{\alpha,\beta}f_1^+,
D_{\gamma,\delta}f_2^+\in L^p(0,\pi)$, but $D_{\alpha,\beta}f_2^+, D_{\gamma,\delta}f_1^+ \notin L^p(0,\pi)$. Thus $f_1^+\in W_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(0,\pi){\setminus} W_{\gamma,\delta}^{p,1}(0,\pi)$ and $f_2^+\in W_{\gamma,\delta}^{p,1}(0,\pi){\setminus} W_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(0,\pi)$. Since $f_1$ and $f_2$ are even functions, it follows by Proposition \[sob\] that $f_1\in\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \mathcal{L}_{\gamma,\delta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)$ and $f_2\in\mathcal{L}_{\gamma,\delta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi){\setminus} \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,1}(-\pi,\pi)$.
We finish this section with a counterpart of the classical Sobolev embedding theorem. The statement below is a direct consequence of an analogous result in the non-symmetrized situation [@L3 Theorem 3.2] and Proposition \[pot\]. We leave the details to the interested readers.
\[thm:embed\] Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$, $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$ and $1\le q < p({\alpha,\beta})$.
- If $s > 0$ is such that $1/q \ge 1/p -s$, then $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi) \subset L^q(-\pi,\pi)$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{embest}
\|f\|_{q} \lesssim \|f\|_{\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi)}, \qquad f \in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
- If ${\alpha,\beta} \ge -1/2$ and $s > 1/p$, then $\mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{p,s}(-\pi,\pi) \subset C(-\pi,\pi)$ and holds with $q=\infty$.
Sample applications of potential spaces
=======================================
The study of symmetrized potential spaces performed in the previous sections reveals that the symmetrized objects inherit many of the properties of their non-symmetrized prototypes. Furthermore, most of the proofs were based on the arguments relying on suitable decompositions of the operators into their even and odd symmetric parts. This actually reduced our problems to the non-symmetrized setup. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that both theories, symmetrized and non-symmetrized, have parallel applications. Below we present some results which illustrate the utility of the symmetrized potential spaces. The proofs combine the symmetry arguments that have already appeared in this paper with the results from [@L3 Section 5]. We leave them to the reader.
Given some initial data $f \in L^2(-\pi,\pi)$, consider the following Cauchy problem based on the symmetrized Jacobi operator: $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{cases}
\big(i\partial_t + \mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta}\big) u(\theta,t)=0, \\
u(\theta,0)=f(\theta),
\end{cases}
\qquad {\rm a.a.} \ \theta \in (-\pi,\pi),\quad t\in\mathbb{R}.\end{gathered}$$ Then $\exp(it\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})f$, understood spectrally, is a solution to this problem. The next result shows that the theory of symmetrized Jacobi potential spaces can be used to study pointwise almost everywhere convergence of this solution to the initial condition.
Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$ and $s > 1/2$. Then for each $f\in \mathcal{L}_{\alpha,\beta}^{2,s}(-\pi,\pi)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{t\rightarrow0} \exp(it\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})f(\theta)=
f(\theta) \qquad {\rm a.a.} \ \theta \in (-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
Furthermore, one can estimate a mixed norm of the solution in terms of the potential norm of the initial condition.
Let ${\alpha,\beta} > -1$ and $p \in E({\alpha,\beta})$. Assume that $q \ge 2$ and $s>0$ is such that $s \ge 3/2 + \max\{\alpha,\beta\}$ and $\alpha+\beta$ is integer. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\big\|\exp(it\mathbb{L}_{\alpha,\beta})f\big\|_{L_{\theta}^p((-\pi,\pi), L_t^q(0,2\pi))} \lesssim
\|f\|_{\mathcal L_{\alpha,\beta}^{2,s+1-2/q}(-\pi,\pi)},\qquad f\in \mathcal L_{\alpha,\beta}^{2,s+1-2/q}(-\pi,\pi).\end{gathered}$$
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
--------------
The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor Adam Nowak for indicating the topic and constant support during the preparation of this paper. Research supported by the National Science Centre of Poland, project No. 2013/09/N/ST1/04120.
[99]{}
Almeida V., Betancor J.J., Castro A.J., Sanabria A., Scotto R., Variable exponent [S]{}obolev spaces associated with [J]{}acobi expansions, [arXiv:1410.3642](http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3642).
Balderrama C., Urbina R. W.O., Fractional integration and fractional differentiation for [J]{}acobi expansions, *Divulg. Mat.* **15** (2007), 93–113.
Balderrama C., Urbina R. W.O., Fractional integration and fractional differentiation for [$d$]{}-dimensional [J]{}acobi expansions, in Special Functions and Orthogonal Polynomials, [*Contemp. Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/conm/471/09202), Vol. 471, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008, 1–14, [math.AP/0608639](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AP/0608639).
Betancor J.J., Fari[ñ]{}a J.C., Rodr[í]{}guez-Mesa L., Testoni R., Torrea J.L., A choice of [S]{}obolev spaces associated with ultraspherical expansions, [*Publ. Mat.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/PUBLMAT_54110_13) **54** (2010), 221–242.
Betancor J.J., Fari[ñ]{}a J.C., Rodr[í]{}guez-Mesa L., Testoni R., Torrea J.L., Fractional square functions and potential spaces, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2011.07.066) **386** (2012), 487–504.
Bongioanni B., Torrea J.L., Sobolev spaces associated to the harmonic oscillator, [*Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02829750) **116** (2006), 337–360, [math.CO/0608684](http://arxiv.org/abs/math.CO/0608684).
Bongioanni B., Torrea J.L., What is a [S]{}obolev space for the [L]{}aguerre function systems?, [*Studia Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.4064/sm192-2-4) **192** (2009), 147–172.
Calder[ó]{}n C.P., Urbina R. W.O., On [A]{}bel summability of [J]{}acobi polynomials series, the [W]{}atson kernel and applications, *Illinois J. Math.* **57** (2013), 343–371, [arXiv:1207.4524](http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.4524).
Castro A.J., Nowak A., Szarek T.Z., [R]{}iesz–[J]{}acobi transforms as principal value integrals, *J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*, [t]{}o appear, [arXiv:1405.7069](http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7069).
Chouchene F., Harmonic analysis associated with the [J]{}acobi–[D]{}unkl operator on [$]{-}\frac{\pi}{2},\frac{\pi}{2}[$]{}, [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2004.02.025) **178** (2005), 75–89.
Ciaurri [Ó]{}., Roncal L., Stinga P.R., Fractional integrals on compact [R]{}iemannian symmetric spaces of rank one, [*Adv. Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2012.12.009) **235** (2013), 627–647, [arXiv:1205.3957](http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3957).
Ciaurri [Ó]{}., Roncal L., Stinga P.R., Riesz transforms on compact Riemannian symmetric spaces of rank one, [*Milan J. Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00032-015-0244-z), [t]{}o appear, [arXiv:1308.6507](http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.6507).
Graczyk P., Loeb J.J., L[ó]{}pez P. I.A., Nowak A., Urbina R. W.O., Higher order [R]{}iesz transforms, fractional derivatives, and [S]{}obolev spaces for [L]{}aguerre expansions, [*J. Math. Pures Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpur.2004.09.003) **84** (2005), 375–405.
Koornwinder T.H., Bouzeffour F., Non-symmetric Askey–Wilson polynomials as vector-valued polynomials, [*Appl. Anal.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036811.2010.502117) **90** (2011), 731–746, [arXiv:1006.1140](http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1140).
Langowski B., Harmonic analysis operators related to symmetrized [J]{}acobi expansions, [*Acta Math. Hungar.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10474-013-0297-9) **140** (2013), 248–292, [arXiv:1210.1342](http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1342).
Langowski B., Sobolev spaces associated with [J]{}acobi expansions, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.06.063) **420** (2014), 1533–1551, [arXiv:1312.7285](http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.7285).
Langowski B., On potential spaces related to [J]{}acobi expansions, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2015.06.058) **432** (2015), 374–397, [arXiv:1410.6635](http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.6635).
Muckenhoupt B., Transplantation theorems and multiplier theorems for [J]{}acobi series, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/memo/0356) **64** (1986), iv+86 pages.
Nowak A., Roncal L., Potential operators associated with [J]{}acobi and [F]{}ourier–[B]{}essel expansions, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2014.08.023) **422** (2015), 148–184, [arXiv:1212.6342](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.6342).
Nowak A., Sj[ö]{}gren P., Riesz transforms for [J]{}acobi expansions, [*J. Anal. Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11854-008-0027-3) **104** (2008), 341–369, [arXiv:0802.2369](http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2369).
Nowak A., Sj[ö]{}gren P., Calderón–[Z]{}ygmund operators related to [J]{}acobi expansions, [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00041-012-9217-6) **18** (2012), 717–749, [arXiv:1011.3615](http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3615).
Nowak A., Sj[ö]{}gren P., Sharp estimates of the [J]{}acobi heat kernel, [*Studia Math.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.4064/sm218-3-2) **218** (2013), 219–244, [arXiv:1111.3145](http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3145).
Nowak A., Sj[ö]{}gren P., Szarek T.Z., Analysis related to all admissible type parameters in the [J]{}acobi setting, [*Constr. Approx.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00365-015-9275-5) **41** (2015), 185–218, [arXiv:1211.3270](http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3270).
Nowak A., Stempak K., [$L^2$]{}-theory of [R]{}iesz transforms for orthogonal expansions, [*J. Fourier Anal. Appl.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00041-006-6034-9) **12** (2006), 675–711.
Nowak A., Stempak K., A symmetrized conjugacy scheme for orthogonal expansions, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0308210511000217) **143** (2013), 427–443, [arXiv:1009.1767](http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1767).
Radha R., Thangavelu S., Multipliers for [H]{}ermite and [L]{}aguerre [S]{}obolev spaces, *J. Anal.* **12** (2004), 183–191.
Segovia C., Wheeden R.L., On certain fractional area integrals, [*J. Math. Mech.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1512/iumj.1970.19.19023) **19** (1970), 247–262.
Stempak K., Jacobi conjugate expansions, [*Studia Sci. Math. Hungar.*](http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/SScMath.2006.1003) **44** (2007), 117–130.
Szeg[ő]{} G., Orthogonal polynomials, *American Mathematical Society, Colloquium Publications*, Vol. 23, 4th ed., Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1975.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Inferring the nature of disorder in the media where elastic objects are nucleated is of crucial importance for many applications but remains a challenging basic-science problem. Here we propose a method to discern whether weak-point or strong-correlated disorder dominates based on characterizing the distribution of the interaction forces between objects mapped in large fields-of-view. We illustrate our proposal with the case-study system of vortex structures nucleated in type-II superconductors with different pinning landscapes. Interaction force distributions are computed from individual vortex positions imaged in thousands-vortices fields-of-view in a two-orders-of-magnitude-wide vortex-density range. Vortex structures nucleated in point-disordered media present Gaussian distributions of the interaction force components. In contrast, if the media have dilute and randomly-distributed correlated disorder, these distributions present non-Gaussian algebraically-decaying tails for large force magnitudes. We propose that detecting this deviation from the Gaussian behavior is a fingerprint of strong disorder, in our case originated from a dilute distribution of correlated pinning centers.'
author:
- Jazmín Aragón Sánchez
- Gonzalo Rumi
- Raúl Cortés Maldonado
- Néstor René Cejas Bolecek
- Joaquín Puig
- Pablo Pedrazzini
- Gladys Nieva
- 'Moira I. Dolz'
- Marcin Konczykowski
- 'Cornelis J. van der Beek'
- 'Alejandro B. Kolton'
- 'Yanina Fasano$^{*}$'
title: 'Non-Gaussian tail in the force distribution: A hallmark of correlated disorder in the host media of elastic objects'
---
Elastic objects nucleated and driven in disordered media represent an ubiquitous situation in nature, covering diverse fields of research such as defect and crack nucleation and propagation in materials, [@Moretti2004; @Ponson2017] domain wall dynamics, [@Brazovskii2004; @Ferre2013; @Paruch2013] charge density waves, [@Brazovskii2004; @Gruner1988] photonic solids, [@Man2013] randomly-packed objects, [@Kurita2011] magnetic bubbles nucleated in substrates, [@Kulikova2016] colloidal spheres, [@Murray1990] to avalanches in magnets [@Urbach1995] and vortex matter in superconductors. [@Blatter1994; @Giamarchi1995; @Natterman2000] The physical properties of these systems with different types of particle-particle interaction has been the subject of a wide and interdisciplinary field of research. [@Brazovskii2004; @Ferre2013; @Paruch2013; @Gruner1988; @Man2013; @Kurita2011; @Kulikova2016; @Murray1990; @Urbach1995; @Blatter1994; @Giamarchi1995; @Natterman2000; @LeDoussal2009; @Fasano2005; @Wu2009; @Guyonnet2012; @Dreyfus2015; @Weijs2015] Knowledge on the nature of disorder in the host media is of crucial importance for many applications but in most cases requires potentially destructive micro-structural characterization. Inferring the nature of disorder via a non-invasive approach relying on information from physical properties of the elastic objects remains an open problem.
Research on vortex matter nucleated in type-II superconductors has shed light on the structural properties of elastic objects nucleated in media with different types of disorder. [@Leghisa1993; @Dai1994; @Harada1996; @Bezryadin1996; @Troyanovski1999; @Fasano1999; @Fasano1999b; @Fasano2000; @Grigorenko2001; @Surdeanu2001; @Silevitch2001; @Field2002; @Fasano2002; @Menghini2003; @vanBael2003; @Fasano2003; @Veauvy2004; @Karapetrov2005; @Bjornsson2005; @Yurchenko2006; @Fischer2007; @Fasano2008; @Petrovic2009; @Suderow2014; @AragonSanchez2019; @Rumi2019; @Llorens2020] A handful of works study the spatial distribution of particle-particle interaction forces to get information on the vortex-disorder interaction. [@Demirdis2011; @Yang2012; @vanderBeek2012; @Demirdis2013; @Yaguil2016; @CejasBolecek2016; @AragonSanchez2019b] Superconducting vortices are repulsively-interacting elastic lines but, due to the pressure exerted by the applied field, they tend to form a hexagonal lattice with a spacing $a_{0}$ tuned by the magnetic induction $B$, namely $a_{0} \propto B^{-1/2}$. In addition, vortices are pinned by disorder, structural defects naturally present or introduced in the host superconducting samples. As in many systems of interacting elastic objects, the structural properties of vortex matter result from the balance between thermal, particle-particle and particle-disorder interaction energies. Many theoretical and experimental studies describe the structural deviations from a perfect hexagonal vortex lattice induced by different pinning landscapes. [@Blatter1994; @Leghisa1993; @Dai1994; @Harada1996; @Bezryadin1996; @Troyanovski1999; @Fasano1999; @Fasano1999b; @Fasano2000; @Grigorenko2001; @Surdeanu2001; @Silevitch2001; @Field2002; @Fasano2002; @Menghini2003; @vanBael2003; @Fasano2003; @Veauvy2004; @Karapetrov2005; @Bjornsson2005; @Yurchenko2006; @Fischer2007; @Fasano2008; @Petrovic2009; @Suderow2014; @AragonSanchez2019; @Rumi2019; @Llorens2020; @Fisher1991; @Nelson1993; @Giamarchi1997; @Civale1997; @Fedirko2018] Correlation function and structure factor studies have been performed in order to characterize the structure of the different glassy phases stabilized by disorder with different geometrical properties, including randomly-distributed point pins [@Petrovic2009; @AragonSanchez2019; @Rumi2019] and correlated defects, [@Leghisa1993; @Dai1994; @CejasBolecek2016] as well as periodic distributions of pinning sites. [@Fasano2005] Recently, some studies focusing on characterizing long [@Rumi2019; @Llorens2020b] or short-range [@Llorens2020] vortex density fluctuations obtained contrasting results for samples with point or correlated disorder, see the discussion in Supplementary Note 1. From the perspective of technological applications, having information on the nature and distribution of disorder in a given sample is crucial since correlated in addition to point-like disorder is more efficient to pin vortices and thus to enhance the material critical current. [@Blatter1994]
{width="2\columnwidth"}
With the aim of inferring the nature of disorder in the host medium from physical properties of the elastic objects, in this work we follow a novel approach and study the inhomogeneous spatial distribution of the particle-particle interaction force in extended fields-of-view. Previous works by some of us combined the study of interaction energy and force maps to infer information on the typical separation between strong point disorder in pnictide superconductors. [@Demirdis2011; @vanderBeek2012; @Demirdis2013] But here we go beyond that and study the more general problem of discerning whether the host medium presents point or correlated disorder. In this work, our case-study elastic system is the vortex matter nucleated in the layered high-$T_{\rm c}$ superconductor Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$. We study samples with different types of pinning landscapes representative of different classes of randomly distributed disorder: Naturally occurring weak and dense *point* pins in pristine samples, extra moderate and dense *point* pins generated by electron irradiation, and columnar-defects (CD) responsible for *correlated* pinning. In the latter case, the pinning centers are columns of crystallographic defects generated via heavy-ion irradiation, that traverse the whole sample thickness and are distributed at random in the plane perpendicular to the direction of vortices. We study samples with dilute and dense distributions of correlated disorder quantified by the matching field $B_{\Phi}=N_{CD} \cdot \Phi_{0}$ proportional to the number of CD per unit area, $N_{CD}$, and the magnetic flux quantum $\Phi_{0}=2.07 \cdot 10^{-7}$G$\,\cdot\,$cm$^2$. Our samples with diluted CD disorder have $B_{\Phi}= 30, 45$ and $100$G, whereas a sample with a larger $B_{\Phi}= 5000$G is also studied.
In the ideal case of mechanical equilibrium, for a static configuration of vortices at a fixed temperature, the vortex-vortex (i.e. the particle-particle) interaction force is compensated by the vortex-pinning interaction. Therefore, the spatial distribution of particle-particle interaction force allows for the estimation of local pinning forces at the temperature at which the snapshot was captured. [@Demirdis2011; @Yang2012; @vanderBeek2012; @Demirdis2013; @Yaguil2016; @CejasBolecek2016; @AragonSanchez2019b] In our experiments we obtain these snapshots by decorating vortex positions with magnetic nanoparticles after following a field-cooling procedure (see Methods for technical details). Even though the snapshots are taken at 4.2K, the vortex structure observed by means of magnetic decoration is frozen at temperature $T_{\rm freez}>>4.2$K given by disorder inhibiting vortex motion at lengthscales larger than the vortex spacing. [@Pardo1997; @CejasBolecek2016] Once $T_{\rm freez}$ for a given host medium is determined (see the Supplementary Note 2 for details on how we measure the field-evolution of $T_{\rm
freez}$), the particle-particle interaction force per unit length for a given vortex $i$ with the rest of the $j$-th vortices of the structure can be computed as [@Blatter1994]
$$\mathbf{f}_{\rm i}(\mathbf{r_{i}})=\frac{2\epsilon_0}{\lambda(T_{\rm freez})} \sum_{j}
\frac{\mathbf{r}_{\rm ij}}{r_{\rm ij}} K_{1}\left( \frac{r_{\rm ij}}{\lambda(T_{\rm freez})}\right)
\label{fuerzaeq}$$
This expression is valid for superconductors with large $\kappa=\lambda/\xi$ values as Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$, with $\lambda$ the in-plane penetration depth and $\xi$ the coherence length, and in the low vortex density range $a_{0} \gg
\lambda$ covered in our experiments. The magnitudes in Eq.\[fuerzaeq\] stand for: $\mathbf{r}_{\rm i}$ the location of vortex $i$; $\mathbf{r}_{\rm ij}$ the vector separation between vortices $i$ and $j$; $\epsilon_{0}= (\Phi_{0}/4\pi\lambda_{\rm
ab}(T_{\rm freez}))^2$ an energy scale proportional to the vortex line energy and $K_{1}$ the first-order modified Bessel function. [@Blatter1994] The sum runs for all vortices in the sample but, for the low-density vortex structures studied here, the contribution from vortices separated more than $\sim 10 a_{0}$ is negligible.
Maps of $\mathbf{f}_{\rm i}(\mathbf{r_{i}})$ depicting its spatial variation can be obtained from digitalizing vortex positions in magnetic decoration snapshots as those shown in Fig.\[fig:Figure1\]. These images correspond to zooms on structures of $\sim 7000$ vortices nucleated at 60G in media with point (top panels) and correlated CD disorder (bottom panels). In the former case the vortex structure has long-range orientational hexagonal order and there are no apparent short-scale density fluctuations. In contrast, the vortex structure nucleated in the medium with correlated disorder presents noticeable degradation of the hexagonal symmetry and strong short-scale vortex density fluctuations, with a tendency to clustering at some particular locations. Nevertheless, even if the density of vortices in Figs.\[fig:Figure1\](c) and (d) is equal to the global density of randomly distributed CD ($B_{\Phi}=30$G), not every vortex is located on top of a correlated defect. This last assertion is proved in detail in the Supplementary Note 3. Thus, the vortex clustering observed in samples with dilute correlated disorder is connected to the spatial distribution of CD’s, but the structure imaged in the entire field-of-view does not mimic the random Poissonian distribution of these correlated pins. Therefore, characterizing the spatial distribution of vortices at densities $B/B_{\Phi}=1$ is not an unambiguous way to ascertain whether the dominant disorder in the medium is point or correlated.
This contrast between the short-scale density-variation of vortex structures nucleated in point- and correlated-disordered media is systematically found in larger field-of-view images, irrespective of the vortex density. Indeed, at a given vortex density, the spatially inhomogeneous distribution of first-neighbor distances $a$, is larger for dilute correlated than for point disorder. The Supplementary Note 4 presents the magnetic field dependence of the standard deviation $SD$ of $a$ normalized by the mean lattice spacing $a_{0}$ for all studied samples. As discussed there, despite this quantitative difference in $SD/a_{0}$, the value and field-evolution of this magnitude is not a qualitative indicator of disorder being point or correlated in nature. At best, values of $SD/a_{0}>0.2$ might be taken as a hint that in this particular vortex system the medium presents dilute correlated random disorder.
The panels (b) and (d) of Fig.\[fig:Figure1\] also present superimposed Delaunay triangulations that join first-neighbors with blue lines. [@Fasano2005] Topological defects formed by non-sixfold coordinated vortices are highlighted in red. These images are representative of results found in larger fields-of-view. An analysis on the density of non-sixfold coordinated vortices, $\rho_{\rm def}$, in each type of medium reveals that for this vortex density the structure nucleated in point disorder is single-crystalline whereas the one nucleated in correlated disorder is amorphous. However, at smaller vortex densities the $\rho_{\rm
def}$ enhances and even reaches similar values in structures nucleated in point- and correlated-disordered media, see Supplementary Note 4 for details. Then the value of $\rho_{\rm def}$ is neither a good candidate for distinguishing between point and correlated disorder.
![Pair correlation functions of vortex structures nucleated in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ samples with point (pristine and electron irradiated) and CD correlated (heavy-ion irradiated) disorder. Results at two different vortex densities of (a) 8 and (b) 68G. The legend shows the color-code used for the different medium studied in both panels. Inset at the top: pair correlation function for a perfect hexagonal structure (black delta functions) and widening of the peaks due to random fluctuations around the sites of a perfect lattice (red curve).[]{data-label="fig:Figure2"}](Figure2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="2\columnwidth"}
Another possible path to reach this ascertainment might be to study the pair correlation function $g(r)$ at different particle-to-pinning sites density-ratio. This function describes how the density of particles varies as a function of distance from a reference point. For a structure with mean lattice spacing $a_0$, the $g(r)$ quantifies the probability of finding a particle at a given distance $r/a_0$ from the origin, averaging this probability when considering every particle of the structure at the origin. This is therefore an angular-averaged probability that gives information on short- and intermediate-distance vortex density variations since $g(r) \to 1$ for $r$ larger than some units of $a_{0}$. In the extreme cases of an ideal gas, $g(r)$ has a value of 1 independently of $r/a_0$, and for a perfect lattice presents delta functions at distances corresponding to first neighbors, second neighbors, and so on. The particular geometry of the lattice gives the $r/a_0$ values at which these peaks are observed, see for instance the inset of Fig.\[fig:Figure2\](a) for the case of a perfect hexagonal structure. Disorder in the host sample shortens the positional order of the structure and then induce a widening of these delta functions.
Figure\[fig:Figure2\] shows the $g(r)$ for vortex structures nucleated at two different vortex densities of 8 and 68G, in three classes of disordered medium. In the case of point disorder, at the lower vortex density of 8G, $g(r)$ is quite similar for structures nucleated in pristine and electron-irradiated samples. However, on increasing field, sharper peaks are developed in the case of pristine samples, see Fig.\[fig:Figure2\] (b). On enhancing field there is a systematic increase of the number of peaks observed in $g(r)$ for structures nucleated in both types of point-disordered media, in accordance with vortex-vortex interaction becoming more relevant with $B$. For a given vortex density, the $g(r)$ for structures nucleated in samples with point disorder presents several sharp peaks in contrast to a lesser number of peaks detected for structures nucleated in a medium with correlated disorder. This washing out of the peaks produced by correlated disorder suggests in this medium pinning dominates over vortex-vortex interaction and produces a substantial enhancement of the displacement of particles with respect to the sites of a perfect hexagonal lattice even at distances as short as $r/a_0\sim 2$. However, using the number of peaks detected in $g(r)$ and its sharpness seems not a categorical criterion to determine whether disorder in the medium is dominated by point or correlated pins. For instance, for the 68G structure nucleated in a sample with correlated disorder ($B_{\Phi}=30$G), three peaks in $g(r)$ are clearly distinguished, a phenomenology also observed in samples with point pins at low vortex densities.
We pursue our search of an unambiguous indicator in the physical properties of the elastic structure for distinguishing correlated from point disorder in the medium, by finding a magnitude that should have a qualitatively different behavior for both types of disorder. This property might be a particular feature of the statistic distribution of the locally-varying particle-particle interaction force that entails information on the short-scale density fluctuations induced by disorder in the media. With this aim we map the vortex-vortex interaction force $\mathbf{f}_{\rm
i}(\mathbf{r_{i}})$ in extended fields-of-view following the expression of Eq.\[fuerzaeq\]. Maps of the modulus of the local force, $|f_{\rm i}|$, are shown in Fig.\[fig:Figure3\] for the structures presented in Figs.\[fig:Figure1\], and also for vortex lattices nucleated in samples with extra point disorder. In all cases the vortex density corresponds to $B=30$G. There is no noticeable spatial pattern in the $|f_{\rm i}|$ maps of vortex structures nucleated in samples with point disorder, see panes (a) and (c). On the other hand, clusters of bordeaux vortices with larger modulus of the interaction force are distinguished in the case of the correlated disordered medium, see panel (b). These regions correspond to areas in which the vortices are closer than in the rest of the structure, presumably induced by a locally denser concentration of CD distributed at random in the sample. The mean of the local values of $|f_{\rm i}|$, $|f|_{\rm mean}$, is plotted in Fig.\[fig:Figure3\] (d) as a function of field and for all the studied media. The values of $|f|_{\rm mean}$, a good estimate of the average pinning force, [@Demirdis2011; @Demirdis2013] are always larger in vortex structures nucleated in samples with strong correlated than with weak point disorder: Globally between 30 to 50% larger, and at high fields even reach a value 300% larger for the particular sample with $B_{\Phi}=100$G. The case of a medium with a dense distribution of CD ( $B_{\Phi}=5000$G sample) is rather special since the $|f|_{\rm mean}$ values are close to those of samples with point disorder at low fields. However, at large $B$ the $|f|_{\rm mean}$ curve for the $B_{\Phi}=5000$G sample enhances significantly and tends towards the values found in the case of dilute correlated disorder. Then, due to their relative quantitative nature, this global magnitude is not appropriate to ascertain the degree of correlation of the pinning sites.
{width="1.9\columnwidth"}
To grasp on this issue, we rely on magnitudes that significantly depend on the local variations of vortex density that are presumably larger and more inhomogeneous in the case of correlated disorder. These magnitudes are the in-plane components of the interaction force, $f_{x}$ and $f_{y}$, that we also map in extended fields-of-view. Examples of the probability density functions (PDF’s) for both components are shown in Fig.\[fig:Figure4\] for structures nucleated in samples with point and dilute correlated CD disorder ($B_{\Phi}=30\,$G in this case). These data are some examples of the more than 50 cases studied covering vortex densities between 4 and 140G and samples that are pristine, that have extra point and dilute or dense correlated CD disorder. In all our experimental data, the mode values of the PDF’s of $|f_{\rm i}|$ are finite (since the observed structures are far from being a perfect hexagonal one), but the mode values of the PDF’s of the force components are equal to zero since the positive and negative $x$ and $y$ directions of space are equivalent. Higher values of the components of the particle-particle force enhance their probability of occurrence on increasing $B$ since vortices get closer to each other, irrespective of the type of disorder of the host medium.
Nevertheless, the right panels of Fig.\[fig:Figure4\] show a scaling of the data that highlight that the shape of the PDF for large $f_{x,y}$ values is different for point than for dilute correlated disorder. This scaling is made by dividing the force components by a factor $K_{1}(a_{0}/\lambda(T_{\rm
freez}))/\lambda(T_{\rm freez})^{3}$ proportional to the average interaction force for each studied field in a given material. While for point disorder all curves collapse in a single trend, that is not the case for dilute correlated disorder in the large-force range. In the latter case, the tails of the scaled distributions do not overlap and become narrower on increasing field, see Fig.\[fig:Figure4\] (f). Going back to the non-scaled data shown in the left panels, the PDF’s for structures nucleated in a medium with point disorder fit a Gaussian distribution function $(1/\sigma_{\rm G})\cdot \exp(-x^2/2\sigma_{\rm G}^2)$, see full lines in (a) and (b). In contrast, Fig.\[fig:Figure4\] (c) shows that for dilute correlated CD disorder a fit to the PDF’s with a Gaussian function (for the whole force range) only follows the experimental data in the low-force range. In the large-force range, the experimental data decay at a slower pace and non-Gaussian tails are observed. This is clearly observed in the example shown in the inset to this figure for the 18G vortex density. These non-Gaussian tails become wider at low vortex densities, i.e. the Gaussian fit is gradually underestimating the experimental data on decreasing $B$. This finding is also observed in the scaled-PDF’s of Fig.\[fig:Figure4\] (f).
![Probability density functions (PDF’s) of the vortex-vortex interaction force components as a function of $f_{x}^2$ (full points) and $f_{y}^2$ (open points) for densities of (a) 8 and (b) 68G for structures nucleated in samples with point and correlated disorder with different CD densities. Fits to the data with Gaussian functions (full lines) and with an algebraic decay $\propto f_{x,y}^{-3}$ (black-dashed on top of color lines) are presented. Insets: Detail of the 8G structure nucleated in a sample with correlated disorder ($B_{\Phi}=30$G). Left: PDF data plotted as a function of $f_{x,y}^2$ with Gaussian fit in full line and algebraic fit in black-dashed on top of color line. Right: Data plotted as a function of $f_{x,y}^3$ and the same algebraic function shown in the left inset.[]{data-label="fig:Figure5"}](Figure5.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure\[fig:Figure5\] shows a different representation of some examples of the studied cases including data in samples with point and correlated CD disorder with different $B_{\Phi}$, both dilute and dense. Panel (a) of this figure shows PDF data at a density of 8G and panel (b) shows data at 68G for all the studied media. The data are plotted in a log-linear scale as a function of $f_{x,y}^{2}$, a representation that puts in evidence that when the host media present point disorder, the PDF’s of the force components follow a Gaussian distribution, irrespective of the vortex density. The same figure shows that for a medium with diluted CD disorder the PDF’s of the force components follow a Gaussian function only in the small-force range. However, in the range of intermediate- and large-force components, the PDF’s plotted as a function of $f_{x,y}^{2}$ in log-linear scale do not follow the apparent linear behavior. This is clearly illustrated in the left inset to Fig.\[fig:Figure5\] (a) showing the example of the 8G data for a sample with $B_{\Phi}= 30$G: Data departs from linearity (full line) at intermediate values of the force components and its decay is slower within the large-force range. In this force-range where the non-Gaussian tails develop, the PDF’s are well described by the algebraic decay $\propto f_{x,y}^{-3}$, see for instance the apparent straight-line fit shown on the right insert in a log-linear representation as a function of $f_{x,y}^{3}$. This behavior is found for all the vortex structures nucleated in samples with dilute correlated disorder irrespective of the vortex density, but the force component value at which the departure from the Gaussian behavior starts increases with $B$. Data for the structures nucleated in $B_{\Phi}=5000$G samples is again special: The PDF’s of $f_{x,y}$ follow an apparent linear evolution with $f_{x,y}^2$ on log-linear representation, irrespective of the vortex density up to 100G (see for instance the pink data shown in Figs.\[fig:Figure5\] (a) and (b)). Then, for a medium with dense correlated disorder the distributions of the force components are Gaussian as in the case of a host sample with weak and dense point disorder. This finding suggests that, in a more general perspective, Gaussian tails are expected for the PDF’s of the vortex-vortex force when pinning is in the weak limit (as is the case in the $B_{\Phi}=5000$G samples [@vanderBeek2000]) in contrast to the algebraic tails detected in the case of dilute correlated disorder producing a strong pinning. Data on superconducting samples with strong point pins could allow to study this implication in the future.
The non-Gaussian tails observed in the PDF’s of the vortex-vortex force components originate in closely-located vortices, corresponding to the cluster-like regions observed in samples with dilute CD correlated disorder, see Fig.\[fig:Figure1\] and the bordeaux vortices in the force maps of Fig.\[fig:Figure3\]. On the contrary, in the case of point and dense correlated disordered media no tendency to vortex clustering is observed and this might be at the origin of the PDF’s of the force components being well fitted by a Gaussian function in the whole force range. Indeed, a closer look to the pair distribution function of Fig.\[fig:Figure2\] for $r/a_{0} < 1$ reveals that the probability of finding vortices at very small distances $\sim 0.3-0.8\, r/a_{0}$ is larger in the case of correlated disorder than of point disorder.
In an attempt to explain how the spatial distribution of the particle-particle interaction force entails the different short-scale density variations in point and correlated disordered media, we examine the force distribution that would be expected from model spatial configurations. In general, the probability distribution of any of the components of the interaction force between a given pair of vortices, $p(f^{pair}_{x})$, relates to the probability density $p'(r,\theta)$ of finding one vortex at the origin and another at a position $(r, \theta)$ (polar coordinates) by the expression $$p(f^{pair}_{x})=\int_0^\infty \int_0^{2\pi}p'(r, \theta)\delta(f^{pair}_{x}-\mathit{F}(r)\cos(\theta)) r d\theta
dr,
\label{Primera}$$ where $\mathit{F}(r) \propto K_{1}(r/\lambda_{\rm
ab}(T_{\rm freez}))$ is the interaction force between any pair of vortices separated a distance $r$. Note that this pair-force is not the same as the component $f_x$ in Eq.\[fuerzaeq\], obtained as the sum of the interactions of one vortex with the rest. Nevertheless, we expect that $p(f_{x}) \approx
p(f^{pair}_{x}=f_{x})$ in the limit of large $f_x$, as large forces arise from few very close neighbors. Therefore, both distributions should have tails with the same shape. While the number of vortex pairs contributing to the tails of $p(f_x)$ is small, the behavior of $p(f_x)$ at small $f_x$ is controlled by a large number pair-forces proportional to $\sim (d/a_0)^2$, with $d$ roughly the size of the field-of-view. Since short-range correlations are expected for most of these finite variance contributions, we can invoke the central limit theorem to assert that $p(f_x)$ presents a Gaussian shape around $f_x=0$. Then this explains why, regardless of the type of disorder, the PDF’s of $f_{x,y}$ follow a Gaussian behavior in the low force range, see data on Figs.\[fig:Figure4\] and \[fig:Figure5\].
![(a) Probability density functions (PDF’s) of the component of the interaction force between pairs of vortices, $f^{pair}_{x}$, for the vortex structures nucleated in samples with point (black and navy points) and dilute correlated CD (violet points) disorder with $B_{\Phi}=30$G. All the data correspond to a vortex density of 30G. The analytical $1/f_{x}^3$ result for a toy-model structure with a non-vanishing $g(r) \approx
\mathit{F}(r)/(r/a_{0})^2$ at small distances (such as a vortex arrangement following a random Poissonian spatial distribution) is shown with a black line. (a) Normalized cumulative distribution function of the distance between vortices in a pair, $\mathit{F}(r)/(r/a_{0})^{2}$, for the smallest detected $r/a_{0}$ values for the same vortex structures studied in panel (a). The threshold to resolve individual vortices with our implementation of the magnetic decoration technique, $\sim
\lambda(4.2\,$K$)/a_{0}$, is indicated with a red dashed line. Color-coded arrows located at the bottom indicate the $r/a_{0}$ values corresponding to the smallest detected distance between vortices in a pair in the whole field-of-view. []{data-label="fig:Figure6"}](Figure6.pdf){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Let us now focus on the tails of the force distribution and consider the rather general fluid-like case of having an isotropic vortex distribution. In this particular case, $p'(r, \theta) = 2\pi g(r)$ and integrating Eq.\[Primera\] over $\theta$ we get $$p(f^{pair}_{x})=\int_0^{\mathit{F}^{-1}(f^{pair}_{x})}
\frac{4\pi r g(r)}{\mathit{F}(r)\sqrt{1-(f^{pair}_{x}/\mathit{F}(r))^2}}dr
\label{Segunda}$$ where $\mathit{F}^{-1}$ represents the inverse function of $\mathit{F}$. Since $\mathit{F}$ decreases monotonically with $r$, it is therefore invertible, and then the integration limit is uniquely defined. In order to analytically estimate the tails in the $p(f^{pair}_{x})$ distributions, we consider the infinite family of pair correlation functions that rise as $g(r) \sim r^{\alpha}$ for $r \ll a_0$, with $\alpha \geq
0$ a characteristic exponent. In addition, we consider that $\mathit{F}^{-1}(f) \sim 1/f$ for large $f$ since $\mathit{F}(r) \propto K_1(r/\lambda) \sim 1/r$ for $r \sim \lambda \ll a_0$. With these assumptions, Eq.(\[Segunda\]) can be integrated to obtain $$p(f^{pair}_{x}) \propto [f^{pair}_{x}]^{-(3+\alpha)}
\frac{\Gamma \left(\frac{a}{2}+1\right)}{\Gamma \left(\frac{a+3}{2}\right)},
\label{Tercera}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the Gamma function. We hence conclude that for large forces $p(f_{x}=f) \sim p(f^{pair=f}_{x}) \propto
1/|f|^{(3+\alpha)}$ (using the equivalence of the tails of the PDF’s at large $f$). In particular, for a Poissonian ideal gas-like distribution of particles we have $g(r)=1$ and then $\alpha=0$. The prediction for this case is then $p(f_{x}=f) \sim p(f^{pair}_{x}=f)
\propto 1/f^{3}$. This result is however more general, as the same result holds for any isotropic particle distribution with a non-zero $g(r)$ at the smallest observable vortex-vortex distance. Most often, for normal fluids with strong repulsive interactions, for $r \ll a_{0}$ $g(r)$ rises slower than any power law. In this case, we can interpret that $\alpha=\infty$ effectively and then that $p(f_{x}) \sim p(f^{pair}_{x})$ decays faster than a power-law for large forces. Although these predictions are for large $f_x$ it is important to keep in mind that they should be valid if $f_x<\mathit{F}(r_{min})$, where $r_{min}$ is a cut-off distance. This cut-off distance is given by the experimental resolution to resolve individual vortices. In magnetic decorations, $r_{min} \sim \lambda(T)$, with $T$ the temperature at which the experiment is performed.
We now check the theoretical predictions described above by comparing with our experimental data of the PDF’s of $f^{pair}_{x}$ for structures nucleated at 30G in samples with point (pristine and electron irradiated) and dilute correlated CD ($B_{\Phi}=30$G) disorders, see Fig.\[fig:Figure6\] (a). The black curve corresponds to the analytical $1/f^3$ result found for a Poissonian toy-model structure with a non-vanishing $g(r) \approx F(r)/r^2=cte$ for $r \ll a_{0}$. The figure reveals that the vortex structure nucleated in a medium with dilute correlated disorder displays a fair $1/(f^{pair}_{x})^3$ power-law decay. In contrast, structures nucleated in pristine and extra point disordered media display both a faster than power-law decay at large $f^{pair}_{x}$. These findings are in agreement with the tails of the PDF’s of the vortex-vortex interaction force components shown in Fig.\[fig:Figure4\]. This confirms the assumption that the PDF’s of $f^{pair}_{x}$ and $f_{x,y}$ share the same rare events statistics.
To test further the connection between the PDF’s of the forces and the distribution of distances between vortices forming a pair ($g(r)$), we compute the cumulative distribution of such distance, $\mathit{F}(r)\equiv \int_0^r dr'\;2\pi r' g(r')$, for the smallest $r/a_{0}$ values detected experimentally. In order to avoid spurious data binning effects for this rare events statistics, we exploit the fact that the exact $\mathit{F}(r)$ can be directly obtained from the data. To do this we first sort all vortex-vortex distances from the smallest to the largest and use them as the horizontal coordinate. We thus obtain the exact $\mathit{F}(r)$ for the discrete data-set by computing the order-number divided by the total number of vortex pairs. If we now model the rising $g(r)\sim r^{\alpha}$, we have $\mathit{F}(r)\sim r^{2+\alpha}$. Therefore, $\mathit{F}(r)/(r/a_{0})^2 \sim (r/a_{0})^\alpha$ gives us access to the effective exponent $\alpha$ which also controls the decay of the PDF’s of the interaction force. Figure \[fig:Figure6\](b) shows $\mathit{F}(r)/(r/a_{0})^2$ for the 30G vortex structures nucleated in media with weak point and dilute strong correlated disorder. In the latter case, the cumulative distribution of distances between vortices in a pair displays an almost flat behavior down to the minimum value of this magnitude detected experimentally (indicated with a violet arrow). Moreover, no tendency to a steep decrease of $\mathit{F}(r)/(r/a_{0})^2$ is observed on decreasing $r/a_{0}$. This means that $\alpha=0$ effectively, in fair consistence with the $1/(f_{x,y})^3$ force distribution tails detected in structures nucleated in samples with dilute correlated disorder. On the other hand, for structures nucleated in point disordered media, $\mathit{F}(r)/(r/a_{0})^2$ displays a faster-than-algebraic decay on decreasing $r/a_{0}$, with a faster decay for the sample with extra point disorder than for the pristine one. In both cases the minimum value of distance between vortices in a pair observed in the entire field-of-view is well above the experimental resolution, indicating that $\alpha=\infty$ effectively. The prediction for point disordered media is then a faster than algebraic decay of the force distributions, in agreement with the Gaussian-shaped PDF’s observed experimentally.
In summary, we present an alternative way on inferring the nature of the dominant disorder present in the media where elastic objects are nucleated based on the analysis of physical properties of the interacting elastic objects that can be computed from direct imaging of the structures in fields-of-view containing a statistically meaningful number of particles. We illustrate our proposal using experimental data on vortex lattices in superconducting materials as a case-study system. We analyze the statistical distribution of the disorder-induced spatially-varying particle-particle interaction force and found a behavior distinctive for strong dilute correlated as opposed to weak point-like disorder. We show that detecting non-Gaussian algebraically-decaying tails in the PDF of the components of the interaction forces acting on individual vortices is a smoking gun proof of the randomly distributed disorder, in our case dominated by dilute correlated defects acting as strong pinning centers. This result contrasts with the Gaussian PDF’s of the force components for structures nucleated in media with point or very dense correlated disorder. By considering a toy-model system we explain that the non-Gaussian tails result from inhomogeneous short-scale vortex density fluctuations associated to the tendency of clustering in some patches of the structure. Whether our method is effective to distinguish between the host media presenting strong or weak disorder in a more general perspective remains as an interesting open question for further investigations. Nevertheless, our proposal is a very promising way of inferring the nature of disorder in the host media of elastic objects from physical properties of the structures directly imaged. Its applications can be easily spanned to a wide range of soft condensed matter systems in which distinguishing the nature of disorder might be crucial for technological applications.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
The studied samples are nearly optimally-doped single crystals of Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ from different sample growers, with natural and introduced defects distributed at random. We studied a set of roughly 40 samples grown by means of the traveling-solvent-floating-zone [@Li1994] and flux methods and having $T_{\rm c} \sim 90$K. [@Correa2001]. While some of these samples were kept pristine, others were exposed to different doses and types of irradiation. One underdoped sample was irradiated with electrons with an energy of $2.3$MeV and a dose of $1.7 \cdot
10^{19}$e/cm$^2$ at the École Polytechnique, France. The induced damage by this irradiation resulted in extra point disorder, reduced the critical temperature of the sample down to 66K, and raised $\lambda$ by roughly 30$\%$. [@Konczykowski2009] Correlated CD disorder was generated by irradiating other pristine Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ samples with heavy-ions at the GANIL facility in France. Some samples were irradiated with 6GeV Pb-ions at corresponding matching fields of $\mathrm{B}_{\Phi}=45$, 100 and $5000$G, and others with 5GeV Xe-ions with $\mathrm{B}_{\Phi}=30$G. Heavy-ion irradiation produced a random poissonian distribution of CD parallel to the c-axis of the sample. In these samples there was a negligible depression of the critical temperature and no significant change in the value of $\lambda(0)$. [@vanderBeek2000]
Snapshots of the vortex structure at the surface of the sample are obtained by performing magnetic decoration experiments at 4.2K after a field-cooling process.[@Fasano2008] During this process the vortex structure gets frozen at length-scales of the lattice parameter $a_0$ at a temperature $T_{\mathrm{freez}}$ and on further cooling down 4.2K vortices move in lengthscales of the order $\xi$, much smaller than the typical size of a vortex detected by magnetic decoration, of the order of $\lambda$. Therefore the structure imaged in such magnetic decoration experiments corresponds to the equilibrium one at $T_{\rm{freez}}$. At this crossover temperature the bulk pinning dominates over the vortex-vortex repulsion and the thermal fluctuations. [@Pardo1997; @Fasano1999] Then $T_{\rm{freez}}$ depends not only on the superconducting material but also on the particular pinning landscape and the magnetic induction $B$. We estimate $T_{\rm freez}$ as of the order of the irreversibility temperature $T_{\mathrm{irr}}$ at which bulk pinning sets in on cooling.
In order to obtain $T_{\rm irr}(B)\sim T_{\rm freez}$ for each particular sample, we measure the irreversibility line by means of local Hall probe magnetometry using micrometric Hall sensors with active areas of $16 \times 16$$\mu$m$^{2}$. [@Dolz2014] The irreversibility temperature is taken at the onset of the non-linear magnetic response due to the growing relevance of bulk pinning on cooling. This onset is detected by measuring the vortex magnetic response to an ac ripple field superimposed to the external static magnetic field $H$, both parallel to the c-axis of the sample. [@Dolz2014] By applying a lock-in technique, the response of the sample at the third harmonic of the excitation field is recorded as a function of temperature and normalized as to obtain the transmittivity $\mid T_{\rm h3} \mid$. This magnitude is zero in the normal state and starts to have a finite value on cooling at the temperature at which pinning sets in, namely $T_{\rm
irr}(B)$. [@Dolz2014; @Dolz2015; @CejasBolecek2016] Measurements were typically performed with a ripple field of 1Oe and 7.1Hz.
Data availability {#data-availability .unnumbered}
=================
All relevant data are available from the authors upon request.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the ECOS-Sud-MINCyt France-Argentina bilateral program under Grant A14E02; by the Argentinean National Science Foundation (ANPCyT) under Grants PRH-PICT 2008-294, PICT 2011-1537, PICT 2014-1265 and PICT 2017-2182; by the Universidad Nacional de Cuyo research grants 06/C566-2019 and 80020160200046UN-2016; and by Graduate Research fellowships from IB-CNEA for J. P. and from CONICET for J. A. S., R. C. M., G. R. and N. R. C. B. We thank to M. Li for growing some of the studied pristine single crystals and V. Moser for providing us the Hall sensors.
Author contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
Y. F. designed research; C.J. v.d.B, Y. F. , and A. K discussed the general method to analyze the data, J. A. S., R. C. M., Y. F., N. R. C. B., G. R., J. P., P. P., M. I. D. and M. K. performed measurements, G. N. grew pristine samples, M. K. and C. J. v. d. B irradiated samples; J. A. S., R. C. M., N. R. C. B., G. R., J. P., P. P., A. B. K. and Y. F. analyzed data; G. R. and A. B. K. performed theoretical calculations; Y. F., A. B. K., J. A. S. and G. R. wrote the paper.
Competing interests {#competing-interests .unnumbered}
===================
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Materials and correspondence {#materials-and-correspondence .unnumbered}
============================
^\*^To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: yanina.fasano at cab.cnea.gov.ar
[99]{}
Moretti, P., Miguel, M.C., Zaiser, M. & Zapperi, S. , Depinning transition of dislocation assemblies: Pileups and low-angle grain boundaries, Phys. Rev. B **69**, 214103 (2004).
Ponson, L. & Pindra, N., Crack propagation through disordered materials as a depinning transition: A critical test of the theory, Phys. Rev. E **95** , 053004 (2017).
Brazovskii, S. & Nattermann, T., Pinning and sliding of driven elastic systems: from domain walls to charge density waves, Adv. Phys. **53**, 177 (2004).
Ferré, J., Metaxas, P. J., Mougina, A., Jameta, J-P., Gorchon, J. & Jeudy, V., Universal magnetic domain wall dynamics in the presence of weak disorder, C. R. Physique **8**, 651 (2013).
Paruch, P. & Guyonnet, J., Nanoscale studies of ferroelectric domain walls as pinned elastic interfaces, C. R. Physique **14**, 667 (2013).
Gruner, G., The dynamics of charge-density waves, Rev. Mod. Phys. **60**, 1129 (1988).
Man, W., Florescu, M., Williamson, E. P., He, Y., Hashemizad, S. R., Leung, B. Y. C., Liner, D. R., Torquato, S., Chaikin, P. M., & Steinhardt, P. J., Isotropic band gaps and freeform waveguides observed in hyperuniform disordered photonic solids, Proceed. Nat. Acad. Sci. **110**, 15886 (2013).
Kurita, R. & Weeks, E. R., Incompressibility of polydisperse random-close-packed colloidal particles, Phys. Rev. E **84**, 030401(R) (2011).
Kulikova, D. P., Pyatako, A. P., Nikolaeva, E. P., Sergeev, A. S., Kosykh, T. B., Pyatakova, Z. A., Nikolaev, A. V. & Zvezdin, A. K. Nucleation of Magnetic Bubble Domains in Iron Garnet Films by Means of an Electric Probe, JETP Lett. **104** 197 (2016).
Murray, C. A., Sprenger, W. O. & Wenk, R. A., Comparison of melting in three and two dimensions: Microscopy of colloidal spheres, Phys. Rev. B **42**, 688 (1990).
Urbach, J. S., Madison, R. C. & Markert, J.T., Interface Depinning, Self-Organized Criticality, and the Barkhausen Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. **75**, 276 (1995).
Blatter, G., Feigel’man, M. V., Geshkenbein, V. B., Larkin, A. I. & Vinokur, V. M., Vortices in high-temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. **66**, 1125 (1994).
Giamarchi, T. & Le Doussal, P., Elastic theory of flux lattices in the presence of weak disorder, Phys. Rev. B **52**, 1242 (1995).
Nattermann, T. & Scheidl, S., Vortex-glass phases in type-II superconductors, Adv. Phys. **49**, 607 (2000).
Le Doussal, P. & Wiese, K., Driven particle in a random landscape: disorder correlator, avalanche distribution and extreme value statistics of records, Phys. Rev. E **79**, 051105 (2009).
Guyonnet, J., Agoritsas, E., Bustingorry, S., Giamarchi, T. & Paruch, P., Multiscaling Analysis of Ferroelectric Domain Wall Roughness, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 147601 (2012).
Fasano, Y., De Seta, M., Menghini, M. Pastoriza, H. & de la Cruz, F., Commensurability and stability in nonperiodic systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **102**, 3898 (2005).
Wu, Y. L., Derks, D., van Blaaderen, A. & Imhof, A., Melting and crystallization of colloidal hard-sphere suspensions under shear, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. **106**, 10564 (2009).
Dreyfus, R., Xu, Y., Still, T., Hough, L. A., Yodh, A. G. & Torquato, S., Diagnosing hyperuniformity in two-dimensional, disordered, jammed packings of soft spheres, Phys. Rev. E **91**, 012302 (2015).
Weijs, J. H., Jeanneret, R., Dreyfus, R. & Bartolo, D., Emergent Hyperuniformity in Periodically Driven Emulsions, Phys. Rev. Lett. **115**, 108301 (2015).
Leghissa, M., Gurevich, L. A., Kraus, M., Saemann-Ischenko, G. & Vinnikov, L. Y., Observation of a disordered vortex state in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ single crystals containing columnar defects, Phys. Rev. B **48**, 1341 (1993).
Dai, H., Yoon, S., Liu, J., Budhani, R. C. & Lieber, C. M., Simultaneous Observation of Columnar Defects and Magnetic Flux Lines in High-Temperature Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8}$ Superconductors, Science **265**, 1552 (1994).
Harada, K., Kamimura, O., Kasai, H., Matsuda, T., Tonomura, A. & Moshchalkov, V. V., Direct Observation of Vortex Dynamics in Superconducting Films with Regular Arrays of Defects, Science **274**, 1167 (1996).
Bezryadin, A., Ovchinnikov, Y. N. & Pannetier, B., Nucleation of vortices inside open and blind microholes, Phys. Rev. B **53**, 8553 (1996).
Troyanovski, A. M., Aarts, J. & Kes, P. H., Collective and plastic vortex motion in superconductors at high flux densities, Nature **399**, 665 (1999).
Fasano, Y., Herbsommer, J. A., de la Cruz, F., Pardo, F., Gammel, P. L., Bucher, E. & Bishop, D.J., Observation of periodic vortex pinning induced by Bitter decoration, Phys. Rev. B **60**, 15047 (1999).
Fasano, Y., Herbsommer, J. A. & de la Cruz, F., Superficial Periodic Pinning Induced by Bitter Decoration Applied to the Study of Vortex Structure Nucleation and Growth, Phys. Stat. Sol. (b) **215**, 563 (1999).
Fasano, Y., Menghini, M., De la Cruz, F. & Nieva, G., Weak interaction and matching conditions for replicas of vortex lattices, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 15183 (2000).
Grigorenko, A. N., Howells, G. D., Bending, S. J., Bekaert, J., Van Bael, M. J., Van Look, L., Moshchalkov, V. V., Bruynseraede, Y., Borghs, G., Kaya, I. I. & Stradling, R. A., Direct imaging of commensurate vortex structures in ordered antidot arrays, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 052504 (2001).
Surdeanu, R., Wijngaarden, R. J., Griessen, R., Einfeld, J. & Wördenweber, R., Visualization of novel flux dynamics in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7 -x}$ thin films with antidots, Europhys. Lett. **54**, 682 (2001).
Silevitch, D. M., Reich, D. H., Chien, C. L., Field, S. B. & Shtrikman, H., Imaging and magnetotransport in superconductor/magnetic dot arrays, Journal App. Phys. **89**, 7478 (2001).
Field, S. B., James, S. S., Barentine, J., Metlushko, V., Crabtree, G., Shtrikman, H., Ilic, B. & Brueck, S. R. J., Vortex Configurations, Matching, and Domain Structure in Large Arrays of Artificial Pinning Centers, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 067003 (2002).
Menghini, M., Fasano, Y. & de la Cruz, F., Critical current and topology of the supercooled vortex state in NbSe$_2$, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 064510 (2002).
Menghini, M., Fasano, Y., de la Cruz, F., Banerjee, S. S., Myasoedov, Y., Zeldov, E., van der Beek, C. J., Konczykowski, M. & Tamegai, T., First-Order Phase Transition from the Vortex Liquid to an Amorphous Solid, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 147001 (2003).
Van Bael, M. J., Lange, M., Raedts, S., Moshchalkov, V. V., Grigorenko, A. N., & Bending, S. J. , Local visualization of asymmetric flux pinning by magnetic dots with perpendicular magnetization, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 014509 (2003).
Fasano, Y., De Seta,M., Menghini, M., Pastoriza, H., & de la Cruz, F., Imaging the structure of the interface between symmetries interconnected by a discontinuous transition, Solid State Comm. **128**, 51 (2003).
Veauvy, C., Hasselbach, K., & Mailly, D. , Micro-SQUID microscopy of vortices in a perforated superconducting Al film, Phys. Rev. B **70**, 214513 (2004).
Karapetrov, G., Fedor, J., Iavarone, M., Rosenmann, D. & Kwok, W. K., Direct Observation of Geometrical Phase Transitions in Mesoscopic Superconductors by Scanning Tunneling Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 167002 (2005).
Björnsson, P. G., Maeno, Y., Huber, M. E. & Moler, K. A., Scanning magnetic imaging of Sr$_2$RuO$_4$, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 012504 (2005).
Yurchenko, V. V., Wördenweber, R., Galperin, Y. M., Shantsev, D. V., Vestgå rden, J. I., & Johansen, T. H., Magneto-optical imaging of magnetic flux patterns in superconducting films with antidotes, Phys. C, **437-438**, 357 (2006).
Fischer, Ø., Kugler, M., Maggio-Aprile, I., Berthod, C. & Renner, Ch., Scanning tunneling spectroscopy of high-temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. **79**, 353 (2007).
Fasano, Y. & Menghini, M., Magnetic-decoration imaging of structural transitions induced in vortex matter, Supercond. Sci. Tech. **21**, 023001 (2008).
Petrovic, A. P., Fasano, Y., Lortz, R., Senatore, C., Demuer, A., Antunes, A. B., Paré, A., Salloum, D., Gougeon, P., Potel, M. & Fischer, Ø., Real-Space Vortex Glass Imaging and the Vortex Phase Diagram of SnMo$_6$S$_8$, Phys. Rev. Lett. **103**, 257001 (2009).
Suderow, H., Guillamón, I., Rodrigo, J. G. & Vieira, S., Imaging superconducting vortex cores and lattices with a scanning tunneling microscope, Supercond. Sci. Tech. **27**, 063001 (2014).
Aragón Sánchez, J., Cortés Maldonado, R., Cejas Bolecek, N. R., Rumi, G., Pedrazzini, P., Dolz, M. I., Nieva, G., van der Beek, C. J., Konczykowski, M., Dewhurst, Ch. D., Cubbit, R., Kolton, A., Pautrat, A. & Fasano, Y., Unveiling the vortex glass phase in the surface and volume of a type-II superconductor, Comm. Phys. **2**, 143 (2019).
Rumi, G., Aragón Sánchez, J., Elías, F., Cortés Maldonado, R., Puig, J., Cejas Bolecek, N. R., Nieva, G., Konczykowski, M., Fasano, Y. & Kolton, A. B., Hyperuniform vortex patterns at the surface of type-II superconductors, Phys. Rev. Res. **1**, 033057 (2019).
Llorens, J. B., Embon, L., Correa, A., González, J. D., Herrera, E., Guillamón, I., Luccas, R. F., Azpeitia, J., Mompeán, F. J., García-Hernández, M., Munuera, C., Aragón Sánchez, J., Fasano, Y., Miloševic, M. V., Suderow, H. & Anahory, Y., Observation of a gel of quantum vortices in a superconductor at very low magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. Res. **2**, 013329 (2020).
Demirdis, S., van der Beek, C. J., Fasano, Y., Cejas Bolecek, N. R., Pastoriza, H., Colson, D. & Rullier-Albenque, F., Strong pinning and vortex energy distributions in single-crystalline Ba(Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$)$_2$As$_2$, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 094517 (2011).
Yang,H., Shen, B., Wang, Z., Shan, L., Ren, C. & Wen, H.-H., Vortex images on Ba$_{1-x}$K$_{x}$Fe$_2$As$_2$ observed directly by magnetic force microscopy, Phys. Rev. B **85**, 014524 (2012).
van der Beek, C. J., Demirdis, S., Konczykowski, M., Fasano, Y., Cejas Bolecek, N. R., Pastoriza, H., Colson, D. & Rullier-Albenque, F., Vortex pinning: A probe for nanoscale disorder in iron-based superconductors, Phys. B **407**, 1746 (2012).
Demirdis, S., Fasano, Y., Kasahara, S., Terashima, T., Shibauchi, T., Matsuda, Y., Konczykowski, M., Pastoriza, H. & van der Beek, C. J., Disorder, critical currents, and vortex pinning energies in isovalently substituted BaFe$_2$(As$_{1-x}$P$_x$)$_2$, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 094506 (2013).
Yagil, A., Lamhot, Y., Almoalem, A., Kasahara, S., Watashige, T., Shibauchi, T., Matsuda, Y. & Auslaender, O. M., Diamagnetic vortex barrier stripes in underdoped BaFe$_{2}$(As$_{1-x}$P$_{x}$)$_{2}$, Phys. Rev. B **94**, 064510 (2016).
Cejas Bolecek, N. R., Kolton, A. B., Konczykowski, M., Pastoriza, H., Domínguez, D. & Fasano, Y., Vortex matter freezing in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_8$ samples with a very dense distribution of columnar defects, Phys. Rev. B **93**, 054505 (2016).
Aragón Sánchez, J., Cortés Maldonado, R., Dolz, M. I., CejasBolecek, N. R., van der Beek, C. J., Konczykowski, M. & Fasano, Y., Direct visualization of local interaction forces in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+d}$ vortex matter, Materials Today: Proceedings **14**, 34 (2019).
Fisher, D. S., Fisher, M. P. A. & Huse, D. A., Thermal fluctuations, quenched disorder, phase transitions, and transport in type-II superconductors, Phys. Rev. **43**, 130 (1991).
Nelson, D. R. & Vinokur, V. M., Boson localization and correlated pinning of superconducting vortex arrays, Phys. Rev. B **48**, 13060 (1993).
Giamarchi, T. & Le Doussal, P., Elastic theory of flux lattices in the presence of weak disorder, Phys. Rev. B **55**, 6577 (1997).
Civale, L., Vortex pinning and creep in high-temperature superconductors with columnar defects, Supercond. Sci. Technol. **10**, A11 (1997).
Fedirko, V. A., Kasatkin, A. L. & Polyakov, S. V., Vortex Escape from Columnar Defect in a Current-Loaded Superconductor, J. Low Temp. Phys **192**, 359 (2018).
Llorens, J. B. , Guillamón, I., García-Serrano, I., Córdoba, R., Sesé, J., De Teresa, J. M., Ibarra, M. R., Vieira, S., Ortuño, M. & H. Suderow, Disordered hyperuniformity in superconducting vortex lattices, arXiv:2002.10506 (2020).
Pardo, F., Mackenzie, A. P., de la Cruz, F. & Guimpel, J., Effect of the reversibility region on the low-temperature vortex structure imaged by Bitter magnetic decoration, Phys. Rev. B **55**, 14610 (1997).
Li, T. W., Kes, P. H., Hien, N. T., Franse, J. J. M. & Menovsky, A. A., Growth of Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+ x}$ single crystals at different oxygen ambient pressures, J. Cryst. Growth 135, 481 (1994).
Correa, V. F., Kaul, E. E. & Nieva, G., Overdoping effects in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+ x}$: From electromagnetic to Josephson interlayer coupling, Phys. Rev. B **63**, 172505 (2001).
Konczykowski, M., van der Beek, C. J., Koshelev, A. E., Mosser, V., Li, M. & Kes, P. H., Vortex matter in Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+ x}$ with pointlike disorder, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. **150**, 052119 (2009).
van der Beek, C. J., Konczykowski, M., Drost, R. J., Kes, P. H., Chikumoto, N. & Bouffard, S., Entropy, vortex interactions, and the phase diagram of heavy-ion-irradiated Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+ x}$, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 4259 (2000).
Dolz, M. I., Fasano, Y., Pastoriza, H., Mosser, V., Li, M. & Konczykowski, M., Latent heat and nonlinear vortex liquid in the vicinity of the first-order phase transition in layered high-$T_c$ superconductors, Phys. Rev. B **90** (14), 144507.
Dolz, M. I. , Pedrazzini, P., Fasano, Y., Pastoriza, H., & Konczykowski, M., Effect of quenched disorder in the entropy-jump at the first-order vortex phase transition of Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+ d}$, J. Low Temp. Phys., **179**, 28 (2015).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Small-amplitude waves in the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam (FPU) lattice with weakly anharmonic interaction potentials are described by the generalized Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) equation. Justification of the small-amplitude approximation is usually performed on the time scale, for which dynamics of the KdV equation is defined. We show how to extend justification analysis on longer time intervals provided dynamics of the generalized KdV equation is globally well-posed in Sobolev spaces and either the Sobolev norms are globally bounded or they grow at most polynomially. The time intervals are extended respectively by the logarithmic or double logarithmic factors in terms of the small amplitude parameter. Controlling the approximation error on longer time intervals allows us to deduce nonlinear metastability of small FPU solitary waves from orbital stability of the KdV solitary waves.'
author:
- |
Amjad Khan$^{1}$ and Dmitry Pelinovsky$^{2}$\
[$^{1}$ Department of Applied Mathematics, Western University, London, ON, Canada, N6A 3K7]{}\
[$^{2}$ Department of Mathematics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1]{}
title: '**Long-time stability of small FPU solitary waves**'
---
Introduction
============
In this work, we address an open question from [@DumaPel] on how to deduce nonlinear metastability or instability of small Fermi–Pasta–Ulam (FPU) solitary waves from orbital stability or instability of the Korteweg–de Vries (KdV) solitary waves. Let us consider dynamics of the FPU lattice given by Newton’s equations of motion: $$\label{FPU}
\ddot{x}_n = V'(x_{n+1} - x_n) - V'(x_n - x_{n-1}),
\quad n \in \mathbb{Z},$$ where $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}$ is a function of the time $t\in\mathbb{R}$, with values in $\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{Z}}$, the dot denotes the time derivative, and the interaction potential $V$ is smooth. The coordinate $x_n$ corresponds to the displacement of the $n$-th particle in a one-dimensional chain from its equilibrium position. The potential $V$ for anharmonic interactions of particles is taken in the form $$\label{interaction}
V(u) = \frac{1}{2} u^2 + \frac{\epsilon^2}{p+1} u^{p+1},$$ where $p {\geqslant}2$ is integer and the strength of anharmonicity $\epsilon$ can be introduced by the scaling transformation. The FPU lattice equations (\[FPU\]) can be rewritten in the strain variables $u_n := x_{n+1}-x_n$ as follows $$\label{FPUlattice}
\ddot{u}_n = V'(u_{n+1}) - 2 V'(u_n) + V'(u_{n-1}),
\quad n \in \mathbb{Z}.$$ Using the well-known asymptotic multi-scale expansion [@BP06; @Pego; @SW00], $$\label{ansatz-KdV}
u_n(t) = W(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3 t) + {\rm error \;\; terms},$$ yields the generalized KdV equation for the leading-order approximation $W$ given by $$\label{genKdV}
2 W_{\tau} + \frac{1}{12} W_{\xi \xi \xi} + (W^p)_{\xi} = 0, \quad \xi \in \mathbb{R},$$ where $\tau = \epsilon^3 t$ and $\xi = \epsilon (n-t)$.
Local well-posedness of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) in Sobolev spaces $H^s(\mathbb{R})$ is known from the works of Kato [@Kato1; @Kato2] for $s > \frac{3}{2}$ and Kenig–Ponce–Vega [@KPV1; @KPV2] for $s {\geqslant}s_p$, where $$s_{p=2} = \frac{3}{4}, \quad s_{p=3} = \frac{1}{4}, \quad s_{p = 4} = \frac{1}{12}, \quad
s_{p {\geqslant}5} = \frac{p-5}{2(p-1)}.$$ For any local solution $W \in C([-\tau_0,\tau_0],H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ of the KdV equation with $s {\geqslant}6$ and $\tau_0 > 0$, the error terms in the asymptotic multi-scale expansion (\[ansatz-KdV\]) can be controlled as follows. There exist positive constants $\epsilon_0$ and $C_0$ such that, for all $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0)$, when initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{R})$ satisfy $$\label{bound-initial-time}
\| u_{\rm in} - W(\epsilon \cdot,0) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}_{\rm in} + \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon \cdot,0) \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}\epsilon^{3/2},$$ the unique solution $(u,\dot{u})$ to the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]) with initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in})$ belongs to $C^1([-\tau_0\epsilon^{-3},\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3}],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ and satisfies $$\label{bound-final-time}
\| u(t) - W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}(t) + \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t) \|_{\ell^2}
{\leqslant}C_0 \epsilon^{3/2}, \quad t \in \left[-\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3},\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3}\right].$$ The proof of this result is based on the energy estimates and Gronwall’s inequality [@BP06; @Pego; @SW00].
Bound (\[bound-final-time\]) suggests that small-amplitude FPU solitary waves are metastable or unstable if the KdV solitary waves are orbitally stable or unstable. Indeed, the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) is known to have orbitally stable solitary waves for $p = 2,3,4$ and orbitally unstable solitary waves for $p {\geqslant}5$ [@PW1]. However, this simple and widely accepted analogy appears in apparent contradiction with the energy arguments found in [@DumaPel] suggesting unconditional metastability of small-amplitude FPU solitary waves on the time scale of $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3})$.
The metastability result from [@DumaPel] can be formulated as follows. Let us denote the traveling-wave solutions of the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]) by $u_{\rm trav}$. Then, for every $\tau_0 > 0$, there exist positive constants $\epsilon_0$, $\delta_0$ and $C_0$ such that, for all $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0)$, when initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{R})$ satisfy $$\label{bound-initial}
\delta := \| u_{\rm in} - u_{\rm trav}(0) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}_{\rm in} - \dot{u}_{\rm trav}(0) \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}\delta_0,$$ the unique solution $(u,\dot{u})$ to the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]) with initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in})$ belongs to $C^1([-\tau_0\epsilon^{-3},\tau_0\epsilon^{-3}],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ and satisfies $$\label{bound-final}
\| u(t) - u_{\rm trav}(t) \|_{l^2} +
\| \dot{u}(t) - \dot{u}_{\rm trav}(t) \|_{l^2}
{\leqslant}C_0 \delta, \quad t \in \left[-\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3},\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3}\right].$$ Similarly to the bound (\[bound-final-time\]), the bound (\[bound-final\]) is also proved with the energy estimates and Gronwall’s inequality complemented with the asymptotic scaling of small-amplitude FPU traveling waves $u_{\rm trav}$ near the KdV solitary waves [@DumaPel]. Nevertheless, the initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in})$ can be modulated on any spatial scale.
Bound (\[bound-final\]) suggests unconditional metastability of small-amplitude FPU solitary waves up to the time scale of $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3})$ for every $p {\geqslant}2$. This may be viewed as a contradiction with the bound (\[bound-final-time\]) that suggests instability of small-amplitude FPU solitary waves at the time scale of $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3})$ for $p {\geqslant}5$ because the corresponding KdV solitary waves are unstable for $p {\geqslant}5$ [@PW1].
Of course, no contradiction arises because the energy methods used in the proof of the upper bounds on the approximation errors (\[bound-final-time\]) and (\[bound-final\]) yield constants $C_0$ that grow exponentially in time $\tau_0$, that is, on the time scale of $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^{-3})$. As a result, the exponential divergence of the constant $C_0$ cannot be distinguished from the exponential instability of the KdV solitary waves in the case $p {\geqslant}5$. However, this observation also shows that the bound (\[bound-final\]) is not a reliable evidence to conclude on metastability of the small-amplitude FPU solitary waves in the case of $p = 2,3,4$.
Nonlinear stability of small-amplitude FPU solitary waves in the case of the classical KdV equation with $p = 2$ was studied in the series of papers by Friesecke & Pego [@Pego] based on the orbital and asymptotic stability of the KdV solitons [@PW2]. Similarly, asymptotic stability of several solitary waves was studied by Mizumachi [@miz1; @miz2] and Benes, Hoffmann & Wayne [@HW1; @HW2] also in the case $p = 2$. Derivation and analysis of small-amplitude FPU solitary waves were recently generalized for polyatomic FPU lattices in [@GMWZ].
In the present work, we extend the bound (\[bound-final-time\]) on the approximation error to longer time intervals provided dynamics of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) is globally well-posed in Sobolev spaces and either the Sobolev norms are globally bounded or they grow at most polynomially.
For the integrable cases $p = 2$ and $p = 3$, a uniform bound on the $H^s(\mathbb{R})$ norms for any $s \in \mathbb{N}$ can be obtained from conserved quantities of the KdV and modified KdV hierarchies [@Nguenn; @Gardner]. For the non-integrable case $p = 4$, the global solution is controlled in $H^1(\mathbb{R})$ by using the energy conservation, while the $H^s(\mathbb{R})$ norms with $s {\geqslant}2$ can grow at most polynomially. In particular, it was proved by Staffilani [@Staf] that for any $s {\geqslant}2$, there exists a constant $C_s$ such that the unique solution of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) with $p = 4$ satisfies $$\label{growth-norm}
\| W(\tau) \|_{H^s} {\leqslant}C_s |\tau|^{s-1} \quad \mbox{\rm as} \quad |\tau| \to \infty.$$ Global solutions to the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) with $p {\geqslant}5$ exist and scatter to zero [@KPV2] if the $H^{s_p}(\mathbb{R})$ norm of initial data is small, where $$\label{s-p}
s_p = \frac{p-5}{2(p-1)}, \quad p {\geqslant}5.$$ For the global solutions scattering to zero in the case $p {\geqslant}5$, the $H^1(\mathbb{R})$ norm is again controlled by the energy conservation [@KPV2], and the polynomial bound (\[growth-norm\]) holds [@Staf].
The following theorems extend the bound (\[bound-final-time\]) on the approximation error to longer time intervals. The two cases have to be considered separately, depending whether the $H^s(\mathbb{R})$ norm of the KdV solution is globally bounded or may grow at most polynomially.
\[theorem-justification-1\] Let $W \in C(\mathbb{R},H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ be a global solution to the generalized KdV equation with either $p = 2$ or $p = 3$ for some integer $s {\geqslant}6$. For fixed $r \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{2} \right)$, there exist positive constants $\epsilon_0$, $C$, and $K$ such that, for all $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0)$, when initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{R})$ satisfy $$\label{bound-initial-time-1}
\| u_{\rm in} - W(\epsilon \cdot,0) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}_{\rm in} + \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon \cdot,0) \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}\epsilon^{3/2},$$ the unique solution $(u,\dot{u})$ to the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]) with initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in})$ belongs to $$C^1([-t_0(\epsilon),t_0(\epsilon)],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$$ with $t_0(\epsilon) := r K^{-1} \epsilon^{-3} |\log(\epsilon)|$ and satisfies $$\label{bound-final-time-1}
\| u(t) - W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}(t) + \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t) \|_{\ell^2}
{\leqslant}C \epsilon^{3/2-r}, \quad t \in \left[-t_0(\epsilon),t_0(\epsilon)\right].$$
\[theorem-justification-2\] Let $W \in C(\mathbb{R},H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ be a global solution to the generalized KdV equation with either $p = 4$ or $p {\geqslant}5$ and small $\| W(0) \|_{H^{s_p}}$, for some integer $s {\geqslant}6$. For fixed $r \in \left( 0, \frac{1}{2} \right)$, there exist positive constants $\epsilon_0$, $C$, and $K$ such that, for all $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0)$, when initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{R})$ satisfy $$\label{bound-initial-time-2}
\| u_{\rm in} - W(\epsilon \cdot,0) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}_{\rm in} + \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon \cdot,0) \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}\epsilon^{3/2},$$ the unique solution $(u,\dot{u})$ to the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]) with initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in})$ belongs to $$C^1([-t_0(\epsilon),t_0(\epsilon)],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$$ with $t_0(\epsilon) := (2 p K)^{-1} \epsilon^{-3} \log\left( r |\log(\epsilon)| \right)$ and satisfies $$\label{bound-final-time-2}
\| u(t) - W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t) \|_{\ell^2} +
\| \dot{u}(t) + \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t) \|_{\ell^2}
{\leqslant}C \epsilon^{3/2-r}, \quad t \in \left[-t_0(\epsilon),t_0(\epsilon)\right].$$
We note that the final time of the dynamics of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) given by $\tau_0(\epsilon) := \epsilon^3 t_0(\epsilon)$ depends on $\epsilon$ and satisfies $\tau_0(\epsilon) \to \infty$ as $\epsilon \to 0$ both in Theorems \[theorem-justification-1\] and \[theorem-justification-2\]. Bounds (\[bound-final-time-1\]) and (\[bound-final-time-2\]) allow us to deduce nonlinear metastability of small FPU solitary waves in the solution $(u,\dot{u})$ from orbital stability of the KdV solitary waves in the solution $W$ to the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]). In particular, solitary waves of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) are orbitally stable for $p = 2,3,4$, and so are small-amplitude FPU solitary waves on long but finite time intervals.
Solitary waves of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) are unstable for $p {\geqslant}5$ and the class of global solutions considered in Theorem \[theorem-justification-2\] for $p {\geqslant}5$ excludes solitary waves. On the other hand, dynamics of the small-amplitude waves in the FPU lattice resembles scattering dynamics of small solutions to the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) with $p {\geqslant}5$ [@KPV2].
Extended approximations on longer time intervals become increasingly popular in the justification analysis of amplitude equations in various evolutionary problems. One of the pioneer works is developed by Lannes & Rauch in the context of validity of the nonlinear geometric optics equations [@Lannes]. Extended time intervals modified by a logarithmic factor of $\epsilon$ were introduced in the justification of the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the context of the FPU lattices [@DumaJames] and the Klein–Gordon lattices [@PPP]. Our work addresses the extended time intervals in the justification of the KdV equation in the context of the FPU lattices.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 represents the basic set up for justification analysis of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) from the FPU lattice equation (\[FPUlattice\]). Justification arguments on the KdV time scale are well-known and follow the formalism described in [@SW00] with a refinement given in [@DumaPel]. Sections 3 and 4 present details of the proofs of Theorems \[theorem-justification-1\] and \[theorem-justification-2\]. This part is original and represents the main result of this paper.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} The work of A. Khan was performed during MSc program at McMaster University in 2013-2015. The work of D. Pelinovsky is supported by the NSERC grant. The authors thank E. Dumas and G. Schneider for discussions and collaborations.
Justification setup
===================
The scalar second-order equation (\[FPUlattice\]) can be rewritten as the following first-order evolution system $$\label{FPUvector}
\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \dot{u}_n = q_{n+1} - q_n, \\
\dot{q}_n = u_n - u_{n-1} + \epsilon^2 (u_n^p - u_{n-1}^p), \end{array} \right. \quad n \in \mathbb{Z}.$$ Local solutions $(u,q) \in C^1([-t_0,t_0],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ exists by standard Picard iterations, thanks to analyticity of the power nonlinearity with $p \in \mathbb{N}$ and to the boundness of the shift operators on $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$. For a given initial data $(u_{\rm in},q_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$, local solutions are extended to the global solutions $(u,q) \in C^1(\mathbb{R},\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ by decreasing the values of $\epsilon$ thanks to the energy conservation $$\label{energy}
H := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \left( q_n^2 + u_n^2 + \frac{2 \epsilon^2}{p+1} u_n^{p+1} \right).$$ If $p$ is odd, no constraints on $\epsilon$ arise for existence of global solutions $(u,q) \in C^1(\mathbb{R},\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ to the FPU lattice equations (\[FPUvector\]).
Let us use the decomposition $$\label{decomposition-time}
u_n(t) = W(\epsilon (n-t), \epsilon^3 t) + \mathcal{U}_n(t), \quad
q_n(t) = P_{\epsilon}(\epsilon (n-t),\epsilon^3 t) + \mathcal{Q}_n(t), \quad n \in \mathbb{Z},$$ where $W(\xi,\tau)$ is a suitable solution to the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) (and thus $W$ is $\epsilon$-independent), whereas the $\epsilon$-dependent function $P_{\epsilon}(\xi,\tau)$ is found from the truncation of the first equation of the system (\[FPUvector\]) rewritten as $$\label{FPU-lattice-first-trucated}
P_{\epsilon}(\xi + \epsilon,\tau) - P_{\epsilon}(\xi,\tau) =
-\epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\xi,\tau) + \epsilon^3 \partial_{\tau} W(\xi,\tau).$$ Looking for an approximate solution $P_{\epsilon}$ to this equation up to and including the formal order of $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^3)$, we write $$\label{expansion-P}
P_{\epsilon} := P^{(0)} + \epsilon P^{(1)} + \epsilon^2 P^{(2)} + \epsilon^3 P^{(3)}$$ and collect the corresponding powers of $\epsilon$. After routine computations (see, e.g., [@DumaPel]), we obtain $$\label{expansion-P-explicit}
P_{\epsilon} := - W + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W - \frac{1}{8} \epsilon^2 \partial_{\xi}^2 W
- \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^2 W^p + \frac{1}{48} \epsilon^3 \partial_{\xi}^3 W + \frac{1}{4} \epsilon^3 p W^{p-1} \partial_{\xi} W.$$ Note that equation (\[FPU-lattice-first-trucated\]) is satisfied by the expansion (\[expansion-P-explicit\]) only approximately, up to the terms of the formal order $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^5)$.
Functions $W$ and $P_{\epsilon}$ depend on $\xi = \epsilon (n-t)$. In order to be able to control the residual terms of the KdV approximation, we will use the following lemma proved in [@DumaPel] (see also [@SW00] for a weaker result).
\[Hs-to-l2\] There exists $C>0$ such that for all $X \in H^1({\mathbb{R}})$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, $$\| x \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}C \epsilon^{-1/2} \| X \|_{H^1},$$ where $x_n := X(\epsilon n)$, $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Substituting the decompositions (\[decomposition-time\]) and (\[expansion-P-explicit\]) into the FPU lattice equations (\[FPUvector\]), we obtain the evolution problem for the error terms $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{split}
& \dot{\mathcal{U}}_n = \mathcal{Q}_{n+1} - \mathcal{Q}_n + {\rm Res}_n^{(1)}(t), \\
& \dot{\mathcal{Q}}_n = \mathcal{U}_n - \mathcal{U}_{n-1} + \mathcal{R}_n(W,\mathcal{U}) + {\rm Res}_n^{(2)}(t) \\
& \qquad \quad + p \epsilon^2 W^{p-1}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) \mathcal{U}_{n}
- p \epsilon^2 W^{p-1}(\epsilon(n-1-t),\epsilon^3t) \mathcal{U}_{n-1},
\end{split} \right.
\label{FPU-lattice-time}\end{aligned}$$ where the residual and nonlinear terms are given by [$$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Res}_n^{(1)}(t) & := & \epsilon \partial_{\xi} W(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t)
- \epsilon^3 \partial_{\tau} W(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) + P_\epsilon(\epsilon(n+1-t),\epsilon^3t) - P_\epsilon(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t), \\
{\rm Res}_n^{(2)}(t) & := & \epsilon \partial_{\xi} P_{\epsilon}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t)
- \epsilon^3 \partial_{\tau} P_{\epsilon}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) + W(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) - W(\epsilon(n-1-t),\epsilon^3t) \\
& \phantom{tex} & + \epsilon^2 \left[ W^p(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) - W^p(\epsilon(n-1-t),\epsilon^3t) \right]\end{aligned}$$]{}and $$\mathcal{R}_n(W,\mathcal{U})(t) :=
\epsilon^2 \sum_{k=2}^p \left( \begin{array}{c} p \\ k \end{array} \right)
\left[ W^{p-k}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3 t) \mathcal{U}_n^k - W^{p-k}(\epsilon(n-1-t),\epsilon^3 t) \mathcal{U}_{n-1}^k \right].$$ The following result provide bounds on the residual and nonlinear terms, provided that the function $W(\epsilon (\cdot - t), \epsilon^3 t)$ belong to $H^s(\mathbb{R})$ for $s {\geqslant}6$ and satisfies the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]).
\[lemma-residual\] Let $W \in C([-\tau_0,\tau_0],H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ be a solution to the generalized KdV equation , for an integer $s {\geqslant}6$ and $\tau_0 > 0$. Define $$\label{delta}
\delta := \sup_{\tau \in [-\tau_0,\tau_0]} \| W(\tau) \|_{H^s}.$$ There exists a positive $\delta$-independent constant $C$ such that the residual and nonlinear terms satisfy $$\label{bound-rem}
\| {\rm Res}^{(1)}(t) \|_{\ell^2} + \| {\rm Res}^{(2)}(t) \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}C \left( \delta + \delta^{2p-1} \right) \epsilon^{9/2}$$ and $$\label{bound-non}
\| \mathcal{R}(W,\mathcal{U})(t) \|_{\ell^2} {\leqslant}\epsilon^2 C \left(
\delta^{p-2} + \| \mathcal{U} \|_{\ell^2}^{p-2} \right) \| \mathcal{U} \|_{\ell^2}^2$$ for every $t\in[-\tau_0\epsilon^{-3},\tau_0\epsilon^{-3}]$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$.
By constructing $P_{\epsilon}$ in , we have canceled all terms in ${\rm Res}^{(1)}(t)$ up to and including the formal order $\epsilon^4$. The remainder terms can be written in the closed form with Taylor’s theorem as follows: $$\label{remainder-terms}
\epsilon^5 \int_0^1 (1-r)^4 \partial_\xi^5 W(\epsilon(n-t+r),\epsilon^3t) {\rm d}r
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\epsilon^5 \int_0^1 (1-r)^2 \partial_\xi^3 W^p(\epsilon(n-t+r),\epsilon^3t) {\rm d}r.$$ The associated $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$ norm is estimated by $\left( \| W \|_{H^6} + \| W \|_{H^6}^{p} \right) \epsilon^{9/2}$, thanks to Lemma \[Hs-to-l2\].
By formal expansion of ${\rm Res}^{(2)}(t)$ in $\epsilon$, we confirm that all terms up to and including the formal order $\epsilon^4$ are canceled if $W$ satisfies the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]). On the other hand, the remainder terms contains terms like (\[remainder-terms\]) and additionally terms like $$\epsilon^5 \int_0^1 \partial_\xi W^{2p-1}(\epsilon(n-t+r),\epsilon^3t) {\rm d}r.$$ The associated $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$ norm is estimated by $\left( \| W \|_{H^6} + \| W \|_{H^6}^{p} + \| W \|_{H^6}^{2p-1}\right) \epsilon^{9/2}$, thanks to Lemma \[Hs-to-l2\]. Hence, we obtain the bound by interpolating between the end point terms.
To prove the bound (\[bound-non\]), we interpolate the binomial expansion for $\mathcal{R}_n(W,\mathcal{U})(t)$ between the end point terms and obtain for some $C > 0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\| \mathcal{R}(W,\mathcal{U})(t) \|_{\ell^2}
{\leqslant}C \epsilon^2 \left( \| W(\epsilon(\cdot - t),\epsilon^3 t)) \|^{p-2}_{L^{\infty}} \| \mathcal{U} \|_{\ell^2}^2
+ \| \mathcal{U} \|_{\ell^p}^p \right).\end{aligned}$$ By using continuous embeddings of $H^6(\mathbb{R})$ into $L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$ and $\ell^p(\mathbb{Z})$ to $\ell^2(\mathbb{Z})$, we obtain the bound (\[bound-non\]).
For a local solution $(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{Q}) \in C^1([-t_0,t_0],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ with some $t_0 > 0$ to the perturbed FPU lattice equations (\[FPU-lattice-time\]), we define the energy-type quantity $$\mathcal{E}(t) := \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} \left[
\mathcal{Q}_n^2(t) + \mathcal{U}_n^2(t) + \epsilon^2 p W^{p-1}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t)) \mathcal{U}^2_{n}(t)
\right].
\label{energy-type}$$ The following lemma describes properties of the energy-type quantity $\mathcal{E}(t)$.
\[lemma-energy\] Let $W \in C([-\tau_0,\tau_0],H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ be a solution to the generalized KdV equation , for an integer $s {\geqslant}6$ and $\tau_0 > 0$. Let $\epsilon_0 > 0$ be defined by $$\label{epsilon-0}
\epsilon_0 := \min\left\{ 1, (2p)^{-1/2} \left( \sup_{\tau \in [-\tau_0,\tau_0]}\| W(\cdot,\tau) \|_{L^{\infty}} \right)^{-(p-1)/2} \right\}$$ For every $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0)$ and for every local solution $(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{Q}) \in C^1([-\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3},\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3}],\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ to system (\[FPU-lattice-time\]), the energy-type quantity (\[energy-type\]) is coercive with the bound $$\label{coercivity}
\| \mathcal{Q}(t) \|_{l^2}^2 + \| \mathcal{U}(t) \|_{\ell^2}^2 {\leqslant}4 \mathcal{E}(t),
\quad t \in (-\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3},\tau_0 \epsilon^{-3}).$$ Moreover, when $\delta$ is defined by (\[delta\]), there exists a positive ($\epsilon,\delta$)-independent constant $C$ such that $$\label{derivative-estimates}
\left| \frac{d \mathcal{E}}{d t} \right| {\leqslant}C \mathcal{E}^{1/2} \left[ (\delta + \delta^{2p-1}) \epsilon^{9/2} + \epsilon^3 (\delta^{p-1} + \delta^{2p-2})
\mathcal{E}^{1/2} + \epsilon^2 (\delta^{p-2} + \mathcal{E}^{(p-2)/2}) \mathcal{E} \right],$$ for every $t\in[-\tau_0\epsilon^{-3},\tau_0\epsilon^{-3}]$ and $\epsilon \in (0,\epsilon_0)$.
Coercivity (\[coercivity\]) follows from the lower bound applied to (\[energy-type\]) $$2 \mathcal{E}(t) {\geqslant}\| \mathcal{Q}(t) \|_{\ell}^2 + \left(1
- \epsilon^2 p \| W(\cdot,\tau) \|_{L^{\infty}}^{p-1} \right) \| \mathcal{U}(t) \|_{\ell^2}^2.$$ Since $1 - \epsilon^2 p \| W(\cdot,\tau) \|_{L^{\infty}}^{p-1} {\geqslant}1/2$, we obtain the bound (\[coercivity\]). Note that if $p$ is odd, the lower bound for (\[energy-type\]) implies (\[coercivity\]) with $2 \mathcal{E}(t)$ replacing $4 \mathcal{E}(t)$.
Taking derivative of $\mathcal{E}$ with respect to time $t$ and using the perturbed FPU lattice equations (\[FPU-lattice-time\]) yield the evolution of the energy-type quantity: $$\begin{split}
\frac{d \mathcal{E}}{d t} = \sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}
& \Big[ \mathcal{Q}_n(t) \mathcal{R}_n(W,\mathcal{U})(t) + \mathcal{Q}_n(t) {\rm Res}_n^{(2)}(t)
+ \mathcal{U}_{n}(t) \left[ 1 + \epsilon^2 p W^{p-1}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) \right] {\rm Res}_n^{(1)}(t) \\
& + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^2 p (p-1) W^{p-2}(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) \mathcal{U}^2_{n}(t)
(-\epsilon \partial_{\xi} + \epsilon^3 \partial_{\tau}) W(\epsilon(n-t),\epsilon^3t) \Big].
\end{split}$$ By using the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left| \frac{d \mathcal{E}}{d t} \right|
& {\leqslant}& \| \mathcal{Q} \|_{\ell^2} \| \mathcal{R}(W,\mathcal{U}) \|_{\ell^2}
+ \| \mathcal{Q} \|_{\ell^2} \| {\rm Res}^{(2)} \|_{\ell^2} + \,\frac32\, \| \mathcal{U} \|_{\ell^2}
\left\| {\rm Res}^{(1)} \right\|_{l^2} \\
& \phantom{t} & + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^3 p (p-1) \| W \|_{L^{\infty}}^{p-2} \left( \| \partial_{\xi} W(\cdot,\tau) \|_{L^{\infty}} +
\epsilon^2 \| \partial_{\tau} W(\cdot,\tau) \|_{L^{\infty}} \right) \| \mathcal{U}(t) \|_{\ell^2}^2.\end{aligned}$$ By using estimates (\[bound-rem\]) and (\[bound-non\]) in Lemma \[lemma-residual\], the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) for $W$, and the coercivity bound (\[coercivity\]), we finally obtain the estimate (\[derivative-estimates\]).
Proof of Theorem \[theorem-justification-1\]
============================================
Here we use the formalism of Section 2 and prove Theorem \[theorem-justification-1\].
We consider global solutions to the KdV and modified KdV equations ($p=2,3$). In this case, it is known [@Nguenn] that for any global solution $W \in C(\mathbb{R},H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ with $s {\geqslant}6$, there exists a positive constant $\delta$ that only depends on the initial value of $W$ at $\tau = 0$ such that $$\label{bound-norm}
\| W(\cdot,\tau) \|_{H^s} {\leqslant}\delta \quad \mbox{\rm for every} \;\; \tau \in \mathbb{R}.$$ In what follows, we neglect mentioning that all constants depend on the choice of $s {\geqslant}6$.
For any initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{R})$ satisfying the bound (\[bound-initial-time-1\]), there exists a local solution $(u,\dot{u}) \in C^1((-t_0,t_0),\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ to the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]). Equivalently, there exists a local solution $(u,q) \in C^1((-t_0,t_0),\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ to the FPU lattice equations . The solution can be decomposed according to equation .
Let us set $\mathcal{S} := \mathcal{E}^{1/2}$, where $\mathcal{E}(t)$ is the energy-type quantity defined by (\[energy-type\]). The initial bound ensures that $\mathcal{S}(0) {\leqslant}C_0 \epsilon^{3/2}$ for some constant $C_0 > 0$, if $\epsilon_0$ is chosen by (\[epsilon-0\]). For fixed $\epsilon$-independent constants $r \in \left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$, $C > C_0$, and $K > 0$, let us define the maximal continuation time $$\label{time-maximal}
T_{C,K,r} := \sup\left\{ T_0 \in (0,r K^{-1} \epsilon^{-3} |\log(\epsilon)|] : \quad
\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}C \epsilon^{3/2-r}, \;\; t \in [-T_0,T_0] \right\}.$$ Let us also define the maximal evolution time of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) by $\tau_0(\epsilon) = r K^{-1} |\log(\epsilon)|$. The energy estimate (\[derivative-estimates\]) of Lemma \[lemma-energy\] can be rewritten for the variable $\mathcal{S}$ by $$\label{estimate-1}
\left| \frac{d \mathcal{S}}{d t} \right| {\leqslant}C_1 (\delta + \delta^{2p-1}) \epsilon^{9/2} + \epsilon^3 C_2 \left[ (\delta^{p-1} + \delta^{2p-2}) +
\epsilon^{-1} (\delta^{p-2} + \mathcal{S}^{p-2}) \mathcal{S} \right] \mathcal{S},$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are positive constants that are independent of $\delta$ and $\epsilon$. Since $\delta$ is independent of the maximal existence time $\tau_0(\epsilon)$ and hence is independent of $\epsilon$, we can choose an $\epsilon$-independent positive constant $K$ sufficiently large such that $$\label{estimate-2}
C_2 \left[ (\delta^{p-1} + \delta^{2p-2}) +
\epsilon^{-1} (\delta^{p-2} + C^{p-2} \epsilon^{(3/2-r)(p-2)}) C \epsilon^{3/2-r} \right] {\leqslant}K,$$ as long as $\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}C \epsilon^{3/2-r}$, since $r \in \left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$. Using (\[estimate-1\]) and (\[estimate-2\]), we obtain $$\label{estimate-3}
\left| \frac{d}{d t} e^{-\epsilon^3 K t} \mathcal{S} \right| {\leqslant}C_1 (\delta + \delta^{2p-1}) \epsilon^{9/2} e^{-\epsilon^3 K t}.$$ By Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain $$\label{estimate-G}
\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}\left( \mathcal{S}(0) + K^{-1} C_1 (\delta + \delta^{2p-1}) \epsilon^{3/2} \right) \, e^{K \tau_0(\epsilon)},
\quad t \in [-T_{C,K,r},T_{C,K,r}],$$ where the exponent is extended to the maximal existence time $t_0(\epsilon) := \epsilon^{-3} \tau_0(\epsilon)$. From the definition of $\tau_0(\epsilon)$, we have $$\tau_0(\epsilon) = r K^{-1} |\log(\epsilon)| \quad \Rightarrow \quad e^{K \tau_0(\epsilon)} = \epsilon^{-r}.$$ Thus, we get from (\[estimate-G\]), $$\label{lastGronwall}
\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}\left( C_0 + K^{-1} C_1 (\delta + \delta^{2p-1}) \right) \, \epsilon^{3/2-r}, \quad t \in [-T_{C,K,r},T_{C,K,r}].$$ One can choose an $\epsilon$-independent constant $C > C_0$ sufficiently large such that $$\label{estimate-4}
C_0 + K^{-1} C_1 (\delta + \delta^{2p-1}) {\leqslant}C.$$ Under the constraints (\[estimate-2\]) and (\[estimate-4\]) on $C > C_0$ and $K > 0$, the time interval in (\[time-maximal\]) can be extended to the maximal interval with $T_{C,K,r} = t_0(\epsilon) = \epsilon^{-3} \tau_0(\epsilon)$. Bound (\[bound-final-time-1\]) of Theorem \[theorem-justification-1\] is proved due to the estimate (\[lastGronwall\]) and the coercivity bound (\[coercivity\]), while the definition of $C$ may need a minor adjustment.
Proof of Theorem \[theorem-justification-2\]
============================================
Here we use the formalism of Section 2 and prove Theorem \[theorem-justification-2\].
We consider global solutions to the generalized KdV equations with $p {\geqslant}4$. It follows from [@Staf] that for any global solution $W \in C(\mathbb{R},H^s(\mathbb{R}))$ with $s {\geqslant}6$, there exists positive constants $A$ and $K$ such that $$\label{bound-norm-2}
\delta(\tau) := \sup_{\tau' \in [-\tau,\tau]} \| W(\cdot,\tau') \|_{H^s} {\leqslant}A (1 + |\tau|^{s-1}) {\leqslant}A e^{K |\tau|}
\quad \mbox{\rm for every} \;\; \tau \in \mathbb{R}.$$ Again, we neglect mentioning that all constants depend on the choice of $s {\geqslant}6$. We note that the global solution to the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) with $p {\geqslant}5$ exists if the $H^{s_p}(\mathbb{R})$ norm of the initial value $W$ at $\tau = 0$ is small, where $s_p$ is given by (\[s-p\]) [@KPV2].
For any initial data $(u_{\rm in},\dot{u}_{\rm in}) \in \ell^2(\mathbb{R})$ satisfying the bound (\[bound-initial-time-2\]), there exists a local solution $(u,\dot{u}) \in C^1((-t_0,t_0),\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ to the FPU equation (\[FPUlattice\]), or equivalently, a local solution $(u,q) \in C^1((-t_0,t_0),\ell^2(\mathbb{Z}))$ to the FPU lattice equations . The solution can be decomposed according to equation .
Let us set $\mathcal{S} := \mathcal{E}^{1/2}$, where $\mathcal{E}(t)$ is the energy-type quantity defined by (\[energy-type\]). The initial bound ensures that $\mathcal{S}(0) {\leqslant}C_0 \epsilon^{3/2}$ for some constant $C_0 > 0$, if $\epsilon_0$ is chosen by (\[epsilon-0\]). For fixed $\epsilon$-independent constants $r \in \left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$, $C > C_0$, and $K > 0$, where $K$ is the same as in the bound (\[bound-norm-2\]), let us define the maximal continuation time $$\label{time-maximal-2}
T_{C,K,r} := \sup\left\{ T_0 \in \left( 0,(2 p K)^{-1} \epsilon^{-3} \log\left( r |\log(\epsilon)|\right)\right] : \quad
\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}C \epsilon^{3/2-r}, \;\; t \in [-T_0,T_0] \right\}.$$ Note that the maximal evolution time of the generalized KdV equation (\[genKdV\]) by $$\tau_0(\epsilon) = (2 p K)^{-1} \log\left( r |\log(\epsilon)|\right)$$ is chosen differently compared to the proof of Theorem \[theorem-justification-1\]. The energy estimate (\[derivative-estimates\]) of Lemma \[lemma-energy\] is rewritten for $\mathcal{S}$ by $$\label{estimate-1-2}
\left| \frac{d \mathcal{S}}{d t} \right| {\leqslant}C_1 (\delta(\tau) + \delta^{2p-1}(\tau)) \epsilon^{9/2} + \epsilon^3 C_2 \left[ (\delta^{p-1}(\tau) + \delta^{2p-2}(\tau)) +
\epsilon^{-1} (\delta^{p-2}(\tau) + \mathcal{S}^{p-2}) \mathcal{S} \right] \mathcal{S},$$ where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are positive constants that are independent of $\delta$ and $\epsilon$. Since $\delta$ depends on time $\tau$ according to the bound (\[bound-norm-2\]), we may choose the $\epsilon$-independent positive constant $K$ in the bound (\[bound-norm-2\]) sufficiently large such that $$\label{estimate-2-2}
C_2 \left[ (\delta^{p-1}(\tau) + \delta^{2p-2}(\tau)) +
\epsilon^{-1} (\delta^{p-2}(\tau) + C^{p-2} \epsilon^{(3/2-r)(p-2)}) C \epsilon^{3/2-r} \right] {\leqslant}2 p K e^{2 p K |\tau|},$$ as long as $\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}C \epsilon^{3/2-r}$, since $r \in \left(0,\frac{1}{2}\right)$. Using (\[estimate-1-2\]) and (\[estimate-2-2\]), we obtain $$\label{estimate-3-2}
\left| \frac{d}{d t} e^{-e^{2 \epsilon^3 p K t}} \mathcal{S} \right| {\leqslant}B \epsilon^{9/2} e^{\epsilon^3 (2p-1) K t} e^{-e^{2 \epsilon^3 p K t}},$$ where $B > 0$ is another $\epsilon$-independent constant and the inequality (\[estimate-3-2\]) is set for $t > 0$ for simplicity. The estimate for $t < 0$ are similar. By Gronwall’s inequality, we obtain $$\label{estimate-G-2}
\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}\left( e^{-1} \mathcal{S}(0) + B F_K) \epsilon^{3/2} \right) \, e^{e^{2 p K \tau_0(\epsilon)}},
\quad t \in [-T_{C,K,r},T_{C,K,r}],$$ where the exponent is extended to the maximal existence time $t_0(\epsilon) := \epsilon^{-3} \tau_0(\epsilon)$ and the positive $\epsilon$-independent constant $F_K$ is defined by $$F_K := \int_0^{\infty} e^{(2p-1) K \tau} e^{-e^{2 pK \tau}} d \tau < \infty.$$ From the definition of $\tau_0(\epsilon)$, we have $$\tau_0(\epsilon) = (2 p K)^{-1} \log\left(r |\log(\epsilon)|\right) \quad \Rightarrow \quad
e^{e^{2 p K \tau_0(\epsilon)}} = \epsilon^{-r}.$$ Thus, we get from (\[estimate-G-2\]), $$\label{lastGronwall-2}
\mathcal{S}(t) {\leqslant}\left( C_0 + B F_K \right) \, \epsilon^{3/2-r}, \quad t \in [-T_{C,K,r},T_{C,K,r}].$$ Note that $F_K \to 0$ as $K \to \infty$. One can choose an $\epsilon$-independent constant $C > C_0$ sufficiently large such that $$\label{estimate-4-2}
C_0 + B F_K {\leqslant}C.$$ Under the constraints (\[bound-norm-2\]), (\[estimate-2-2\]) and (\[estimate-4-2\]) on $C > C_0$ and $K > 0$, we can extend the time interval in (\[time-maximal-2\]) to the maximal interval with $T_{C,K,r} = t_0(\epsilon) = \epsilon^{-3} \tau_0(\epsilon)$. Bound (\[bound-final-time-2\]) of Theorem \[theorem-justification-2\] is proved due to the estimate (\[lastGronwall-2\]) and the coercivity bound (\[coercivity\]), while the definition of $C$ may need a minor adjustment.
[99]{}
D. Bambusi and A. Ponno. “On metastability in FPU", Comm. Math. Phys. [**264**]{} (2006), 539-561.
G.N. Benes, A. Hoffman, and C.E. Wayne, “Asymptotic stability of the Toda m-soliton", J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**386**]{} (2012), 445–460.
B. Bidegaray–Fesquet, E. Dumas, and G. James, “From Newton’s cradle to the discrete p-Schrödinger equation”, SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**45**]{} (2013), 3404–3430.
J. Bona, Y. Liu, and N.V. Ngueyn, “Stability fo solitary waves in higher-order Sobolev spaces", Comm Math. Sci. [**2**]{} (2004), 35–52.
E. Dumas and D.E. Pelinovsky, “Justification of the log-KdV equation in granular chains: the case of precompression”, SIAM J. Math. Anal. [**46**]{} (2014), 4075–4103.
G. Friesecke and R.L. Pego, “Solitary waves on FPU lattices, Nonlinearity [**12**]{} (1999), 1601-1627; [**15**]{} (2002), 1343-1359; [**17**]{} (2004), 207-227; [**17**]{} (2004), 229-251.
J. Gaison, S. Moskow, J.D. Wright, and Q. Zhang, “Approximation of polyatomic FPU lattices by KdV equations", Multiscale Model. Simul. [**12**]{} (2014), 953–995.
R.M. Miura, C.S. gardner, and M.D. Kruskal, “Korteweg–de Vries equations and generalization. II. Existence of conservation laws and constants of motion", J. Math. Phys. [**9**]{} (1968), 1204–1209.
A. Hoffman and C.E. Wayne, “Asymptotic two-soliton solutions in the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model", J. Dynam. Differential Equations [**21**]{} (2009), 343–351.
T. Kato, “On the Korteweg-de Vries equation", Manuscript Math. [**28**]{} (1979), 89–99.
T. Kato, “On the Cauchy problem for the (generalized) Korteweg-de Vries equation", Stud. Appl. Math. [**8**]{} (1983), 93–128.
C. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega, “Well-posedness of the initial-value problem for the Korteweg–De Vries equation", J. Americ. Math. Soc. [**4**]{} (1991), 323–347.
C. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega, “Well-posedness and scattering results for the generalized Korteweg–De Vries equation via the contraction principle", Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**46**]{} (1993), 527–620.
D. Lannes and J. Rauch, “Validity of nonlinear geometric optics with times growing logarithmically", Proc. AMS [**129**]{} (2000), 1087–1096.
T. Mizumachi, “Asymptotic stability of lattice solitons in the energy space", Commun. Math. Phys. [**288**]{} (2009), 125-144.
T. Mizumachi, “Asymptotic stability of $N$-solitary waves of the FPU lattices", Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis [**207**]{} (2013), 393-457.
R.L. Pego and M.I. Weinstein, “Eigenvalues, and instabilities of solitary waves", Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London A [**340**]{} (1992), 47–94.
R.L. Pego and M.I. Weinstein, “Asymptotic stability of solitary waves", Comm. Math. Phys. [**164**]{} (1994), 305–349.
D. Pelinovsky, T. Penati, and S. Paleari, “Approximation of small-amplitude weakly coupled oscillators with discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equations", Rev. Math. Phys. (2016), submitted.
G. Schneider and C.E. Wayne, “Counter-propagating waves on fluid surfaces and the continuum limit of the Fermi-Pasta-Ulam model", In [*International Conference on Differential Equations (Berlin, 1999), vol. 1 (eds B Fiedler, K Gröger, J Sprekels)*]{}, pp. 390–404 (World Sci. Publishing, River Edge, NJ, USA, 2000).
G. Staffilani, “On the growth of high Sobolev norms of solutions for KdV and Schrödinger equations", Duke Math. J. [**86**]{} (1997), 109–142.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider multi-player stopping games in continuous time. Unlike Dynkin games, in our games the payoff of each player is revealed after all the players stop. Moreover, each player can adjust her own stopping strategy by observing other players’ behaviors. Assuming the continuity of the payoff functions in time, we show that there always exists an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium in pure stopping strategies for any ${\epsilon}>0$.'
address: 'Institute for Mathematics and its Applications, University of Minnesota'
author:
- Zhou Zhou
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Multi-player stopping games in continuous time'
---
Introduction
============
Since[@Dynkin], Dynkin game has attracted a lot of research. We refer to [@Dynkin; @Zhang3; @Solan; @Hamadene; @Kifer; @Solan1; @Solan2; @Ko3; @Lepeltier; @Solan3; @Solan4; @Touzi; @Neveu; @Bismut; @Ferenstein] and the references therein. In a Dynkin game, each player chooses a stopping strategy, and the payoffs of the players are revealed as long as one player stops. In other words, the game ends at the minimum of the stopping strategies. With some assumptions on the relationship between the payoff processes, it is proved in e.g., [@Zhang3; @Solan] that a two-player non-zero-sum Dynkin game in continuous time admits a Nash equilibrium in pure stopping times. In general, without such assumptions, the two-player Dynkin game only has a Nash equilibrium in randomized strategies, see e.g., [@Solan]. It is known that when there are more than two players, the Dynkin game in continuous time may not have any Nash Equilibrium in randomized strategies even if the payoff processes are constant (see e.g., [@Solan4]).
As a classical model of stopping games, Dynkin game has many applications in economics and finance. However, it has two major limitations in many situations. First of all, in practice, it is more often that, even if a player has made the decision first, her payoff can still be affected by other players’ decisions later on. In other words, it is more reasonable that the games end at the maximum of the stopping strategies. Second, a wise player would adjust her strategy after she observes other players’ actions, and Dynkin games cannot incorporate this “game” feature.
Recently [@ZZ6; @ZZ7; @ZZ9; @ZZ10] begin to consider the stopping games with these two features. In particular, assuming that the payoff functions are continuous in time, [@ZZ9] shows that a two-player non-zero-sum stopping game always admits an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium in pure strategies for any ${\epsilon}>0$.
In this paper, we extend the result in [@ZZ9] to the multi-player case. To be more specific, given a filtered probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},({\mathcal{F}})_{t\in[0,\infty]},{\mathbb{P}})$, we consider the stopping game in continuous time $$u^i({{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N)={\mathbb{E}}[U^i({{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N)],\quad i=1,\dotso,N,$$ where the player $i$ chooses ${{\pmb\rho}}^i$ to maximize the payoff $u^i$. Here $U^i(t_1,\dotso,t_N)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{t_1\vee\dotso\vee t_N}$-measurable instead of ${\mathcal{F}}_{t_1\wedge\dotso\wedge t_N}$-measurable as is assumed in Dynkin games. That is, the game ends at the maximum of players’ stopping. Moreover, here ${{\pmb\rho}}^i$ is not a stopping times. It is a strategy that can be adjusted according to other players’ actions. By assuming $U^i$ is uniformly continuous in $(t_1,\dotso,t_N)$, we show that the game always admits an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium in pure strategies for any ${\epsilon}>0$.
We prove the result by an induction on the number of the players. That is, we construct an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium of the $N$-player game from the ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibriums of $(N-1)$-player games as well as ${\epsilon}$-saddle points of some zero-sum games. To reduce the burden of the notation, we only focus on the three-player case ($N=3$), and the proof still works accordingly for the case with more players.
Our game has a wide range of applications, e.g., when companies choose times to take actions, and e.g., when investors who both short and long American options try to maximize their utilities.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we provide the setup and the main result. In Section 3, we provide some auxiliary results. In section 4, we use these auxiliary results to construct an ${\epsilon}$-equilibrium for the original game.
Setup and the main result
=========================
In this section, we will provide the general setup and the main result. [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} is the main result of this paper.
Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in[0,\infty]},{\mathbb{P}})$ be a filtered probability space, where $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}_\infty$ and $(\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\in[0,\infty]}$ satisfies the usual conditions. To avoid the technical difficulties stemming from the verification of path regularities of some related processes, we assume that $\Omega$ is at most countable, and ${\mathbb{P}}$ is supported on $\Omega$. Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be the set of stopping times. For $\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}$, denote ${\mathcal{T}}_\rho$ (resp. ${\mathcal{T}}_{\rho+}$) be the set of stopping times that is no less (resp. strictly greater) than $\rho$ on $\{\rho<\infty\}$.
Let $N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $I$ be the set of all the subsets of $\{1,\dotso,N-1\}$. A $2^{N-1}$-tuple ${{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho_\alpha)_{\alpha\in I}$ is said to be a stopping strategy (of order $N$), if $\rho:=\rho_\emptyset\in{\mathcal{T}}$, and for any $I=(i_1,\dotso,i_n)\subset\{1,\dotso,N-1\}$ with $i_1<\dotso<i_n$, $$\rho_{i_1,\dotso,i_n}:[0,\infty]^n\times\Omega\mapsto[0,\infty]\ \text{is}\ \mathcal{B}([0,\infty]^n)\otimes{\mathcal{F}}\text{-measurable},$$ and $$\rho_{i_1,\dotso,i_n}(t_1,\dotso,t_n,\cdot)\in{\mathcal{T}}_{(t_1\vee\dotso\vee t_n)+}.$$ Denote ${\mathbb{T}}^N$ as the set of stopping strategies of order $N$. For $\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}$, let $${\mathbb{T}}_\sigma^N:=\{{{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho_\alpha)_{\alpha\in I}\in{\mathbb{T}}^N:\ \rho\geq\sigma\}.$$
The interpretation of ${{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}^N$ is as follows. Suppose there are $N$ players, and each of them needs to choose a time to make a decision (stop). Let ${{\pmb\rho}}$ be player $N$’s stopping strategy. At the beginning, player $N$ chooses an initial stopping time $\rho$. If no other players stop before $\rho$, then player $N$ stops at time $\rho$. Otherwise, player $N$ observes someone stops before $\rho$. Say, it is player 1 who stops first at time $t<\rho$. Then player $N$ observes player 1’s action, and immediate switches to strategy $\rho_1(t)$. In general, $\rho_{i_1,\dotso,i_n}(t_1,\dotso,t_n,\cdot)$ represents the strategy that player $N$ uses, if she has not stopped by time $t_1\vee\dotso\vee t_n$, and she observes that players $i_1,\dotso,i_n$ have stopped at time $t_1,\dotso,t_n$ respectively.
Let ${{\pmb\rho}}^i\in{\mathbb{T}}^N$, $i=1,\dotso,N$, which presents the stopping strategy for player $i$ in an $N$-player game. Denote ${{\pmb\rho}}^i[{{\pmb\rho}}^{-i}]$ as the actual time when player $i$ stops under the other players’ stopping strategies ${{\pmb\rho}}^{-i}:=({{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^{i-1},{{\pmb\rho}}^{i+1},\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N)$. Due to the complexity of the notation, we will not explicitly write out the expression of ${{\pmb\rho}}^i[{{\pmb\rho}}^{-i}]$. Instead, we give two examples when $N=2$ and $N=3$.
Let ${{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho,\rho_1),{{\pmb\tau}}=(\tau,\tau_1)\in{\mathbb{T}}^2$. Then $${{\pmb\rho}}[\tau]=\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\}}+\rho_1(\tau) 1_{\{\rho>\tau\}},$$ where $\rho_1(\tau):=\rho_1(\tau(\cdot),\cdot)$.
Let ${{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_{23}),{{\pmb\tau}}=(\tau,\tau_1,\tau_3,\tau_{13}),{{\pmb\sigma}}=(\sigma,\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_{12})\in{\mathbb{T}}^3$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}]&=&\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\tau\wedge\sigma\}}+\rho_{23}(\tau,\sigma) 1_{\{\rho>\tau=\sigma\}}\\
\notag &+&\rho_3(\sigma) 1_{\{\rho,\tau>\sigma\}\cap\{\rho_3(\sigma)\leq\tau_3(\sigma)\}}+\rho_{23}(\tau_3(\sigma),\sigma) 1_{\{\rho,\tau>\sigma\}\cap\{\rho_3(\sigma)>\tau_3(\sigma)\}}\\
\notag &+&\rho_2(\tau) 1_{\{\rho,\sigma>\tau\}\cap\{\rho_2(\tau)\leq\sigma_2(\tau)\}}+\rho_{23}(\tau,\sigma_2(\tau)) 1_{\{\rho,\sigma>\tau\}\cap\{\rho_2(\tau)>\sigma_2(\tau)\}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{23}(\tau,\sigma):=\rho_{23}(\tau(\cdot),\sigma(\cdot),\cdot)$.
For $i=1,\dotso,N$, let $U^i:[0,\infty]^N\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $U^i(t_1,\dotso,t_N)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{t_1\vee\dotso\vee t_N}$-measurable. We make the following standing assumption throughout this paper.
\[a1\] There exists a bounded nondecreasing function $\eta:{\mathbb{R}}_+\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}_+$ satisfying $\lim_{\delta\searrow 0}\eta(\delta)=\eta(0)=0$, such that for $i=1,\dotso,N$, and any $(t_1,\dotso,t_N),(t_1',\dotso,t_N')\in[0,\infty]^N$, $$|U^i(t_1,\dotso,t_N)-U^i(t_1'\dotso,t_N')|<\eta(|t_1-t_1'|+\dotso+|t_N-t_N'|).$$
Now for any $\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}$, consider the $N$-player stopping game in continuous time $$\label{e1}
u^i({{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N):={\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^i({{\pmb\rho}}^1[{{\pmb\rho}}^{-1}],\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N[{{\pmb\rho}}^{-N}])\right],\quad{{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N\in{\mathbb{T}}_\theta^N,\quad i=1,\dotso,N,$$ where ${\mathbb{E}}_\theta[\cdot]:={\mathbb{E}}[\cdot|{\mathcal{F}}_\theta]$. Here player $i$ chooses the stopping strategy ${{\pmb\rho}}^i$ to maximize her own utility $U^i$. Recall the definition of an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium.
For ${\epsilon}>0$, the $N$-tuple $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^N)\in({\mathbb{T}}_\theta^N)^N$ is said to be an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium (in pure stopping strategies) for the game , if for any ${{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso,{{\pmb\rho}}^N\in{\mathbb{T}}_\theta^N$, $$u^i(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^{i-1},{{\pmb\rho}}^i,\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^{i+1},\dotso,\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^N)\leq u^i(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^1,\dotso\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^{i-1},\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^i,\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^{i+1},\dotso,\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^N)+{\epsilon},\quad i=1,\dotso,N.$$
Below is the main result of this paper.
\[t1\] Under [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}, there are exists an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game for any ${\epsilon}>0$.
Our game can also be adapted to the case when each player has multiple stopping. For example, suppose each player has double stopping. Then we can treat player $i$ as new players $2i-1$ and $2i$, and let $\tilde U^{2i-1}:=\tilde U^{2i}:=U^i$. Of course, by doing so, a Nash equilibrium in the new game may not be optimal for each player in the old game. (Recall that it is possible that a Nash equilibrium $(x^*,y^*)$ for $f^i(x,y)=f(x,y),\ i=1,2$ may not be optimal for $\sup_{x,y}f(x,y)$.)
We will prove [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} by an induction on the number of players. We will construct an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium of the $N$-player game from ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibriums of $(N-1)$-player games, as well as some ${\epsilon}$-saddle points of some related zero-sum games. By [@ZZ9 Theorem 2.4], [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} holds when $N=2$. (Although in [@ZZ9] the game starts from time $t=0$, but the proof there still works if the game starts at any stopping time.) To reduce the burden of the notation, we will only prove the result when $N=3$. It can be seen later on that our proof also works for general $N$, as long as we assume that [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} holds for $N-1$.
We will first provide some auxiliary results in the next section.
Some auxiliary results
======================
In this section, we provide some auxiliary results in preparation for the proof of [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} when $N=3$. Some of the proofs may admit simpler solutions, yet we demonstrate them in such ways in order to let the proofs also work for $N>3$. It is worth noting that as $\Omega$ is at most countable, those results that hold w.r.t. any $t\in[0,\infty]$ also hold w.r.t. any $\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}$.
\[l1\] For $i=1,2$, let $G^i:[0,\infty]^3\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $G^i(r,s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{r\vee s\vee t}$-measurable and satisfies [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}. Then for any ${\epsilon}>0$, there exists $h>0$, such that for any $t\in[0,\infty)$, there exists $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$ such that for any $\delta\in[0,h]$, $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})$ is an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game $${\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^i({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right],\quad{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t-\delta}^2,\quad i=1,2.$$
For any ${\epsilon}>0$, let $h>0$ such that $\eta(h)<{\epsilon}$. Now for any $t\in[0,\infty)$, by [@ZZ9 Theorem 2.4], there exists an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium $({{\pmb\rho}}^*=(\rho^*,\rho_1^*),{{\pmb\tau}}^*=(\tau^*,\tau_1^*))\in({\mathbb{T}}_t)^2$ for the game $${\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^i({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right],\quad{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2,\quad i=1,2.$$ Let $\hat{{\pmb\rho}}:=(\rho^*,\hat\rho_1)$ and $\hat{{\pmb\tau}}:=(\tau^*,\hat\tau_1)$, where $$\hat\rho_1(s) =
\begin{cases}
\rho_1^*(t), & \text{if}\ s<t\neq\rho^*,\\
t, & \text{if}\ s<t=\rho^*,\\
\rho_1^*(s), &\text{if}\ s\geq t,
\end{cases}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\hat\tau_1(s) =
\begin{cases}
\tau_1^*(t), & \text{if}\ s<t\neq\tau^*,\\
t, & \text{if}\ s<t=\tau^*,\\
\tau_1^*(s), &\text{if}\ s\geq t.
\end{cases}$$ It can be shown that $\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$, and for any ${{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$, $$\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}]={{\pmb\rho}}^*[{{\pmb\tau}}],\quad{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}]={{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}^*],\quad\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}]={{\pmb\tau}}^*[{{\pmb\rho}}],\quad{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}]={{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}^*].$$ Then $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})$ is a $3{\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game $${\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^i({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right],\quad{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2,\quad i=1,2.$$ for any $\delta\in[0,h]$. Indeed, for any ${{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]&\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}^*],{{\pmb\tau}}^*[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag&\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}^*[{{\pmb\tau}}^*],{{\pmb\tau}}^*[{{\pmb\rho}}^*],t)\right]+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}^*],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}^*],t)\right]+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]+3{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
Now take ${{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho,\rho_1)\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t-\delta}^2$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta) 1_{\{\rho<t<\tau^*\}}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\rho,\tau_1^*(t),t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t<\tau^*\}}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(t,\tau_1^*(t),t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t<\tau^*\}}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\bar{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\bar{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t<\tau^*\}}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t<\tau^*\}}\right]+4{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta) 1_{\{\rho<t<\tau^*\}}\right]+4{\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta) 1_{\{\rho<t=\tau^*\}}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\rho,t,t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t=\tau^*\}}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(t,t,t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t=\tau^*\}}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\bar{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\bar{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t=\tau^*\}}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho<t=\tau^*\}}\right]+4{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta) 1_{\{\rho<t=\tau^*\}}\right]+4{\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta) 1_{\{\rho\geq t\}}\right]&=& {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho\geq t\}}\right]\\
\notag &\leq& {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right] 1_{\{\rho\geq t\}}\right]+3{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=& {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta) 1_{\{\rho\geq t\}}\right]+3{\epsilon},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{{\pmb\rho}}:=(t,\rho_1(s)\equiv s+1)\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$. Therefore, $${\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]+11{\epsilon}.$$ Similarly, we can show that for any ${{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t-\delta}^2$, $${\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^2(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G^2(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]+11{\epsilon}.$$
\[l2\] Let $G:[0,\infty]^3\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $G(r,s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{r\vee s\vee t}$-measurable. Then $$\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]=\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\rho,\tau,t)\right].$$
Fix $t\in[0,\infty)$. For any ${{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$, ${{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}]\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$, and thus $${\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\geq\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\rho,\tau,t)\right].$$ This implies that $$\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\geq\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\rho,\tau,t)\right].$$
Conversely, for any $\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$, let $$\label{e2}
\rho_1(s)=
\begin{cases}
\rho, & \text{if}\ s<\rho,\\
\infty, & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\tau_1(s)=
\begin{cases}
\tau, & \text{if}\ s<\tau,\\
\infty, & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ and $\bar{{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho,\rho_1),\bar{{\pmb\tau}}=(\tau,\tau_1)$. Then $\bar{{\pmb\rho}},\bar{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$, and $\bar{{\pmb\rho}}[\bar{{\pmb\tau}}]=\rho$ and $\bar{{\pmb\tau}}[\bar{{\pmb\rho}}]=\tau$. Therefore, $$\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\rho,\tau,t)\right].$$ This implies that $$\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\leq\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\rho,\tau,t)\right].$$
\[l3\] Let $G:[0,\infty]^3\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $G(r,s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{r\vee s\vee t}$-measurable and satisfies [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}. Then for any ${\epsilon}>0$, there exists $h>0$, such that for any $t\in[0,\infty)$, there exists $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$ such that for any $\delta\in[0,h]$, $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})$ is an ${\epsilon}$-optimizer for $$\label{e3}
g_{t-\delta}:=\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t-\delta}^2}{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right].$$ That is, for any $\delta\in[0,h]$, $${\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]\leq g_{t-\delta}+{\epsilon}.$$
For any ${\epsilon}>0$, let $h>0$ such that $\eta(h)<{\epsilon}$. Fix $t\in[0,\infty)$. By [Lemma ]{}[l2]{}, $$\label{e4}
g_t=\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\rho,\tau,t)\right].$$ Let $(\rho^*,\tau^*)\in({\mathcal{T}}_t)^2$ be an ${\epsilon}$-optimizer for $g_t$ in . Define $\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$ as in such that $\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}]=\rho^*$ and $\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}]=\tau^*$. Now for any $\delta\in[0,h]$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]-g_{t-\delta}&=&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[U(\rho^*,\tau^*,t-\delta)\right]-g_{t-\delta}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U(\rho^*,\tau^*,t)\right]\right]-g_{t-\delta}+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U(\rho,\tau,t)\right]\right]-g_{t-\delta}+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U(\rho,\tau,t)\right]\right]-g_{t-\delta}+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[U(\rho,\tau,t-\delta)\right]-g_{t-\delta}+3{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t-\delta}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[U(\rho\vee t,\tau\vee t,t-\delta)\right]-g_{t-\delta}+3{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&\inf_{\rho,\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t-\delta}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[U(\rho,\tau,t-\delta)\right]-g_{t-\delta}+5{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=& 5{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$ is a $5{\epsilon}$-optimizer for $g_{t-\delta}$ in for any $\delta\in[0,h]$.
\[l6\] Let $H:[0,\infty]^2\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $H(s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{s\vee t}$-measurable and satisfies [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}. Then for any ${\epsilon}>0$, there exists $h>0$, such that for any $t\in[0,\infty)$, there exists $\hat\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$ such that for any $\delta\in[0,h]$, $\hat\rho$ is an ${\epsilon}$-optimizer for $$\inf_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t-\delta}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[H(\rho,t-\delta)\right].$$
The proof is similar to that for [Lemma ]{}[l3]{} and thus we omit it here.
\[l4\] Let $G:[0,\infty]^3\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $G(r,s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{r\vee s\vee t}$-measurable and satisfies [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}. Then for $t\geq 0$, $$\label{e5}
f_t:=\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]=\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right].$$ Moreover, the process $(f_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is right continuous.
The equality in follows from [@ZZ9 Proposition 3.3]. Now fix $t\in[0,\infty)$ and let $t_n\searrow t$ with $|t_n-t|<1/n$. For any ${\epsilon}>0$, by [Lemma ]{}[l1]{}, there exists $h>0$ and $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$, such that for any $\delta\in[0,h]$, $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$ is an ${\epsilon}$-saddle point for the game $f_{t-h}$, i.e., for any ${{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t-\delta}^2$, $${\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]-{\epsilon}\leq{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_{t-\delta}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t-\delta)\right]+{\epsilon}.$$ Then for $n$ large enough such that $|t_n-t|<h$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag \left|f_{t_n}-f_t\right|&\leq&\left|f_{t_n}-{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t_n)\right]\right|+\left|{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t_n)\right]-{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\right|\\
\notag &+&\left|{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]-{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\right|+\left|{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]-f_t\right|\\
\notag &\leq&{\epsilon}+\eta(1/n)+\left|{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]-{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\right|+{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Since the process $(E_{t+s}\left[G(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right])_{s\geq 0}$ is a martingale w.r.t. the filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_{t+s})_{s\geq 0}$ satisfying the usual conditions, by [@KS Theorem 3.13, page 16], it is right continuous. Therefore, $$\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left|f_{t_n}-f_t\right|\leq 2{\epsilon}.$$ By the arbitrariness of ${\epsilon}$, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f_{t_n}=f_t$, and thus the conclusion follows.
\[l5\] Let $G:[0,\infty]^3\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $G(r,s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{r\vee s\vee t}$-measurable and satisfies [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}. Then the process $(g_t)_{t\geq 0}$ defined by $$g_t:=\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[G({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]$$ is right continuous.
The proof is similar to that for [Lemma ]{}[l4]{} and thus we omit it here.
\[p1\] Let $U:[0,\infty]^3\times\Omega\mapsto{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $U(r,s,t)$ is ${\mathcal{F}}_{r\vee s\vee t}$-measurable and satisfies [Assumption ]{}[a1]{}. For $t\geq 0$, let $$\label{e6}
\underline V_t:=\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^3}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^3}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]$$ and $$\overline V_t:=\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^3}\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^3}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right].$$ Then for any $\mu\in{\mathcal{T}}$, $$\label{e7}
\underline V_\mu=\overline V_\mu=\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_\mu}\inf_{\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_\mu}{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\theta\}}+Y_\theta 1_{\{\rho>\theta\}}\right]=\inf_{\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_\mu}\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_\mu}{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\theta\}}+Y_\theta 1_{\{\rho>\theta\}}\right],$$ where for $t\geq 0$, $$X_t:=\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U(t,{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\tau}}])\right],$$ and $$Y_t:=\left(\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],t,{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}}])\right]\right)\wedge\left(\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\right).$$ Moreover, there exists an ${\epsilon}$-saddle point for with $t$ replaced by $\mu$ for any ${\epsilon}>0$.
Denote $$Y_t^2:=\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],t,{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}}])\right]\quad\text{and}\quad Y_t^3:=\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right].$$ For $t\geq 0$, let $\pmb\theta=(t,\theta_1(s)\equiv s+1)\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$. Then $$X_t\leq\inf_{{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U(t,t,{{\pmb\sigma}}[\pmb\theta])\right]\leq Y_t^2.$$ Similarly, we can show that $X_t\leq Y_t^3$. Hence, $$X_t\leq Y_t.$$ Moreover, by Lemmas \[l4\] and \[l5\], $(X_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(Y_t)_{t\geq 0}$ are right continuous. Then from the classical theory of Dynkin games, we have that for $t\geq 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e8} V_t&:=&\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\inf_{\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\theta\}}+Y_\theta 1_{\{\rho>\theta\}}\right]=\inf_{\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho\leq\theta\}}+Y_\theta 1_{\{\rho>\theta\}}\right]\\
\notag &=&\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\inf_{\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho<\theta\}}+Y_\theta 1_{\{\rho\geq\theta\}}\right]=\inf_{\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho<\theta\}}+Y_\theta 1_{\{\rho\geq\theta\}}\right],\end{aligned}$$ and the process $(V_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is right continuous.
Now fix $\mu\in{\mathcal{T}}$ and let ${\epsilon}>0$. Define $\hat\rho,\hat\theta\in{\mathcal{T}}_\mu$ as $$\label{e9}
\hat\rho:=\inf\{t\geq \mu:\ V_t\leq X_t+{\epsilon}\}\quad\text{and}\quad\hat\theta:=\inf\{t\geq \mu:\ V_t\geq Y_t-{\epsilon}\}.$$ Then $(\hat\rho,\hat\theta)\in({\mathcal{T}}_\mu)^2$ is an ${\epsilon}$-saddle point for the Dynkin game $V_\mu$ defined in with $t$ replaced by $\mu$. By [Lemma ]{}[l3]{}, there exists $h^x>0$ such that for any $t\geq 0$, there exists $(\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_t^1=(\hat\tau_t^1,\hat\tau_{t,3}^1),\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_t^1=(\hat\sigma_t^1,\hat\sigma_{t,2}^1))\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$ being an ${\epsilon}$-optimizer for $X_{t'}$ for any $t'\in[t-h^x,t]$. Similarly, by [Lemma ]{}[l1]{}, there exists $h^y>0$, such that for $t\geq 0$, there exist $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}_t^2=(\hat\rho_t^2,\hat\rho_{t,3}^2),\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_t^2=(\hat\sigma_t^2,\sigma_{t,1}^2)),(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}_t^3=(\hat\rho_t^3,\hat\rho_{t,2}^3),\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_t^3=(\hat\tau_t^3,\hat\tau_{t,1}^3))\in({\mathbb{T}}_t^2)^2$ being ${\epsilon}$-saddle points for $Y_{t'}^2$ and $Y_{t'}^3$ respectively for any $t'\in[t-h^y,t]$. Furthermore, by [Lemma ]{}[l6]{} there exists $h^z>0$ such that for any $t\geq 0$, there exist $\hat\rho_t^{23},\hat\tau_t^{13},\hat\sigma_t^{12}\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$ being ${\epsilon}$-optimizers for $$Z_{t'}^{23}:=\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t'}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U(\rho,t',t')\right],\quad Z_{t'}^{13}:=\inf_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t'}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U(t',\tau,t')\right],\quad Z_{t'}^{12}:=\inf_{\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t'}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U(t',t',\sigma)\right]$$ respectively for any $t'\in[t-h^z,t]$. Let $h:=h^x\wedge h^y\wedge h^z$, and $$A:=\{V_{\hat\theta}\geq Y_{\hat\theta}^2-{\epsilon}\}.$$ For any $t\geq 0$, define $$\label{e17}
\phi_h(t):=([t/h]+1)h$$ Observe that $\phi_t(\cdot)$ is right continuous and $\phi_h(t)>t$ for $t<\infty$.
Recall $\hat\rho$ defined in . Now define $\hat{{\pmb\rho}}=(\hat\rho,\hat\rho_2,\hat\rho_3,\hat\rho_{23}), \hat{{\pmb\tau}}=(\hat\tau,\hat\tau_1,\hat\tau_3,\hat\tau_{13}), \hat{{\pmb\sigma}}=(\hat\sigma,\hat\sigma_1,\hat\sigma_2,\hat\sigma_{12})$ as follows. $$\hat\tau:=
\begin{cases}
\hat\theta, & \text{on}\ A,\\
\infty, & \text{on}\ A^c,
\end{cases}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\hat\sigma:=
\begin{cases}
\hat\theta, & \text{on}\ A^c,\\
\infty, & \text{on}\ A,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\hat\rho_2(t):=\hat\rho_{\phi_h(t)}^2,\quad\hat\rho_3(t):=\hat\rho_{\phi_h(t)}^3,\quad\hat\rho_{23}(s,t):=
\begin{cases}
\hat\rho_{\phi_h(s),3}^2(t), & \text{if}\ s<t,\\
\hat\rho_{\phi_h(t),2}^3(s), & \text{if}\ s>t,\\
\hat\rho^{23}_{\phi_h(s)}, & \text{if}\ s=t,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\hat\tau_1(t):=\hat\tau_{\phi_h(t)}^1,\quad\hat\tau_3(t):=\hat\tau_{\phi_h(t)}^3,\quad\hat\tau_{13}(s,t):=
\begin{cases}
\hat\tau_{\phi_h(s),3}^1(t), & \text{if}\ s<t,\\
\hat\tau_{\phi_h(t),1}^3(s), & \text{if}\ s>t,\\
\hat\tau^{13}_{\phi_h(s)}, & \text{if}\ s=t,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\hat\sigma_1(t):=\hat\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^1,\quad\hat\sigma_2(t):=\hat\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^2,\quad\hat\sigma_{12}(s,t):=
\begin{cases}
\hat\sigma_{\phi_h(s),2}^1(t), & \text{if}\ s<t,\\
\hat\sigma_{\phi_h(t),1}^2(s), & \text{if}\ s>t,\\
\hat\sigma^{12}_{\phi_h(s)}, & \text{if}\ s=t.
\end{cases}$$ It can be shown that $\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_\mu^3$. In the rest of the proof, we will show that $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},(\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}))$ is a $17{\epsilon}$-saddle point for with $t$ replaced by $\mu$.
**Part 1**. We show that $$\label{e12}
\left|{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]-V_\mu\right|\leq 8{\epsilon},$$ where $V$ is defined in . We consider five cases.
**Case 1.1**: $A_1:=\{\hat\rho<\hat\theta\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{A_1}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\rho}\left[U\left(\hat\rho,\hat{{\pmb\tau}}^1_{\phi_h(\hat\rho)}\left[\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\rho)}^1\right],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\rho)}^1\left[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\rho)}^1\right]\right)\right]1_{A_1}\right]\\
\notag &\in&\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho}1_{A_1}\right],{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[X_{\hat\rho}1_{A_1}\right]+{\epsilon}\right].\end{aligned}$$
**Case 1.2**: $A_2:=\{\hat\rho=\hat\theta\}\cap A$. It can be shown that for any $t\geq 0$, $$\label{e14}
X_t\leq Z_t^{12}\leq Y_t^2.$$ Hence, on $A$, $$\label{e10}
Z_{\hat\theta}^{12}\leq Y_{\hat\theta}^2\leq V_{\hat\theta}+{\epsilon}\leq Y_{\hat\theta}+{\epsilon}.$$ Then $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{A_2}\right]={\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left(\hat\theta,\hat\theta,\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^{12}\right)\right]1_{A_2}\right]\in\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\theta} 1_{A_2}\right],{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{A_2}\right]+2{\epsilon}\right].$$
**Case 1.3**: $A_3:=\{\hat\rho=\hat\theta\}\cap A^c$. It can be shown that for any $t\geq 0$, $$\label{e15}
X_t\leq Z_t^{13}\leq Y_t^3.$$ By the definition of $\hat\theta$ in , we have that on $A^c$, $$Y_{\hat\theta}^2\wedge Y_{\hat\theta}^3-{\epsilon}\leq V_{\hat\theta}<Y_{\hat\theta}^2-{\epsilon}.$$ This implies that on $A^c$, $$\label{e11}
Y_{\hat\theta}^2>Y_{\hat\theta}^3=Y_{\hat\theta}^2\wedge Y_{\hat\theta}^3=Y_{\hat\theta}.$$ Then $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{A_3}\right]={\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left(\hat\theta,\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^{13},\hat\theta\right)\right]1_{A_3}\right]\in\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\theta} 1_{A_3}\right],{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{A_3}\right]+{\epsilon}\right].$$
**Case 1.4**: $A_4:=\{\hat\rho>\hat\theta\}\cap A$. By , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{A_4}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^2_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}\left[\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^2\right],\hat\theta,\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^2\left[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^2\right]\right)\right]1_{A_4}\right]\\
\notag &\in&\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta}^2 1_{A_4}\right]-{\epsilon},{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta}^2 1_{A_4}\right]+{\epsilon}\right]\\
\notag &\subset&\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{A_4}\right]-{\epsilon},{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{A_4}\right]+2{\epsilon}\right].\end{aligned}$$
**Case 1.5**: $A_5:=\{\hat\rho>\hat\theta\}\cap A^c$. By , we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{A_5}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^3_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}\left[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^3\right],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^3\left[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^3\right],\hat\theta\right)\right]1_{A_5}\right]\\
\notag &\in&\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\rho}^3 1_{A_5}\right]-{\epsilon},{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\rho}^3 1_{A_5}\right]+{\epsilon}\right]\\
\notag &\subset&\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\rho} 1_{A_4}\right]-{\epsilon},{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\rho} 1_{A_5}\right]+{\epsilon}\right].\end{aligned}$$ From cases 1.1-1.5, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag V_\mu-3{\epsilon}&\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho} 1_{\{\hat\rho\leq\hat\theta\}}+Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{\{\hat\rho>\hat\theta\}}\right]-2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho} 1_{\{\hat\rho<\hat\theta\}}+Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{\{\hat\rho\geq\hat\theta\}}\right]+7{\epsilon}\leq V_\mu+8{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Part 2**: We show that for any ${{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^3$, $$\label{e13}
{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]\leq V_\mu+9{\epsilon}.$$ Take ${{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_{23})\in{\mathbb{T}}_\mu^3$. We consider five cases.
**Case 2.1**: $B_1:=\{\rho<\hat\theta\}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{B_1}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\rho}\left[U\left(\rho,\hat{{\pmb\tau}}^1_{\phi_h(\rho)}\left[\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\right],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\left[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\right]\right)\right]1_{B_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_\rho 1_{B_1}\right]+{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 2.2**: $B_2:=\{\rho=\hat\theta\}\cap A$. By and , $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{B_2}\right]={\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left(\hat\theta,\hat\theta,\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^{12}\right)\right]1_{A_2}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{B_2}\right]+2{\epsilon}.$$
**Case 2.3**: $B_3:=\{\rho=\hat\theta\}\cap A^c$. By and , $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{B_3}\right]={\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left(\hat\theta,\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^{13},\hat\theta\right)\right]1_{B_3}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{B_3}\right]+{\epsilon}.$$
**Case 2.4**: $B_4:=\{\rho>\hat\theta\}\cap A$. Define ${{\pmb\rho}}_{\hat\theta}^2:=(\rho_2(\hat\theta),\rho_{23}(\hat\theta,\cdot))\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\hat\theta}^2$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{B_4}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left({{\pmb\rho}}_{\hat\theta}^2\left[\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^2\right],\hat\theta,\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^2\left[{{\pmb\rho}}_{\hat\theta}^2\right]\right)\right]1_{B_4}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta}^2 1_{B_4}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{B_4}\right]+2{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 2.5**: $B_5:=\{\rho>\hat\theta\}\cap A^c$. Define ${{\pmb\rho}}_{\hat\theta}^3:=(\rho_3(\hat\theta),\rho_{23}(\cdot,\hat\theta))\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\hat\theta}^2$. We have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{B_5}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\theta}\left[U\left({{\pmb\rho}}_{\hat\theta}^3\left[\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^3\right],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\hat\theta)}^3\left[{{\pmb\rho}}_{\hat\theta}^3\right],\hat\theta\right)\right]1_{B_5}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta}^3 1_{B_5}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{B_5}\right]+{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
From cases 2.1-2.5, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]&\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_\rho 1_{\{\rho<\hat\theta\}}+Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{\{\rho\geq\hat\theta\}}\right]+7{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq& {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho} 1_{\{\hat\rho<\hat\theta\}}+Y_{\hat\theta} 1_{\{\hat\rho\geq\hat\theta\}}\right]+8{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq& V_\mu+9{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Part 3**: We show that for any $({{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_\mu^3)^2$, $$\label{e16}
{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]\geq V_\mu-5{\epsilon}.$$ Take $({{\pmb\tau}}=(\tau,\tau_1,\tau_3,\tau_{13}),{{\pmb\sigma}}=(\sigma,\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_{12}))\in({\mathbb{T}}_\mu^3)^2$. We consider four cases.
**Case 3.1**: $C_1:=\{\hat\rho\leq\tau\wedge\sigma\}$. $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{C_1}\right]={\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\hat\rho}\left[U(\hat\rho,{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]1_{C_1}\right]\geq{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho}1_{C_1}\right].$$
**Case 3.2**: $C_2:=\{\hat\rho>\tau\wedge\sigma\}\cap\{\tau=\sigma\}$. It can be shown that for any $t\geq 0$, $$Z_t^{23}\geq Y_t^2,Y_t^3\geq Y_t.$$ Then we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{C_2}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\tau\left[U\left(\hat\rho_{\phi_h(\tau)}^{23},\tau,\tau\right)\right]1_{C_2}\right]\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Z_\tau^{23}1_{C_2}\right]-{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\tau\wedge\sigma} 1_{C_2}\right]-{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 3.3**: $C_3:=\{\hat\rho>\tau\wedge\sigma\}\cap\{\tau<\sigma\}$. Define ${{\pmb\sigma}}_\tau^2:=(\sigma_2(\tau),\sigma_{12}(\cdot,\tau)\in{\mathbb{T}}_\tau^2$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{C_3}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\tau\left[U\left(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}^2_{\phi_h(\tau)}\left[{{\pmb\sigma}}_\tau^2\right],\tau,{{\pmb\sigma}}_\tau^2\left[\hat{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\tau)}^2\right]\right)\right]1_{C_3}\right]\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_\tau^2 1_{C_3}\right]-{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\tau\wedge\sigma} 1_{C_3}\right]-{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 3.4**: $C_4:=\{\hat\rho>\tau\wedge\sigma\}\cap\{\tau>\sigma\}$. Similar to case 3.3, we can show that $${\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{C_4}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[Y_{\tau\wedge\sigma} 1_{C_4}\right]-{\epsilon}.$$ From cases 3.1-3.4, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[U(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]&\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho} 1_{\{\hat\rho\leq\tau\wedge\sigma\}}+Y_{\tau\wedge\sigma} 1_{\{\hat\rho>\tau\wedge\sigma\}}\right]-3{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\geq&{\mathbb{E}}_\mu\left[X_{\hat\rho} 1_{\{\hat\rho\leq\hat\theta\}}+Y_{\tau\wedge\sigma} 1_{\{\hat\rho>\hat\theta\}}\right]-4{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\geq&V_\mu-5{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ By , and , $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},(\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}))\in({\mathbb{T}}_\mu^3)^3$ is a $17{\epsilon}$-saddle point for with $t$ replaced by $\mu$.
Proof of [Theorem ]{}[t1]{}
===========================
In this section, we will construct an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium of the three-player game by using ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibriums of two-player games, as well as ${\epsilon}$-saddle points of games like .
Let ${\epsilon}>0$ be fixed. By lemmas \[l2\]-\[l6\], we can choose $h>0$, such that for any $t$, there exist $(\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_t^1=(\overline\tau_t^1,\overline\tau_{t,3}^1),\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_t^1=(\overline\sigma_t^1,\overline\sigma_{t,2}^1))\in({\mathbb{T}}_t)^2$ being an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game $${\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U^i(t',{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\tau}}])\right],\quad{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t'},\quad i=2,3,$$ for any $t'\in[t-h,t]$, and $(\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_t^2=(\overline\rho_t^2,\overline\rho_{t,3}^2),\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_t^2=(\overline\sigma_t^2,\overline\sigma_{t,1}^2))\in({\mathbb{T}}_t)^2$ being an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game $${\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U^i({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],t',{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}}])\right],\quad{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t'},\quad i=1,3,$$ for any $t'\in[t-h,t]$, and $(\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_t^3=(\overline\rho_t^3,\overline\rho_{t,2}^3),\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_t^3=(\overline\tau_t^3,\overline\tau_{t,1}^3))\in({\mathbb{T}}_t)^2$ being an ${\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game $${\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U^i({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t')\right],\quad{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{t'},\quad i=1,2,$$ for any $t'\in[t-h,t]$, and $\underline\rho_t^{i,23}\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$ being an ${\epsilon}$-optimizer for $$\inf_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t'}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U^i(\rho,t',t')\right]$$ for any $t'\in[t-h,t]$ for $i=2,3$, and $\underline\tau_t^{i,13}\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$ being an ${\epsilon}$-optimizer for $$\inf_{\tau\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t'}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U^i(t',\tau,t')\right]$$ for any $t'\in[t-h,t]$ for $i=1,3$, and $\underline\sigma_t^{i,12}\in{\mathcal{T}}_t$ being an ${\epsilon}$-optimizers for $$\inf_{\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}_{t'}}{\mathbb{E}}_{t'}\left[U^i(t',t',\sigma)\right].$$
Recall $\phi_h(\cdot)$ defined in . For $t\geq 0$, define $$\begin{aligned}
\notag X_t^1&:=&\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1(t,{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\tau}}])\right],\\
\notag Z_t^1&:=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(t,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1 \right]\right)\right],\\
\notag Y_t^{1,2}&:=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\right],t,\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\left[\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\right]\right)\right],\\
\notag Y_t^{1,3}&:=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(t)}^3\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^3\right],\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^3\left[\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(t)}^3\right],t\right)\right],\\
\notag Y_t^1&:=&Y_t^{1,2}\wedge Y_t^{1,3}+{\epsilon},\\
\notag V_t^1&:=&\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_\theta}\inf_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{T}}_\theta}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[X_\rho^1 1_{\{\rho\leq\lambda\}}+Y_\lambda^1 1_{\{\rho>\lambda\}}\right],\\
\notag \mu^1&:=&\inf\{t\geq\theta:\ V_t^1\leq W_t^1+{\epsilon}\},\end{aligned}$$ and $X_t^2,Z_t^2,Y_t^{2,1},Y_t^{2,3},Y_t^2,V_t^2,\mu^2,X_t^3,Z_t^3,Y_t^{3,1},Y_t^{3,2},Y_t^3,V_t^3,\mu^3$ in a symmetric way.
\[l8\] For $i=1,2,3$ and any $t\geq 0$, $X_t^i\leq Y_t^i$.
For $t\geq 0$, let $\tilde{{\pmb\rho}}=\Tilde{{\pmb\tau}}=(t,\infty)\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\notag X_t^1&\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(t,\tilde{{\pmb\tau}}\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\left[\tilde{{\pmb\tau}}\right]\right)\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(t,t,\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\left[\tilde{{\pmb\tau}}\right]\right)\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(\tilde{{\pmb\rho}}\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\right],t,\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\left[\tilde{{\pmb\rho}}\right]\right)\right]\leq Y_t^{1,2}+{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we can show that $X_t^1\leq Y_t^{1,3}+{\epsilon}$. Hence, $X_t^1\leq Y_t^1$.
\[l9\] For $i=1,2,3$, the processes $(Z_t^i)_{t\geq 0}$ and $(Y_t^i)_{t\geq 0}$ are right continuous.
Let $t\in[0,\infty)$. Let $t^n\searrow t$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $|t_n-t|<(1/n)\wedge(\phi_h(t)-t)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\notag &&\hspace{-0.7cm} |Z_{t_n}^1-Z_t^1|\\
\notag &&\hspace{-0.7cm} =\left|{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[U^1\left(t_n,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1 \right]\right)\right]-{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(t,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1 \right]\right)\right]\right|\\
\notag &&\hspace{-0.7cm} \leq\left|{\mathbb{E}}_{t_n}\left[U^1\left(t,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1 \right]\right)\right]-{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(t,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1 \right]\right)\right]\right|+\eta(1/n).\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\left({\mathbb{E}}_{t+s}\left[U^1\left(t,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(t)}^1 \right]\right)\right]\right)_{s\geq 0}$$ is a martingale w.r.t. the filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_{t+s})_{s\geq 0}$ satisfying the usual conditions, it is right continuous. Hence, $Z_{t_n}^1\rightarrow Z_t^1$. Similarly, we can show that $(Y_t^{1,2})_{t\geq 0}$ and $(Y_t^{1,3})_{t\geq 0}$ are right continuous.
By Lemmas \[l5\] and \[l9\], we have that for $i=1,2,3$, the process $(V_t^i)_{t\geq 0}$ is right continuous. Then we can choose $\delta>0$ being ${\mathcal{F}}_\theta$-measurable, such that for $i=1,2,3$, $$\label{e18}
{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\sup_{0\leq r\leq\delta}\left|Z_{\mu^i+r}^i-Z_{\mu^i}^i\right|\right]<{\epsilon}\quad\text{and}\quad {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left|V_{\mu^i+\delta}^i-V_{\mu^i}^i\right|<{\epsilon}.$$ It can be shown that for any $\lambda\in{\mathcal{T}}_\theta$, $\lambda+\delta\in{\mathcal{T}}_{\theta+}$.
By [Proposition ]{}[p1]{}, there exist $({{\pmb\rho}}^1, (\underline{{\pmb\tau}}^1=(\underline\tau^1,\underline\tau_1^1,\underline\tau_3^1,\underline\tau_{13}^1),\underline{{\pmb\sigma}}^1=(\underline\sigma^1,\underline\sigma_1^1,\underline\sigma_2^1,\underline\sigma_{12}^1)))\in({\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^1+\delta}^3)^3$ being an ${\epsilon}$-saddle point for the game $$\label{e19}
\tilde V_{\mu^1+\delta}:=\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^1+\delta}^3}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^1+\delta}^3}{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^1+\delta}\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right],$$ and $({{\pmb\tau}}^2, (\underline{{\pmb\rho}}^2=(\underline\rho^2,\underline\rho_2^2,\underline\rho_3^2,\underline\rho_{23}^2),\underline{{\pmb\sigma}}^2=(\underline\sigma^2,\underline\sigma_1^2,\underline\sigma_2^2,\underline\sigma_{12}^2)))\in({\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^2+\delta}^3)^3$ being an ${\epsilon}$-saddle point for the game $$\sup_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^2+\delta}^3}\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^2+\delta}^3}{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^2+\delta}\left[U^2({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right],$$ and $({{\pmb\sigma}}^3, (\underline{{\pmb\rho}}^3=(\underline\rho^3,\underline\rho_2^3,\underline\rho_3^3,\underline\rho_{23}^3),\underline{{\pmb\tau}}^3=(\underline\tau^3\underline\tau_1^3,\underline\tau_3^3,\underline\tau_{13}^3)))\in({\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^3+\delta}^3)^3$ being an ${\epsilon}$-saddle point for the game $$\sup_{{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^3+\delta}^3}\inf_{{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^3+\delta}^3}{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^3+\delta}\left[U^3({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right].$$
Now define $\hat{{\pmb\rho}}=(\hat\rho,\hat\rho_2,\hat\rho_3,\hat\rho_{23}), \hat{{\pmb\tau}}=(\hat\tau,\hat\tau_1,\hat\tau_3,\hat\tau_{13}), \hat{{\pmb\sigma}}=(\hat\sigma,\hat\sigma_1,\hat\sigma_2,\hat\sigma_{12})$ as follows. $$\hat\rho:=
\begin{cases}
\mu^1,&\text{on}\ A,\\
\underline\rho^2,&\text{on}\ B,\\
\underline\rho^3,&\text{on}\ C,
\end{cases}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\hat\rho_2(t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\rho_2^2(t),&\text{on}\ B\cap\{t\geq\mu^2+\delta\},\\
\underline\rho_2^3(t),&\text{on}\ C\cap\{t\geq\mu^3+\delta\},\\
\overline\rho_{\phi_h(t)}^2,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ $$\hat\rho_3(t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\rho_3^2(t),&\text{on}\ B\cap\{t\geq\mu^2+\delta\},\\
\underline\rho_3^3(t),&\text{on}\ C\cap\{t\geq\mu^3+\delta\},\\
\overline\rho_{\phi_h(t)}^3,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\quad
\hat\rho_{23}(s,t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\rho_{23}^2(s,t),&\text{on}\ B\cap\{\mu^2+\delta\leq s\wedge t\},\\
\underline\rho_{23}^3(s,t),&\text{on}\ C\cap\{\mu^3+\delta\leq s\wedge t\},\\
\underline\rho_{\phi_h(t)}^{3,23},&\text{on}\ B\cap\{s=t=\mu^2\},\\
\underline\rho_{\phi_h(t)}^{2,23},&\text{on}\ C\cap\{s=t=\mu^3\},\\
\overline\rho_{\phi_h(s),3}^2(t),&\text{on}\ D\cap\{s\leq t\},\\
\overline\rho_{\phi_h(t),2}^3(s),&\text{on}\ D\cap\{s>t\},\\
\end{cases}$$ and $$\hat\tau:=
\begin{cases}
\mu^2,&\text{on}\ B,\\
\underline\tau^1,&\text{on}\ A,\\
\underline\tau^3,&\text{on}\ C,
\end{cases}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\hat\tau_1(t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\tau_1^1(t),&\text{on}\ A\cap\{t\geq\mu^1+\delta\},\\
\underline\tau_1^3(t),&\text{on}\ C\cap\{t\geq\mu^3+\delta\},\\
\overline\tau_{\phi_h(t)}^1,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ $$\hat\tau_3(t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\tau_3^1(t),&\text{on}\ A\cap\{t\geq\mu^1+\delta\},\\
\underline\tau_3^3(t),&\text{on}\ C\cap\{t\geq\mu^3+\delta\},\\
\overline\tau_{\phi_h(t)}^3,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\quad
\hat\tau_{13}(s,t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\tau_{13}^1(s,t),&\text{on}\ A\cap\{\mu^1+\delta\leq s\wedge t\},\\
\underline\tau_{13}^3(s,t),&\text{on}\ C\cap\{\mu^3+\delta\leq s\wedge t\},\\
\underline\tau_{\phi_h(t)}^{3,13},&\text{on}\ A\cap\{s=t=\mu^1\},\\
\underline\tau_{\phi_h(t)}^{1,13},&\text{on}\ C\cap\{s=t=\mu^3\},\\
\overline\tau_{\phi_h(s),3}^1(t),&\text{on}\ E\cap\{s\leq t\},\\
\overline\tau_{\phi_h(t),1}^3(s),&\text{on}\ E\cap\{s>t\},\\
\end{cases}$$ and $$\hat\sigma:=
\begin{cases}
\mu^3,&\text{on}\ C,\\
\underline\sigma^1,&\text{on}\ A,\\
\underline\sigma^2,&\text{on}\ B,
\end{cases}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\hat\sigma_1(t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\sigma_1^1(t),&\text{on}\ A\cap\{t\geq\mu^1+\delta\},\\
\underline\sigma_1^2(t),&\text{on}\ B\cap\{t\geq\mu^2+\delta\},\\
\overline\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^1,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ $$\hat\sigma_2(t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\sigma_2^1(t),&\text{on}\ A\cap\{t\geq\mu^1+\delta\},\\
\underline\sigma_2^2(t),&\text{on}\ B\cap\{t\geq\mu^2+\delta\},\\
\overline\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^2,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\quad
\hat\sigma_{12}(s,t):=
\begin{cases}
\underline\sigma_{12}^1(s,t),&\text{on}\ A\cap\{\mu^1+\delta\leq s\wedge t\},\\
\underline\sigma_{12}^2(s,t),&\text{on}\ B\cap\{\mu^2+\delta\leq s\wedge t\},\\
\underline\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^{2,12},&\text{on}\ A\cap\{s=t=\mu^1\},\\
\underline\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^{1,12},&\text{on}\ B\cap\{s=t=\mu^2\},\\
\overline\sigma_{\phi_h(s),2}^1(t),&\text{on}\ F\cap\{s\leq t\},\\
\overline\sigma_{\phi_h(t),1}^2(s),&\text{on}\ F\cap\{s>t\},\\
\end{cases}$$
where $$A:=\{\mu^1\leq\mu^2,\mu^1\leq\mu^3\},\quad B:=\{\mu^2<\mu^1,\mu^2\leq\mu^3\},\quad C:=\{\mu^3<\mu^1,\mu^3<\mu^2\},$$ and $D$ (resp. $E,F$) is the complement of the first four cases in the definition of $\hat\rho_{23}$ (resp. $\hat\tau_{13},\hat\sigma_{12}$). It can be shown that $\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_\theta^3$. The next result shows that $(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}})$ is a $13{\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game when $N=3$. In particular, [Theorem ]{}[t1]{} holds for $N=3$.
$(\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}})\in({\mathbb{T}}_\theta^3)^3$ is a $13{\epsilon}$-Nash equilibrium for the game for $N=3$.
First, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^1}\left[U^1\left(\mu^1,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\mu^1)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\mu^1)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\mu^1)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\mu^1)}^1\right]\right)\right]1_A\right]\\
\notag &+&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^2}\left[U^1\left(\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^2\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^2\right],\mu^2,\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^2\left[\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^2\right]\right)\right]1_B\right]\\
\notag &+&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^3}\left[U^1\left(\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\mu^3)}^3\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\mu^3)}^3\right],\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\mu^3)}^3\left[\overline{{\pmb\rho}}_{\phi_h(\mu^3)}^3\right],\mu^3\right)\right]1_C\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right].\end{aligned}$$
Now take ${{\pmb\rho}}=(\rho,\rho_2,\rho_3,\rho_{23})\in{\mathbb{T}}_\theta^3$. We will show that $$\label{e20}
{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]+13{\epsilon}.$$ We consider seven cases.
**Case 1**: $D_1:=\{\rho<\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\}$. As $X_t^1\leq Z_t^1$ for any $t\geq 0$, $$\mu^1\leq\inf\{t\geq\theta:\ V_t^1\leq X_t^1+{\epsilon}\}.$$ Therefore, the process $(V_t)_{t\geq 0}$ is a sub-martingale from $\theta$ to $\mu^1$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_1}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\rho\left[U^1\left(\rho,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\right]\right)\right]1_{D_1}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Z_\rho^1 1_{D_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[V_\rho^1 1_{D_1}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3}\left[V_{\rho\wedge\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3}^1\right] 1_{D_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[V_{\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3}^1 1_{D_1}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(V_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+V_{\mu^2}^1 1_B+V_{\mu^3}^1 1_C\right) 1_{D_1}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_1}\right]+3{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 2**: $D_2:=\{\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\leq\rho<\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3+\delta\}\cap A$. By [@KS Lemma 2.15, page 8], $\{\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\leq\rho\}\cap A\in{\mathcal{F}}_\rho$, and thus $D_2\in{\mathcal{F}}_\rho$. Then by , $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_2}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_\rho\left[U^1\left(\rho,\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\right],\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\left[\overline{{\pmb\tau}}_{\phi_h(\rho)}^1\right]\right)\right]1_{D_2}\right]\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Z_\rho^1 1_{D_2}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_{D_2}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_2}\right]+{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 3**: $D_3:=\{\rho\geq\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3+\delta\}\cap A$. Recall $\tilde V_{\mu^1+\delta}$ defined in . By [Proposition ]{}[p1]{}, $$\tilde V_{\mu^1+\delta}=\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{T}}_{\mu^1+\delta}}\inf_{\lambda\in{\mathcal{T}}_{\mu^1+\delta}}{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu+\delta}\left[X_\rho^1 1_{\{\rho\leq\lambda\}}+\tilde Y_\lambda^1 1_{\{\rho>\lambda\}}\right],$$ where $$\tilde Y_t^1:=\left(\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],t,{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}}])\right]\right)\wedge\left(\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\right).$$ We have that $$\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\sigma}}],t,{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}}])\right]\leq\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left({{\pmb\rho}}\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\right],t,\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(t)}^2\left[{{\pmb\rho}}\right]\right)\right]\leq Y_t^{1,2}+{\epsilon},$$ and similarly $\sup_{{{\pmb\rho}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}\inf_{{{\pmb\tau}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_t^2}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}}],t)\right]\leq Y_t^{1,3}+{\epsilon}$. Therefore, for any $t\geq 0$, $\tilde Y_t^1\leq Y_t^1$, and thus $$\tilde V_{\mu^1+\delta}^1\leq V_{\mu^1+\delta}^1.$$ Then by , $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_3}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^1+\delta}\left[U^1\left({{\pmb\rho}}\left[\underline{{\pmb\tau}}^1,\underline{{\pmb\sigma}}^1\right],\underline{{\pmb\tau}}^1\left[{{\pmb\rho}},\underline{{\pmb\sigma}}^1\right],\underline{{\pmb\sigma}}^1\left[{{\pmb\rho}},\underline{{\pmb\tau}}^1\right]\right)\right]1_{D_3}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\tilde V_{\mu^1+\delta}^1 1_{D_3}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[V_{\mu^1+\delta}^1 1_{D_3}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[V_{\mu^1}^1 1_{D_3}\right]+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_{D_3}\right]+3{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_3}\right]+3{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 4**: $D_4:=\{\rho=\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\}\cap B$. It can be shown that $$Y_t^{1,2}\geq\inf_{\sigma\in{\mathcal{T}}_t}{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1(t,t,\sigma)\right]-{\epsilon}\geq{\mathbb{E}}_t\left[U^1\left(t,t,\underline\sigma_{\phi_h(t)}^{1,12}\right)\right]-2{\epsilon}.$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_4}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^2}\left[U^1\left(\mu^2,\mu^2,\underline\sigma_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^{1,12}\right)\right]1_{D_4}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_{D_4}\right]+2{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_4}\right]+2{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 5**: $D_5:=\{\rho>\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\}\cap B$. Let ${{\pmb\rho}}_{\mu^2}:=(\rho_2(\mu^2),\rho_{23}(\mu^2,\cdot))\in{\mathbb{T}}_{\mu^2}^2$. $$\begin{aligned}
\notag {\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_5}\right]&=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[{\mathbb{E}}_{\mu^2}\left[U^1\left({{\pmb\rho}}_{\mu^2}\left[\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^2\right],\mu^2,\overline{{\pmb\sigma}}_{\phi_h(\mu^2)}^2\left[{{\pmb\rho}}_{\mu^2}\right]\right)\right]1_{D_5}\right]\\
\notag &\leq&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_{D_5}\right]+{\epsilon}\\
\notag &=&{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_5}\right]+{\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
**Case 6**: $D_6:=\{\rho=\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\}\cap C$. Similar to case 4, we can show that $${\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_6}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_6}\right]+2{\epsilon}.$$
**Case 7**: $D_7:=\{\rho>\mu^1\wedge\mu^2\wedge\mu^3\}\cap C$. Similar to case 5, we can show that $${\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^1({{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])1_{D_7}\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[\left(Z_{\mu^1}^1 1_A+Y_{\mu^2}^{1,2} 1_B+Y_{\mu^3}^{1,3} 1_C\right) 1_{D_7}\right]+{\epsilon}.$$ From cases 1-7, we have holds. Similarly, we can show that for any ${{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}\in{\mathbb{T}}_\theta^3$, $${\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^2(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^2(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]+13{\epsilon},$$ and $${\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^3(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},{{\pmb\sigma}}],{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]\leq{\mathbb{E}}_\theta\left[U^3(\hat{{\pmb\rho}}[\hat{{\pmb\tau}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\tau}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}],\hat{{\pmb\sigma}}[\hat{{\pmb\rho}},\hat{{\pmb\tau}}])\right]+13{\epsilon}.$$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Multidimensional heterogeneity and endogeneity are important features of a wide class of econometric models. We consider heterogenous coefficients models where the outcome is a linear combination of known functions of treatment and heterogenous coefficients. We use control variables to obtain identification results for average treatment effects. With discrete instruments in a triangular model we find that average treatment effects cannot be identified when the number of support points is less than or equal to the number of coefficients. A sufficient condition for identification is that the second moment matrix of the treatment functions given the control is nonsingular with probability one. We relate this condition to identification of average treatment effects with multiple treatments.'
author:
- 'Whitney K. Newey$^\dag$ and Sami Stouli$^§$'
date: '.'
title: 'Heterogenous Coefficients, Discrete Instruments, and Identification of Treatment Effects'
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Keywords</span>: Heterogeneity, discrete instruments, control functions, nonseparable models, random coefficients.
Introduction
============
Nonseparable and/or multidimensional heterogeneity is important. It is present in discrete choice models as in McFadden (1973) and Hausman and Wise (1978). Multidimensional heterogeneity in demand functions allows price and income elasticities to vary over individuals in unrestricted ways, e.g., Hausman and Newey (2016) and Kitamura and Stoye (2016). It allows general variation in production technologies. Treatment effects that vary across individuals require intercept and slope heterogeneity.
Endogeneity is often a problem in these models because we are interested in the effect of an observed choice, or treatment variable on an outcome and the choice or treatment variable is correlated with heterogeneity. Control variables provide an important means of controlling for endogeneity with multidimensional heterogeneity. A control variable is an observed or estimable variable that makes heterogeneity and treatment independent when it is conditioned on. Observed covariates serve as control variables for treatment effects (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). The conditional cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a choice variable given an instrument can serve as a control variable in triangular economic models (Imbens and Newey, 2009).
In fully nonparametric, nonseparable models identification of average or quantile treatment effects requires a full support condition, that the support of the control variable conditional on the treatment variable is equal to the marginal support of the control variable. This restriction is often not satisfied in practice; e.g., see Imbens and Newey (2009) for Engel curves. In triangular models the full support cannot hold when all instruments are discrete and the treatment variable is continuous.
One approach to this problem is to focus on identified sets for objects of interest, as for quantile effects in Imbens and Newey (2009). Another approach is to consider restrictions on the model that allow for point identification. Florens, Heckman, Meghir, and Vytlacil (2008) gave identification results when the outcome equation is a polynomial in the endogenous variable. Torgovitsky (2015) and D’Haultf½uille and Février (2015) gave identification results when there is only scalar heterogeneity in the outcome equation.
In this paper we give identification results when the outcome function is a linear combination of known functions of a treatment that are not necessarily polynomials. The coefficients in this linear combination are allowed to be heterogenous in unrestricted ways. We give identification results for average treatment effects in triangular models with discrete instruments. We find that a necessary condition for identification is that the number of support points of the discrete instruments is at least as large as the number of known functions of treatment in the outcome function. A sufficient identification condition is that the second moment matrix of the known functions conditional on the control function is nonsingular with probability one. We obtain these results from the implied varying coefficient structure of the regression of outcome on the treatment and control variables. We also use this approach to give identification results for average treatment effects with multidimensional treatments.
These results extend Florens, Heckman, Meghir, and Vytlacil (2008) in allowing for nonpolynomial functions of the treatment variable in the outcome equation and in allowing for discrete instruments. The results also show that it is possible to identify the average treatment effect when there is multidimensional heterogeneity and discrete instruments, in this way going beyond Torgovitsky (2015) and D’Haultf½uille and Février (2015). We also contribute to the literature on nonseparable models by giving identification results based on the conditional nonsingularity of the second moment matrix of functions of the treatment variable.
In Section 2 we introduce the model. In Section 3 we give the main identification result and the key implications of the identification condition. In Section 4 we discuss estimation of the model. Section 5 concludes. The proofs of all the results are given in the Appendix.
The Model
=========
Let $Y$ denote an outcome variable of interest, $X$ an endogenous treatment, and $\varepsilon$ a structural disturbance vector of finite dimension. We consider the heterogenous coefficients model $$Y=p(X)^{\prime }\varepsilon , \label{eq:g(x,e)}$$where $p(X)$ is a vector of known functions. This model is linear in the known functions $p(X)$ of the endogenous variables with coefficients $\varepsilon $ that need not be independent of $X.$ The coefficients $\varepsilon $ characterise how $p(X)$ affects $Y$ and can vary over individuals. This model generalises Florens, Heckman, Meghir, and Vytlacil (2008) to allow $p(X)$ to be any functions of $X$ rather than just powers of $X$. When $p(X)$ is a vector of approximating functions such as splines or wavelets this model can be viewed as an approximation to a general nonseparable model $Y=g(X,\varepsilon )$ where $\varepsilon $ are varying coefficients in an expansion of $g(x,\varepsilon )$ in $p(x)$, as in Hausman and Newey (2016). In this paper we take $p(X)^{\prime }\varepsilon $ to be a correct model.
We consider the use of control variables to identify interesting objects associated with the function $p(X)^{\prime }\varepsilon $. We assume that the vector $\varepsilon $ is mean independent of the endogenous variable $X$ conditional on an observable or estimable control variable denoted $V$.
For the model in (\[eq:g(x,e)\]), there exists a control variable $V$ such that $E\left[ \varepsilon \mid X,V\right] =E\left[ \varepsilon \mid V\right]$. \[ass:Assumption1\]
This conditional mean independence property and the form of the structural function $p(X)^{\prime }\varepsilon$ in (\[eq:g(x,e)\]) together imply that $X$ is known to affect the control regression function (CRF) of $Y$ given $(X,V)$, $E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]$, only through the vector of known functions $p(X)$: $$E\left[ Y\mid X,V\right] =p(X)^{\prime }E[\varepsilon |X,V]=p(X)^{\prime
}E[\varepsilon |V]=p(X)^{\prime }q_{0}(V),\; q_{0}(V)\equiv E[\varepsilon
|V]. \label{eq:controlregression}$$This control variable regression generalises that of Chernozhukov, Fernandez-Val, Newey, Stouli, and Vella (2017) to allow $q_{0}(V)$ to be a vector of unknown functions of $V$ rather than a linear combination of finitely many known transformations of $V$. This restricted nonparametric regression is of the varying coefficients type considered by Cai, Das, Xiong, and Wu (2006).
An important kind of control variable arises in a triangular system where an instrumental variable $Z$ is excluded from the outcome equation ([eq:g(x,e)]{}) and where $X$ is a scalar with$$X=h(Z,\eta ), \label{eq:h(z,eta)}$$with $h(z,\eta )$ strictly monotonic in $\eta $. If $(\varepsilon ,\eta )$ is jointly independent of $Z$, Assumption \[ass:Assumption1\] is satisfied in the triangular system (\[eq:g(x,e)\])-(\[eq:h(z,eta)\]) with $V=F_{X\mid Z}(X\mid Z)$, the CDF of $X$ conditional on $Z$ (Imbens and Newey, 2009). Alternatively, $V=F_{X\mid Z}(X\mid Z)$ is a control variable in this model under the weaker conditions that $\eta $ is independent from $Z
$ and that $\varepsilon $ be mean independent of $Z$ conditional on $\eta $.
For the triangular system (\[eq:g(x,e)\])-(\[eq:h(z,eta)\]), if $\eta$ is independent from $Z$ and $E[\varepsilon \mid \eta ,Z]=E[\varepsilon \mid \eta ]$ then $E[\varepsilon
\mid X,V]=E[\varepsilon \mid V]$.\[thm:Theorem1\]
Additional exogenous covariates $Z_{1}$ can be incorporated straightforwardly in the model through the known functional component of the CRF. With covariates $Z_{1}$, the CRF takes the form $$E\left[ Y\mid X,Z_{1},V\right] =p(X,Z_{1})^{\prime }q_{0}(V),$$where $p(X,Z_{1})$ is a vector of known functions of $(X,Z_{1})$. The addition of exogenous covariates does not affect the identification analysis and it is straightforward to incorporate them, so we do not include them explicitly in the rest of this paper.
An important special case of this model is treatment effects where $p(X)$ is a vector that includes a constant and dummy variables for various kinds of treatments. For example the Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) treatment effects model is included as a special case where $X\in \{0,1\}$ is a treatment dummy variable that is equal to one if treatment occurs and equals zero without treatment and$$p(X)=(1,X)^{\prime }.$$In this case $\varepsilon =(\varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2})$ is two dimensional with $\varepsilon _{1}$ giving the outcome without treatment and $\varepsilon _{2}$ being the treatment effect. Here the control variables in $V$ would be observable variables with Assumption 1 holding, i.e., the coefficients $(\varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2})$ are mean independent of treatment conditional on controls, which is the unconfoundedness assumption of Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983). Multiple treatments could also be allowed for by letting $X$ be a vector of dummy variables with each variable representing a different kind of treatment, e.g., Imbens (2000). A central object of interest in model (\[eq:g(x,e)\]) is the average structural function (ASF) given by $\mu (x)\equiv p(x)^{\prime }E[\varepsilon ]$; see Blundell and Powell (2003) and Wooldridge (2005). When $X\in \{0,1\}$ is a dummy variable for treatment $\mu (0)$ gives the average outcome for those not treated and $\mu (1)$ the average outcome for those who are treated, with $\mu (1)-\mu (0)$ being the average treatment effect. When $X$ is continuously distributed $\partial \mu (x)/\partial x=[\partial
p(x)/\partial x]^{\prime }E\left[\varepsilon \right]$ gives a derivative version of the average treatment effect. The ASF can be expressed as a known linear combination of $E\left[q_{0}(V)\right]$ from equation (\[eq:controlregression\]). By iterated expectations $$p(x)^{\prime }E\left[q_{0}(V)\right]=p(x)^{\prime }E\left[ E\left[\varepsilon \mid V\right] \right] =\mu (x).$$We note that identification of the ASF requires integrating over the marginal distribution of the control variable $V.$ There are other interesting structural objects that do not rely only on the marginal distribution of $V.$ For example, the average derivative of the structural function is$$\begin{aligned}
E\left[ \frac{\partial \{p(X)^{\prime }\varepsilon \}}{\partial x}\right]
&=&E\left[ E\left[ \frac{\partial \{p(X)^{\prime }\varepsilon \}}{\partial x}\mid X,V\right] \right] =E\left[ \left\{ \frac{\partial p(X)}{\partial x}\right\} ^{\prime }E\left[ \varepsilon \mid X,V\right] \right] \\
&=&E\left[ \left\{ \frac{\partial p(X)}{\partial x}\right\} ^{\prime }E\left[
\varepsilon \mid V\right] \right] =E\left[ \frac{\partial E[Y \mid X,V]}{\partial x}\right] ,\end{aligned}$$as shown in Imbens and Newey (2009) for general nonseparable models. This object and others like it, including the local average response of Altonji and Matzkin (2005), do not require the full support condition for identification in general nonseparable models. For this reason we focus our identification results on the ASF where we use the heterogenous coefficients structure to weaken the full support condition for identification.
Identification
==============
Main Results
------------
One main contribution of this paper is to highlight and show that in the heterogenous coefficients model we consider the ASF is identified under the following condition:
$E\left[ \left\Vert \varepsilon \right\Vert ^{4} \right] <\infty $, $E\left[ \left\Vert p\left( X\right)
\right\Vert ^{4}\right] <\infty $, and $E\left[ p\left( X\right) p\left(
X\right) ^{\prime }\mid V\right] $ is nonsingular with probability one.\[ass:Assumption2\]
This condition is sufficient for identification of the unknown function $q_{0}(V)$.
If Assumptions \[ass:Assumption1\]-\[ass:Assumption2\] hold then $q_{0}\left(V\right)$ is identified.\[thm:Theorem2\]
We discuss below conditions for nonsingularity of $E\left[ p\left( X\right)
p\left( X\right) ^{\prime }\mid V\right] $. All those conditions are sufficient for identification of $q_{0}\left( V\right) $, including those that allow for discrete valued instrumental variables in triangular systems. We also note that identification of $q_{0}\left( V\right) $ means uniqueness on a set of $V$ having probability one. Thus the ASF will be identified as $$\mu \left( X\right) =p\left( X\right) ^{\prime }E[q_{0}\left( V\right) ],
\label{eq:mu(X)}$$with probability one. In other words, the ASF is identified because $p\left(
X\right) $ is a known function and $q_{0}\left( V\right) $ is identified, and hence $E\left[ q_{0}\left( V\right) \right] $ also is.
If Assumptions \[ass:Assumption1\]-\[ass:Assumption2\] hold then the ASF is identified.\[thm:Theorem3\]
The identification analysis applies to other control regressions and model specifications. First, Theorems \[thm:Theorem2\] and \[thm:Theorem3\] also apply to models with CRF of the form $E\left[ Y\mid X,V\right]
=p_{0}(X)^{\prime }q(V)$, where $p_{0}(X)$ is now unknown and $V$ affects $E\left[ Y\mid X,V\right] $ only through a vector of known functions $q(V)$. Identification of $p_{0}(X)$ then requires that $E\left[ q\left( V\right)
q\left( V\right) ^{\prime }\mid X\right] $ be nonsingular with probability one. Second, Theorem \[thm:Theorem2\] directly applies to other control regressions, such as the control conditional quantile function $Q_{Y\mid
XV}(u\mid X,V)=p(X)^{\prime }q_{u}(V)$, $u\in (0,1)$, and the control CDF $F_{Y\mid XV}(y\mid X,V)=p(X)^{\prime }q_{y}(V)$. Third, the identification condition also implies identification of control regressions where the functional form of both how $X$ and $V$ affect the outcome is restricted, under the weaker condition that it holds on a set of $V$ having positive probability. A detailed exposition of all these alternative control regression specifications and the corresponding average, quantile and distribution structural functions is given in Newey and Stouli (2018).
Discussion of the Identification Condition
------------------------------------------
The nonsingularity condition on $E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime }\mid V]$ allows for the support of $X$ conditional on $V$ to be discrete. Under this condition, the heterogenous coefficients form of model (\[eq:g(x,e)\]) and identification of $q_{0}(V)$ together imply uniqueness of the CRF on a set of $(X,V)$ having probability one. Therefore the integral in the definition ([eq:mu(X)]{}) of the ASF is well-defined because integration then occurs over a range of $v$ values conditional on $X$ where the CRF is identified. Stronger sufficient conditions for identification are full support (Imbens and Newey, 2009), that the support of $V$ conditional on $X$ equals the marginal support of $V$, and measurable separability (Florens, Heckman, Meghir, and Vytlacil, 2008), that any function of $X$ equal to a function of $V$ with probability one must be equal to a constant with probability one. Both conditions require $X$ to have continuous support conditional on $V$. The formulation of an identification condition in terms of the conditional second moment matrix of $p(X)$ thus represents a substantial weakening of the conditions previously available in the literature.
When $X\in \{0,1\}$ and $p(X)=(1,X)^{\prime }$, the identification condition becomes the standard condition for the treatment effect model $$Y=\varepsilon _{1}+\varepsilon _{2}X,\quad E\left[ \varepsilon \mid X,V\right] =E\left[ \varepsilon \mid V\right] ,\quad \varepsilon \equiv
(\varepsilon _{1},\varepsilon _{2})^{\prime }.$$The identification condition is that the conditional variance matrix of $(1,X)^{\prime }$ given $V$ is nonsingular with probability one, which is the same as $$\text{Var}(X\mid V)=P(V)[1-P(V)]>0,\quad P(V)\equiv \Pr (X=1\mid V),
\label{eq:binaryT}$$with probability one, where $P(V)$ is the propensity score. Here we can see that the identification condition is the same as $0<P(V)<1$ with probability one, which is the standard identification condition.
With multiple treatments letting $X$ denote a vector of dummy variables $X(t)$, $t\in \mathcal{T}\equiv \{1,\dots ,T\}$, taking value one if treatment $t$ occurs and zero otherwise, the identification condition is that the conditional second moment matrix of $$p(X)=(1,X(1),\dots ,X(T))^{\prime }$$given $V$ is nonsingular with probability one. For the case where $V$ is observable, Graham and Pinto (2018) address similar issues in independent work. Considerable simplification occurs when the treatments are mutually exclusive, allowing for the characterisation of a necessary and sufficient condition for nonsingularity of $E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime }\mid V]$ that generalises ([eq:binaryT]{}).
Suppose that $\Pr(X(t)=1\mid V)>0$ for each $t\in\mathcal{T}$. With mutually exclusive treatments, $E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime }\mid V]$ is nonsingular with probability one if and only if$$1-\Sigma_{s=1}^{T} \Pr(X(s)=1\mid V)>0 $$ with probability one.\[thm:Theorem4\]
In triangular systems with control variable $V=F_{X\mid Z}(X\mid Z)$, our identification condition can equivalently be stated in terms of the first stage representation $X=Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid Z)$ and the instrument $Z$. By independence of $V$ from $Z$, a sufficient condition for identification is that $$E[p(Q_{X\mid Z}(v\mid Z))p(Q_{X\mid Z}(v\mid Z))']$$ be nonsingular for almost every $v\in\mathcal{V}$. When $Z$ is discrete with support $\mathcal{Z}=\left\{ z:\Pr(Z=z)\geq\delta>0\right\} $ of finite cardinality $|\mathcal{Z}|$, a necessary condition for nonsingularity is then that the set $\mathcal{Q}(V)$ of distinct values[^1] of $z\mapsto Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid z)$ has cardinality $|\mathcal{Q}(V)|$ greater than or equal to $J\equiv\textrm{dim}(p(X))$ with probability one.
Suppose that $|\mathcal{Z}|<\infty$. Then $E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime }\mid V]$ is nonsingular with probability one only if $\Pr\left[|\mathcal{Q}(V)|\geq J\right]=1$.\[thm:Theorem5\]
Theorem \[thm:Theorem5\] formalises the intuitive notion that the complexity of the model as measured by the dimension of its known functional component $p(X)$ is restricted by the cardinality of the set of instrumental values. Thus only when $p(X)=(1,X)^{\prime }$ can identification be achieved in the presence of a binary instrument. A more primitive condition for identification in this case is that a change in the value of the instrument shifts the value of the conditional quantile function $z\mapsto Q_{X\mid
Z}(V\mid z)$ with probability one.
\[thm:Theorem6\]Let $p(X)=(1,X)^{\prime }$. If $|\mathcal{Z}|=2$ and $\Pr[Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid z_{1})\neq Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid z_{2})]=1$, then $E\left[p\left(X\right)p\left(X\right)^{\prime}\mid V\right]$ is nonsingular with probability one.
Estimation
==========
The results of the previous Section lead to direct estimation methods for the heterogenous coefficients model we consider. One approach to making estimation feasible is through the approximation of the nonparametric component $q_{0}(V)$ by approximating functions such as splines or wavelets.
For the CRF specification $E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]=p(X)'q_{0}(V)$, we approximate each component $q_{0j}(V)$, $j\in \mathcal{J}\equiv \{1,\ldots,J\}$, of the unknown functional coefficient vector $q_{0}(V)$ by a linear combination of $K$ basis functions $\psi^{K}=(\psi_{1}^{K},\ldots,\psi_{K}^{K})'$, $$q_{0j}(V)\approx\sum_{k=1}^{K}b_{jk}\psi_{k}^{K}(V)=b_{j}'\psi^{K}(V),\quad j\in\mathcal{J},\label{eq:Approximation}$$ where $b_{j}=(b_{j1},\ldots,b_{jK})'$, $j\in\mathcal{J}$, which yields an approximation of the form $$E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]=p(X)'q_{0}(V)\approx\sum_{j=1}^{J}\left\{ b_{j}'\psi^{K}(V)\right\} p_{j}(X)=b'[p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)],$$ where $b=(b_{1}',\ldots,b_{J}')'$. Such an approximation is well-defined under our conditions with $b=b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K}$, the coefficient vector of a least squares regression of $Y$ on $p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)$, $$b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K}\equiv\arg\min_{b\in\mathbb{R}^{JK}}E\left[\left\{ Y-b'[p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)]\right\} ^{2}\right].\label{eq:OLS1}$$ The proposed approximation is valid for the CRF $E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]$ if the specified basis functions satisfy the following condition.
For all $K$, $E\left[||\psi^{K}(V)||^{2}\right]<\infty$, $E[\psi^{K}(V)\psi^{K}(V)^{\prime }]$ exists and is nonsingular, and, for any $J$ vector of functions $a(V)$ with $E[||a(V)||^{2}]<\infty$, there are $K\times1$ vectors $\varphi_{j}^{K}$, $j\in\mathcal{J}$, such that as $K\rightarrow\infty$, $E[\sum_{j=1}^{J}\{a_{j}(V)-\psi^{K}(V)^{\prime
}\varphi_{j}^{K}\}^{2}]\rightarrow0$.\[ass:Assumption3-sieve\]
Under this assumption we have that, as $K\rightarrow\infty$, $$E\left[\left\{ E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]-[p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)]^{\prime }b_{\text{LS}}^{K}\right\} ^{2}\right]\rightarrow0. \label{eq:approx}$$ Therefore $E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]$ can be approximated arbitrarily well by increasing the number of terms in the approximate specification ([eq:Approximation]{})
Suppose that $E\left[\left\Vert q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\Vert ^{2}\right]<\infty$ and $\sup_{v\in\mathcal{V}}E\left[||p(X)||^{2}\mid V=v\right]\leq C$ for some finite constant $C$. Then (\[eq:approx\]) holds under Assumptions \[ass:Assumption1\]-[ass:Assumption3-sieve]{}.\[thm:Theorem7\]
An estimator for the CRF is given by taking the sample analog in ([eq:OLS1]{}), upon substituting for the control variable $V$ by its estimated version when it is unobservable. The properties of the corresponding ASF estimator, including convergence rates and asymptotic normality, have been extensively analysed by Imbens and Newey (2002) for the general case where $p(X)$ and $q(V)$ both are increasing sequences of splines or power series approximating functions and the vector of regressors is of the kronecker product form we consider (cf. Theorems 6–8 in Imbens and Newey, 2002). Their analysis accounts for a first step nonparametric estimate of the control variable, and their results directly apply to the simpler case we consider here where the dimension of $p(X)$ is fixed, including when $V$ is observable. In particular, we find that the convergence rate for the ASF in the model is solely determined by the rate of the first step estimator for the control variable. An immediate and remarkable corollary of this result is that in the model average treatment effects are estimable at a parametric rate when $V$ is itself estimable at a parametric rate[^2] or observable.
Conclusion
==========
This paper introduces a new, transparent nonsingularity condition for the identification of models with heterogenous coefficients and endogenous treatments. We use this condition to give identification results that allow for discrete instruments in triangular systems with multidimensional unobserved heterogeneity. The approach applies to various types of treatment effects and model specifications, including average treatment effects with multiple treatments, and the model can be conveniently estimated by a series-based least squares estimator with well-understood properties.
Proof of Main Results\[sec:Proofs\]
===================================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem1\]
---------------------------------
As in the proof of Theorem 1 in Imbens and Newey (2009), $V$ is a one-to-one function of $\eta$. Then by equation (\[eq:h(z,eta)\]), iterated expectations, and conditional mean independence, $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[ \varepsilon \mid X,V\right] =E\left[ \varepsilon \mid h(Z,\eta),\eta \right] & =E[E\left[ \varepsilon \mid \eta ,Z\right] \mid h(Z,\eta ),\eta] \\
& =E[E\left[ \varepsilon \mid \eta \right] \mid h(Z,\eta ),\eta ] =E\left[
\varepsilon \mid \eta \right] =E\left[ \varepsilon \mid V\right],\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem2\]
---------------------------------
Let $\lambda_{\min}(V)$ denote the smallest eigenvalue of $E[p(X)p(X)'\mid V]$. Suppose that $\bar{q}\left(V\right)\neq q_{0}\left(V\right)$ with positive probability on a set $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}$, and note that $\lambda_{\min}(V)>0$ on $\mathcal{V}$ by Assumption \[ass:Assumption2\]. Then $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\left\{ p\left(X\right)^{\prime}\left\{ \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\} \right\} ^{2}\right] & = & E\left[\left\{ \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\} ^{\prime}E\left[p\left(X\right)p\left(X\right)'\mid V\right]\left\{ \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\} \right]\\
& \geq & E\left[\left\Vert \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\Vert ^{2}\lambda_{\min}\left(V\right)\right]\\
& \geq & E\left[1(V\in\mathcal{V}\cap\widetilde{\mathcal{V}})\left\Vert \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\Vert ^{2}\lambda_{\min}\left(V\right)\right]\end{aligned}$$ By definition $\Pr(\widetilde{\mathcal{V}})>0$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}\subseteq\mathcal{V}$ so that $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}\cap\mathcal{V}=\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}$. Thus the fact that $\left\Vert \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\Vert ^{2}\lambda_{\min}\left(V\right)$ is positive on $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}\cap\mathcal{V}$ implies $$E\left[1(V\in\mathcal{V}\cap\widetilde{\mathcal{V}})\left\Vert \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\Vert ^{2}\lambda_{\min}\left(V\right)\right]>0.$$ We have shown that, for $\bar{q}\left(V\right)\neq q_{0}\left(V\right)$ with positive probability on a set $\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}$, $$E\left[\left\{ p\left(X\right)^{\prime}\left\{ \bar{q}\left(V\right)-q_{0}\left(V\right)\right\} \right\} ^{2}\right]>0,$$ which implies $p\left(X\right)^{\prime}\bar{q}\left(V\right)\neq p\left(X\right)^{\prime}q_{0}\left(V\right)$. Therefore, $q_{0}\left(V\right)$ is identified from $E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem3\]
---------------------------------
Under Assumption \[ass:Assumption2\], $q_{0}\left(V\right)$ is identified by Theorem \[thm:Theorem2\]. The result then follows from the argument in the text.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem4\]
---------------------------------
For each $t\in\mathcal{T}$ and a vector $w\in \mathbb{R}^{t}$, let $\text{diag}(w)$ denote the $t \times t$ diagonal matrix with diagonal elements $w_{1},\dots,w_{t}$, and define $X_{t}=(X(1),\dots,X(t))^{\prime }$ and $p_{t}(X)=(1,X_{t}^{\prime})^{\prime}$. For mutually exclusive treatments $E[p_{t}(X)p_{t}(X)^{\prime }\mid V]$ is of the form $$E[p_{t}(X)p_{t}(X)^{\prime }\mid V]=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & E[X_{t}^{\prime} \mid V] \\
E[X_{t}\mid V] & \text{diag}(E[X_{t}\mid V])\end{bmatrix}
. \label{eq:principal}$$
For each $t\in\mathcal{T}$, using that $E[X_{t}\mid V]=\Pr(X(t)=1\mid V)>0$, we have that $E[p_{t}(X)p_{t}(X)^{\prime }\mid V]$ is positive definite if and only if the Schur complement of $\text{diag}(E[X_{t}\mid V])$ in (\[eq:principal\]) is positive definite (Boyd and Vandenberghe, 2004, Appendix A.5.5.), i.e., if and only if $$1-E[X_{t}^{\prime}\mid V] \, \text{diag}(E[X_{t}\mid
V])^{-1} \, E[X_{t}\mid V] = 1-\Sigma_{s=1}^{t}
E[X(s)\mid V] > 0.$$
The result now follows by $1-\Sigma_{s=1}^{t} E[X(s)\mid V] \geq
1-\Sigma_{s=1}^{T} \Pr(X(s)=1\mid V)$ and from the fact that a matrix is positive definite if and only if all its principal minors have strictly positive determinant.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem5\]
---------------------------------
By definition of $\mathcal{Z}$ we have that $\Pr(Z=z_{m})\geq\delta>0$ for $m\in\{1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Z}|\}$. Thus, upon using the identity $X=Q_{X\mid
Z}(V\mid Z)$ and by independence of $V$ from $Z$, for $v\in(0,1)$, $$E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime }\mid V=v]=\sum_{m=1}^{|\mathcal{Z}|}\left\{ p(Q_{X\mid
Z}(v\mid z_{m}))p(Q_{X\mid Z}(v\mid z_{m}))^{\prime }\right\}
\times\Pr(Z=z_{m}),$$ is a sum of $|\mathcal{Q}(v)|\leq|\mathcal{Z}|$ rank one $J\times J$ distinct matrices which is singular if $|\mathcal{Q}(v)|<J$. Thus if $|\mathcal{Q}(V)|<J$ with positive probability, then $E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime }\mid
V]$ is singular with positive probability. Therefore $E[p(X)p(X)^{\prime
}\mid V]$ is nonsingular with probability one only if $\Pr\left[|\mathcal{Q}(V)|\geq J\right]=1$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem6\]
---------------------------------
By assumption $Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid Z)$ takes two values $Q_{X}(V\mid z_{1})$ and $Q_{X}(V\mid z_{2})$, $Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid z_{1})\neq Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid
z_{2})$, with probability one. Moreover, by definition of $\mathcal{Z}$ and by independence of $V$ from $Z$, we have that $\Pr(Z=z_{m})=\Pr(Z=z_{m}\mid
V)\geq\delta>0$, $m=1,2$, with probability one. It follows that $\text{Var}(Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid Z)\mid V)>0$ with probability one. Therefore by $p(X)=(1,X)^{\prime }$, we have that $\text{det}\left(E\left[p\left(X\right)p\left(X\right)^{\prime}\mid V\right]\right)=\text{Var}(Q_{X\mid Z}(V\mid Z)\mid V)>0$ with probability one.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Theorem7\]
---------------------------------
Let $q^{K}(V,b)=(q_{1}^{K}(V,b_{1}),\ldots,q_{J}^{K}(V,b_{J}))'$, where $q_{j}^{K}(V,b_{j})\equiv\sum_{k=1}^{K}b_{jk}\psi_{k}^{K}(V)$, $j\in\mathcal{J}$. Model (\[eq:g(x,e)\]) and Assumptions \[ass:Assumption1\]-\[ass:Assumption2\] together imply that $E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]=p(X)'q_{0}(V)$, where $q_{0}(V)$ is unique with probability one by Theorem \[thm:Theorem2\]. Thus, for all $b\in\mathbb{R}^{JK}$, $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[\left\{ E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]-b'[p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)]\right\} ^{2}\right] & =E\left[\left\{ p(X)'q_{0}(V)-b'[p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)]\right\} ^{2}\right]\nonumber \\
& =E\left[\left\{ p(X)'\left[q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,b)\right]\right\} ^{2}\right].\label{eq:}\end{aligned}$$ Using that $b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K}$ in (\[eq:OLS1\]) also satisfies $$b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K}=\arg\min_{b\in\mathbb{R}^{JK}}E\left[\left\{ E\left[Y\mid X,V\right]-b'[p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)]\right\} ^{2}\right],$$ equation (\[eq:\]) implies that $$b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K}=\arg\min_{b\in\mathbb{R}^{JK}}E\left[\left\{ p(X)'\left[q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,b)\right]\right\} ^{2}\right].\label{eq:OLS2}$$ Thus if, as $K\rightarrow\infty$, $$E\left[\left\{ p(X)'\left[q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K})\right]\right\} ^{2}\right]\rightarrow0,$$ then the result follows.
Define $$\widetilde{b}^{K}\equiv\arg\min_{b\in\mathbb{R}^{JK}}E\left[||q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,b)||^{2}\right].$$ We have that, as $K\rightarrow\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
0\leq E\left[\left\{ p(X)'\left[q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,\widetilde{b}^{K})\right]\right\} ^{2}\right] & \leq E\left[||p(X)||^{2}\,||q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,\widetilde{b}^{K})||^{2}\right]\\
& =E\left[E\left[||p(X)||^{2}\mid V\right]\,||q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,\widetilde{b}^{K})||^{2}\right]\\
& \leq CE\left[||q_{0}(V)-q^{K}(V,\widetilde{b}^{K})||^{2}\right]\rightarrow0,\end{aligned}$$ by Cauchy-Schwarz, iterated expectations, uniform boundedness of $E[||p(X)||^{2}\mid V=v]$ over $v\in\mathcal{V}$ and Assumption \[ass:Assumption3-sieve\]. Thus $\widetilde{b}^{K}$ is a minimiser of (\[eq:OLS2\]) for $K$ large enough. We have that $E[p(X)p(X)'\mid V]$ is nonsingular with probability one by Assumption \[ass:Assumption2\], and that $E[\psi^{K}(V)\psi^{K}(V)']$ is nonsingular by Assumption \[ass:Assumption3-sieve\]. Thus the matrix $E[\{p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)\}\{p(X)\otimes\psi^{K}(V)\}']$ is nonsingular for each $K$ by Theorem 3 in Newey and Stouli (2018). Therefore, $\widetilde{b}^{K}$ is the unique minimiser of (\[eq:OLS2\]) for $K$ large enough. Conclude that $b_{\textrm{LS}}^{K}=\widetilde{b}^{K}$ for $K$ large enough, and the result follows.
[99]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Altonji, J. and Matzkin, R.</span> (2005). . *Econometrica*. 73(4, July), pp.1053-1102.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Blundell, R., and Powell, J. L</span>. (2003). . *Econometric society monographs*. 36, pp. 312-357.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Boyd, S. P. and Vandenberghe, L.</span> (2004). *[Convex Optimization]{}*. Cambridge University Press.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Chernozhukov, V., Fernandez-Val, I. Newey, W., Stouli, S. and Vella, F.</span> (2017). . *eprint arXiv:1711.02184*.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cai, Z., Das, M., Xiong, H. and Wu, X.</span> (2006). . *Journal of Econometrics*. 133, pp. 207-241.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D’Haultf½uille, X. and Février, P.</span> (2015). . *Econometrica* 83(3, May), pp. 1199-1210.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Florens, J. P., Heckman, J. J., Meghir, C. and Vytlacil, E.</span> (2008). . *Econometrica*. 76(5, September), pp. 1191-1206.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Graham, B. S. and Pinto, C. C. D. X.</span> (2018) . *eprint arXiv:1810.12511*.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hausman, J. A. and Newey, W. K.</span> (2016) . *Econometrica*. 84(3, May), pp.1225-1248.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hausman, J. A. and Wise, D.</span> (1978). . *Econometrica*. 46, pp. 403-426.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Imbens, G. W.</span> (2000). . *Biometrika*. 87, pp. 706-710.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Imbens, G. W. and Newey, W. K.</span> (2002). . NBER Technical Working Papers 0285.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Imbens, G. W. and Newey, W. K.</span> (2009). . *Econometrica*. 77(5, September), pp. 1481-1512.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Kitamura, Y. and Stoye, J.</span> (2016). . *eprint arXiv:1606.04819*.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">McFadden, D.</span> (1973). , in: P. Zarambka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Newey, W. and Stouli, S.</span> (2018). . *eprint arXiv:1809.05706*
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B.</span> (1983). . *Biometrika*. 70, pp.41-55.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Spady, R. H. and Stouli, S.</span> (2018). . *Biometrika*. 105, pp. 1-18.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Torgovitsky, A.</span> (2015). . *Econometrica*. 83(3, May), pp. 1185-1197.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wooldridge, J. M.</span> (2005). . Chapter Unobserved heterogeneity and the estimation of average partial effects, (pp. 27-55). Number 3. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
[^1]: Formally, for $v\in(0,1)$, we define $\mathcal{Q}(v)=\left\{ Q_{X\mid Z}(v\mid z_{m})\right\} _{m\in\mathcal{M}(v)}$, where $$\mathcal{M}(v)=\left\{ m\in\{1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Z}|\}:Q_{X\mid Z}(v\mid z_{m})\neq Q_{X\mid Z}(v\mid z_{m'})\,\textrm{for all }m'\in\{1,\ldots,|\mathcal{Z}|\}/\{m\}\right\} .$$
[^2]: Models that allow for estimation of the CDF $F_{X\mid Z}(X\mid Z)$ at a parametric rate can be formulated using quantile and distribution regression (Chernozhukov, Fernandez-Val, Newey, Stouli, and Vella, 2017) or dual regression (Spady and Stouli, 2018).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Location is key to spatialize internet-of-things (IoT) data. However, it is challenging to use low-cost IoT devices for robust unsupervised localization (i.e., localization without training data that have known location labels). Thus, this paper proposes a deep reinforcement learning (DRL) based unsupervised wireless-localization method. The main contributions are as follows. (1) This paper proposes an approach to model a continuous wireless-localization process as a Markov decision process (MDP) and process it within a DRL framework. (2) To alleviate the challenge of obtaining rewards when using unlabeled data (e.g., daily-life crowdsourced data), this paper presents a reward-setting mechanism, which extracts robust landmark data from unlabeled wireless received signal strengths (RSS). (3) To ease requirements for model re-training when using DRL for localization, this paper uses RSS measurements together with agent location to construct DRL inputs. The proposed method was tested by using field testing data from multiple Bluetooth 5 smart ear tags in a pasture. Meanwhile, the experimental verification process reflected the advantages and challenges for using DRL in wireless localization.'
author:
- |
You Li, , Xin Hu, , Yuan Zhuang, ,\
Zhouzheng Gao, Peng Zhang, and Naser El-Sheimy [^1]
title: ' Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL): Another Perspective for Unsupervised Wireless Localization [^2]'
---
[p[18cm]{} ]{}\
This paper has been accepted for publication in IEEE Internet of Things Journal\
\
\
DOI: 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2957778\
\
\
IEEE Explore <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8924617>\
\
\
\
Please cite the paper as:\
\
Y. Li, X. Hu, Y. Zhuang, Z. Gao, P. Zhang and N. El-Sheimy, “Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL): Another Perspective for Unsupervised Wireless Localization,” in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2019.2957778, 2019.\
\
\
bibtex:\
\
@article{LiY-DRL-Loc,\
author={Y. {Li} and X. {Hu} and Y. {Zhuang} and Z. {Gao} and P. {Zhang} and N. {El-Sheimy}},\
journal={IEEE Internet of Things Journal},\
title={Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL): Another Perspective for Unsupervised Wireless Localization},\
year={2019},\
volume={},\
number={},\
pages={1-1},\
doi={10.1109/JIOT.2019.2957778},\
ISSN={2327-4662},\
month={}\
}\
[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for Journals]{}
Wireless positioning; Deep reinforcement learning; Indoor positioning; Machine learning.
Introduction {#sec-intro}
============
internet-of-things (IoT) technology has started to empower the future of numerous fields [@Zanella-IoT-2014]. To spatialize IoT data, the time and location information of IoT devices are essential. Thus, localization is both an important application scenario and a development direction for IoT.
IoT localization methods have been widely researched. There are technologies including wireless [@Jiang-Pei-2016], motion, and environmental [@Zhou-Liu-2019] sensor based localization, as well as their integration [@LiY-thesis]. During the recent decade, the development in IoT technologies and the emergence of geo-spatial big data have made it possible to implement wide-area mass-market localization by using crowdsourced data. However, the performance of such mass-market localization techniques may be degraded by various factors, such as the complexity of localization environment [@Zhou-Chen-2017], the existence of device diversity [@LiY-SensJ-2019], and the uncertainty in crowdsourced data [@LiY-JIOT-2019]. Thus, it is still an open challenge to use low-cost IoT devices for robust localization.
Deep-Learning-Based Localization {#sec-ai-loc}
--------------------------------
The development of deep-learning (DL) techniques have led to the emergence of new localization methods. Examples of such methods include localization using deep neural network (DNN) [@Zhang-Liu-2016], Gaussian processes (GP) [@Ferris-2006], random forests [@GuoX-2018], hidden Markov model (HMM) [@SunS-2019], support vector machine (SVM) [@Timoteo-2016], and fuzzy logic [@Orujov-2018]. These DL techniques have also been used in other localization-related aspects. For example, DNN has been used for localization parameter tuning [@Chiang-NN], activity recognition [@ZhangX2018], and localization uncertainty prediction [@LiY-NN].
DL algorithms have shown great potentials in enhancing localization, especially in complex scenarios that are difficult to model, have parameters that are difficult to set, and have nonlinear and correlated measurements. However, most of the existing DL-based localization methods are supervised methods. That is, these methods require training data that have known location labels. The acquisition of location labels is commonly time-consuming and label-costly [@Bolliger2008]. Meanwhile, the accuracy of location labels is degraded by factors such as device diversity [@LiY-SensJ-2019], device motion and orientation [@Chen-Pei-2010], and database outage [@Solin-2018]. Thus, unsupervised localization methods are needed to reduce reliance on location labels.
Unsupervised Localization {#unsupervised-loc}
-------------------------
To realize unsupervised localization, researchers have proposed various methods, such as simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) [@Bruno-L--2011] and crowdsourcing [@ZhouB-ITS-2015]. In such methods, the uncertainty in reference point (RP) location labels will directly lead to errors in the generated localization databases. Inertial-sensor-based dead-reckoning (DR) can provide autonomous indoor/outdoor localization solutions [@YL-floor-2018]. However, it is challenging to obtain long-term accurate DR solutions with low-cost sensors due to the requirement for heading and position initialization, the misalignment angles between human body and device, and the existence of sensor errors [@LiY-sensj-calibration]. Thus, constraints are needed to constrain DR drifts. Vehicle-motion constraints (e.g., zero velocity updates, zero angular rate updates, and non-holonomic constraints) [@LiY-thesis] are typically used to correct for DR errors. However, these motion constraints are relative constraints, which can only mitigate the accumulation of DR errors, instead of eliminate them. DR solutions always drift when external updates, such as loop closures and global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) positions, are not available.
In many crowdsourcing applications, it is difficult to assure the reliability of RP locations in the database due to the limitation of physical environment. For example, there may be insufficient observations for wireless localization. If this is the case, it is important to evaluate the quality of localization data, so as to select the robust ones. From the big-data perspective, a small proportion of crowdsourced data, if robust, is enough for database training. The research in [@ZhangP2018] presents a general framework for assessing sensor data quality. The evaluation framework involves the impact of indoor localization time, user motion, and sensor biases. Furthermore, the research [@LiY-JIOT-2019] enhances this framework and introduces stricter quality-assessment criteria.
Compared to these works, this research is carried out from another perspective. The extensively-concerned deep reinforcement learning (DRL) technique is applied. DRL has been proven to have the following advantages [@HuX-COMM-2018] in other areas: (1) it can be used for unsupervised learning through an action-reward mechanism and (2) it can provide not only the estimated solution at the current moment, but also the long-term reward. Thus, it may bring benefits into the localization field.
DRL in Navigation and Localization {#sec-drl-nav-loc}
----------------------------------
DRL, which is the core artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm for the AlphaGo, has attracted intensive attention. DRL can be regarded as a combination of DL and reinforcement learning (RL). The former provides learning mechanisms, while the later sets goals for learning. In general, DRL involves agents that observe states and act in order to collect long-term rewards [@Hu-Jia-DRL-2019]. The DRL algorithm has experienced stages such as the deep Q-network (DQN), asynchronous advantage actor-critic (A3C), and unsupervised reinforcement and auxiliary learning (UNREAL) [@Jaderberg-Mnih-2017]. The research in [@HuX-COMM-2018] points out three components for a DRL solution: basis/core (e.g., the definition of states, actions, and reward function), basic units (e.g., the Q-network, action selection, replay memory, and target network), and state reformulation (i.e., the method for state-awareness data processing).
**Abbreviation** **Definition**
------------------ ---------------------------------------------------
AI Artificial Intelligence
A3C Asynchronous Advantage Actor-Critic
BT5 Bluetooth 5
CDF Cumulative Distribution Function
DL Deep Learning
DNN Deep Neural Network
DQN Deep Q-Network
DR Dead-Reckoning
DRL Deep Reinforcement Learning
GNSS Global Navigation Satellite Systems
GP Gaussian Processes
GW Gateway
HMM Hidden Markov Model
ID IDentification
IoT Internet of Things
LF Localization Feature
MDP Markov Decision Process
NLoS Non-Line-of-Sight
RL Reinforcement Learning
RMS Root Mean Square
RP Reference Point
RSS Received Signal Strength
SLAM Simultaneous Localization And Mapping
SVM Support Vector Machine
UNREAL UNsupervised REinforcement and Auxiliary Learning
: List of abbreviations []{data-label="tab:abbre"}
Navigation is an important application scenario for DRL. The early-stage DRL algorithms are used for learning in vedio games. Such gaming applications require navigation actions in a virtual world. Another classic scenario for DRL research is maze navigation [@Mirowski-Pascanu-2017]. The research in [@Dhiman-Banerjee-2019] provides deep investigation on the performance of DRL-based maze navigation. Furthermore, the research on DRL-based navigation has been extended from visual to real world. Researchers have utilized DRL for navigation by using data from various types of sensors, such as camera [@Zhang-Springenberg-2019], lidar [@Tai-Paolo-2017], 360-degree camera [@Bruce-Sunderhauf-2017], Google street view [@Mirowski-Grimes-2018], wireless sensors [@Mohammadi-Fuqaha-2018], and magnetic sensors [@BejarE-2018]. Meanwhile, other data or techniques, such as topological maps [@Kato-Kato-2017], particles [@Zhao-Braun-2017], cooperative agents [@PengB-2019], and social interactions [@Chen-Everett-2018] have been involved. The latest directions for DRL-based navigation include mapless navigation [@Tai-Paolo-2017][@Bruce-Sunderhauf-2017][@Zhelo-Zhang-2018], navigation in new [@Zhelo-Zhang-2018] and complex [@Mirowski-Pascanu-2017] environments, and navigation with varying targets [@Zhu-Mottaghi-2018].
Problem Statement and Main Contributions {#sec-contribution}
----------------------------------------
The DRL-based approaches have been verified to be effective in navigation. However, most of these methods are not suitable for localization. Although navigation and localization are not separated in many applications, they have different principles. Navigation and localization may use the same input (e.g., signals from wireless, image, and environmental sensors) but have different outputs. Navigation is the problem of finding the optimal path between the agent (i.e., a IoT end-device) and a target place; thus, its output is the moving action. In contrast, the output for localization is the agent location. The challenges for using DRL for localization include
- In a navigation application, the agent chooses an action from the DRL engine and move. The action directly changes the state (i.e., the agent location). Thus, a navigation process can be modeled as a Markov decision process (MDP) and thus can be processed by DRL. However, localization is closer to a DL problem, instead of DRL.
- The existing DRL-based localization methods (e.g., [@Mohammadi-Fuqaha-2018]) require target points, which are necessary for setting rewards. To obtain such target points, supervised or semi-supervised data are needed.
- The existing target-dependent navigation and localization methods suffer from another issue; that is, the trained model is related with the target. When the target changes, re-training may be needed. This phenomenon also limits the use of DRL in localization.
- Most of the existing works are based on vision data. Thus, it is necessary to investigate the use of DRL in wireless positioning, which is the most widely used technology in IoT localization.
Therefore, the main contributions of this paper can be stated as follows.
- It is difficult to use DRL in traditional snapshot localization models because these models do not meet the MDP definition. Thus, this paper proposes a method to model a continuous wireless localization process as an MDP and process it within a DRL framework.
- It is challenging to obtain DRL rewards when using only unsupervised data (e.g., daily-life crowdsourced data). To alleviate this issue, this paper presents a reward-setting mechanism for unsupervised wireless localization. Robust landmark data are extracted automatically from unlabeled wireless received signal strengths (RSS).
- To ease requirements for model re-training when using DRL for localization, this paper uses RSS measurements together with the agent location to construct the input for DRL. Thus, it is not necessary to re-train DRL when the target changes.
DRL-based Unsupervised Wireless Localization {#sec-methodology}
============================================
This section describes the methodology of DRL-based unsupervised wireless localization. Specifically, this section is comprised of the problem description, the construction of MDP model for wireless localization, the details of the DQN algorithm, and the mechanism for reward setting.
Problem Description {#sec-problem-description}
-------------------
The purpose for localization is to determine the agent position in a spatial coordinate system. The agent position can also be represented by gridding the space and determining the identification (ID) of the grid that the agent is located in. To determine the agent location, surrounding localization signals (LFs) such as RSS are measured. The fingerprinting method is commonly used for localization through two steps, training and prediction. At the training step, \[location, LF\] fingerprints at multiple RPs are used to generate a database. At the prediction step, the likelihood value between the real-time measured LF vector and the reference LF vector at each RP in the database is computed. The RPs with the LFs that are closest to the measured one are selected to compute the agent location [@Haeberlen2004]. From this perspective, localization is a DL problem, which inputs LF measurements and outputs the RP ID.
The fingerprinting method provides a snapshot localization solution. Its advantage is that a location output can be obtained once a real-time LF measurement is inputted. For dynamic localization applications, a common approach is to further input the snapshot localization solution into a localization filter (e.g., an extend Kalman filter or particle filter) to generate a more robust solution by fusing the previous location solutions. In the filter, the snapshot localization solutions are position updates, while sensor-based DR data or pseudo motion constraints (e.g., the constant-velocity assumption) are used to construct the system motion model [@LiY-thesis].
This research changes the wireless localization process by introducing the previous location solutions. Accordingly, wireless localization becomes a continuous localization problem. The localization task at time $t$ is the process that inputs the agent location at time $t-1$ plus the LF measurement at time $t$, and outputs the agent location at time $t$. After the localization computation at time $t$, the agent may keep static or move towards one of the eight directions in Figure \[fig:dqn\]. Afterwards, the localization computation at time $t+1$ starts. In this case, the localization computation at each time step only depends on the location from the previous time step and the LF measurement at this time step; meanwhile, the action at each step directly changes the location state. Thus, this process can be modeled as an MDP.
MDP Model {#sec-mdp}
---------
An MDP is a discrete-time stochastic control process. Its current state is only related with the latest previous state, instead of earlier ones. In contrast to the Markov chain and HMM, the MDP has involved actions, which directly influent states. An MDP is comprised of four components: states $ s_t \in S$, actions $ a_t \in A$, a reward function $r \in \mathbb{R}$, and transition probabilities $ p (s_{t+1}|s_t, a_t) $ of moving from $s_t$ to $s_{t+1}$ given $a_t$, where $s_t$ and $a_t$ are the state and action at time step $t$, respectively. The goal for an MDP is to determine the policy that maximizes the expected accumulated rewards $ R_t = \sum_{i=1}^{ \infty } { (\gamma^i r_{t+i} ) } $, where $r_{t+i}$ is the immediate reward at time step $t+i$ and $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is the discount factor [@LiuS-2018]. Figure \[fig:dqn\] demonstrates a schematic diagram for DRL-based wireless localization. The state, action, and reward definition have been shown. The details of the components in the figure are described in this subsection and Subsection \[sec-meth-dqn\]. To design an MDP for wireless localization, the following three components are defined.
States: the state $s_t$ represents an abstraction of the environment in which the agent makes action decisions at time $t$. The state consists of the agent location and the RSS measurement.
Actions: the agent makes decisions to take actions based on the state $s_t$. In this research, the action space consists of nice actions, including staying at the same grid and moving toward north, south, west, east, northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast for a grid.
Reward function: a positive reward will be given when the agent has made a correct action. Theoretically, the geographical distance between the agent and target point can be used for setting rewards [@Mohammadi-Fuqaha-2018]. This mechanism is effective when using supervised or semi-supervised data; however, it cannot be used to process unsupervised data. To alleviate this issue, a reward-setting mechanism is presented. The principle of this mechanism is to extract landmark points that have robust location labels and RSS features. When the agent has moved to a landmark point and the measured RSS has the similar feature to the known RSS feature at this landmark point, a positive reward is set.
A challenge for this mechanism is that it is difficult to know either the location or the RSS feature at a landmark point in advance. To alleviate this issue, the locations of wireless gateways (GWs, also known as access points or anchors) and the near-field condition are introduced. Specifically, the near-field condition is activated when it is detected that the agent has moved to a location that is close enough to a GW. Then, the distance between the predicted agent location and the location of this GW is used to set the reward. The method for detecting the near-field condition is described as follows.
One of the most widely-used approaches for detecting the near-field condition is RSS ranging. The wireless signal path-loss model is widely used to convert an RSS to an agent-GW distance $d$ by $$d = 10 ^ { \frac{RSS - b}{-10 n} }$$ where $n$ and $b$ are the path-loss-model parameters. Although such parameters can be trained in advance [@Zhuang-Y-EL-2015], there are various factors (e.g., device diversity and orientation diversity [@LiY-SensJ-2019]) that may cause variations in these parameters. This phenomenon leads to the degradation in RSS-based ranging and localization accuracy. Thus, it is challenging to detect the near-field condition through RSS ranging.
To alleviate this issue, the following phenomenon is used: environmental and motion factors commonly weaken an RSS measurement, instead of strengthen them. Therefore, a weak RSS measurement does not ensure a long distance; in contrast, a strong RSS can indicate a short distance. Accordingly, the near-field condition can be identified as: when the measured RSS from a GW is stronger than a threshold $\beta_{R}$, the agent should be located near this GW. Then, the reward $r_t$ can be set as $$r_t =\left\{
\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{d_{t,i}},~ \mathrm{if} ~ RSS_i > \beta_{R} ~ \& ~ d_{t,i} \leq \beta_{d} \\
& -d_{t,i},~ \mathrm{if} ~ RSS_i > \beta_{R} ~ \& ~ d_{t,i} > \beta_{d} \\
& 0,~\mathrm{otherwise}
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ where $d_{t,i}$ is the distance between the location of the agent at time $t$ and that of the $i$-th GW; $\beta_{d}$ is the threshold for the distance between the predicted agent location and the location of the selected GW. The case $d_{t,i} > \beta_{d}$ indicates that the agent is wrongly located to a point that is far from the landmark point; thus, a negative reward is set.
The states, actions, and reward function are further used for training of the DQN, which is described in the next subsection.
Deep Q-Network for Wireless Localization {#sec-meth-dqn}
----------------------------------------
A core of DQN is Q-learning. The principle of Q-learning is to determine the $Q$ function $$Q:~\phi(s_t) \rightarrow Q\left( \phi(s_t), a_t; \theta \right)$$ which can be used to compute the expected accumulated rewards for taking an action $a_t$ when there is a given input $\phi (s_t) $, where $\theta$ is the action-value function that maps the input to output decisions; $\phi (s_t) $ is the state reformulation. Once the $Q$ function is obtained, it becomes possible to construct a policy $\pi (s) $ that maximizes the rewards by $$\pi (s) = \underset{a} {\mathrm{argmax}} ~Q(s,a)$$
For applications (e.g., navigation in a simple grid maze) that have a simple state, matrix-based equations may be used to compute $Q$. For the task in this research, it is challenging to model the Q-learning process. Thus, a DNN is used to resemble Q. The DQN architecture in [@HuX-COMM-2018] is used. The DQN algorithm is shown in Table \[tab:dqn-algorithm\].
[@p[0.01cm]{}p[0.01cm]{}p[8.0cm]{}@]{}\
1. && Initialize replay memory $D$, Q-network $Q$, and target network $\hat{Q}$;\
2. && For time step t in 1 to T:\
3. && Observe observable state $s_t$ and set reward $r_t$;\
4. && Generate state reformulation $\phi (s_t) $;\
5. && Stack experience tuple $\left( \phi (s_{t-1}), a_{t-1}, r_t,\phi (s_{t}) \right) $ into $D$;\
6. && Compute available action set $A (s_{t}) $;\
7. && With exploration probability $\epsilon$:\
8. && Select a random action $a_t$ in $ A (s_{t}) $;\
9. && Otherwise:\
10. && Select $a_t= \underset{a \in A (s_{t})} {\mathrm{argmax}} ~ Q (\phi (s_t), a;\theta ) $;\
11. && Move agent by action $a_t$;\
12. && Sample a minibatch of $(\phi (s_j), a_j, r_{j+1}, \phi (s_{j+1}) )$ from $D$;\
13. && Compute target value $y_j$ through ;\
14. && Compute loss through ;\
15. && Train Q-network through SGD;\
16. && Decrease exploration probability $\epsilon$;\
17. && if t modulo G == 0:\
18. && Update target network $\hat{Q}$ with $\theta ^- = \theta$;\
19. && End For loop\
During each mapping from the input to the output decision, the Q-network generates a result that consists the current state $\phi (s_j) $, the current action $a_j$, the instant reward $r_{j+1}$, and the next state $\phi (s_{j+1}) $. Such a result is then stored into the replay memory $D$. The target network $\hat{Q}$ with parameter $\theta^{-}$ is copied from the Q-network in every $G$ steps. At each step, a minibatch is sampled randomly from the replay memory $D$ and combined with the target network $\hat{Q}$ to compute the loss and train the Q-network.
The replay memory $D$, which has a capacity of $N_{ep}$ is created at the initialization step. Afterwards, the newly-generated experience tuple $\left( \phi (s_{t}), a_{t}, r_{t+1},\phi (s_{t+1}) \right) $ is stacked into $D$. The Q-network is trained when the length of the stored experience tuples reaches the number $N_{st}$. For training, a minibatch that has a length of $N_{mb}$ is sampled randomly from $D$. Meanwhile, for each time step in training, the epsilon-greedy policy is used to select actions. The epsilon-greedy policy also balances the reward maximization based on the already-known knowledge (i.e., the exploitation) and the new knowledge that is obtained by trying new actions (i.e., the exploration). The exploration rate $\epsilon$ is decreased linearly from the initial value $\epsilon_i$ to final value $\epsilon_f$ during training. For each experience tuple within the sampled minibatch, the target network $\hat{Q} (\phi (s), a;\theta^{-}) $ is used to compute the loss $L (\theta) $ as $$\label{eq-loss}
L (\theta) = E[(y_j-Q( \phi(s),a;\theta_j ) )^2]$$ where the sign $E[\cdot]$ represents the computation of expectation value; $y_j$ is the target value, which can be calculated as $$\label{eq-target-value}
y_j = r_{j+1} + \gamma~\underset{a} {\mathrm{max}} ~ \hat{Q} ( \phi(s_{j+1},a; \theta^-) )$$
Once the loss value is computed, the stochastic gradient descent (SGD) method [@SGD] is applied to train the Q-network. During the training process, the batch-normalization approach [@Ioffe-Szegedy-2015] is applied to accelerate training.
Experimental Verification {#sec-test}
=========================
Test Description {#sec-test-des}
----------------
Field tests were carried out in a smart pasture at Inner Mongolia, China. The test area was an open field that had a size of 120 m by 70 m. The test scenario was similar to that in [@LiY-SensJ-2019]. Figure \[fig:test-environment\] (a) demonstrates the test environment and devices. Totally 48 Bluetooth 5 (BT5) based devices (i.e., smart ear tags) were utilized as transmitters, while 20 GWs were used as receivers. Both the devices and GWs were equipped with the Texas Instruments CC2640R2F BT5 chips [@TI-CC2640R2F]. Each device was equipped with a microstrip patch antenna with a gain of 0 dBi, while each GW was equipped with a vertical-polarized omni-directional antenna with a gain of 5 dBi. The GWs were deployed evenly over the space by 4 rows and 5 columns. The distances between adjacent GWs were approximately 30 m in the east and 24 m in the north.
The devices were placed at 950 static points on the ground, each for 5 minutes. The data rate for RSS measurements was 0.17 Hz. The data collection process was conducted through a supervised procedure. That is, each data sample had a reference location label. The location labels were only used for localization performance evaluation, instead of localization computation. For this research, the location information in collected data was evenly gridded into 448 grids (i.e., in 16 rows and 28 columns, each grid had a size of 5 m by 5 m), that is, each location data was replaced by that at the nearest grid. Figure \[fig:test-environment\] (b) shows the locations of grids and GWs. Figure \[fig:rss-heatmap\] illustrates the GW IDs and the RSS distribution heatmaps for the 20 GWs. The signal coverage range for all GWs reached over 50 m. Thus, the RSS measurements at all the grid points have data from over four GWs. Meanwhile, the RSS measurement with all GWs vary over space. These facts ensure the feasibility of using RSS measurements for localization.
In the test, approximately 2,000 RSS samples from each GW were collected at each grid point. Such gridded data were further used to generate dynamic localization data through random sampling. 10,000 dynamic trajectories, each had a length of 300 steps were generated. Accordingly, there were 3,000,000 actions in the generated training data. To generate each trajectory, a grid was randomly selected as the initial point. Then, the agent started to move one grid by randomly selecting one of the nine actions in Subsection \[sec-mdp\]. When the agent arrived a grid, a set of RSS were selected randomly through the 2,000 RSS samples from each GW and used as the RSS measurement at this step. Furthermore, to mitigate the effect of device diversity and orientation diversity, the RSS from GW 8 was selected as the datum to compute differential RSS [@LiY-SensJ-2019]. Meanwhile, the orientation-compensation model in [@LiY-SensJ-2019] was used to correct the RSS measurements.
DRL Training
------------
The generated localization data were used to train the DRL. The related parameters were listed in Table \[tab:dqn-parameter\].
**Parameter** **Value**
------------------------------------------------ ------------
**Scenario Parameter**
Number of grid columns 28
Number of grid rows 16
Size of grids 5 m by 5 m
Number of actions 9
Number of landmark points (i.e., GWs) 20
**Algorithm Parameter**
Replay memory size $N_{ep}$ 10000
Replay start size $N_{st}$ 2500
Minibatch size $N_{mb}$ 200
Number of sample per target network update $G$ 100
Discount factor $\gamma$ 0.9
DNN learning rate 0.001
Initial exploration rate $\epsilon_i$ 1.0
Final exploration rate $\epsilon_f$ 0.05
: Values of parameters in DRL[]{data-label="tab:dqn-parameter"}
The data processing environment was Python 3.6 with the TensorFlow library [@TensorFlow]. An DNN with two hidden layers, each had 200 neurons, were used in the DQN. By running on a Macbook Pro that had a processer of 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7 and memory of 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3, around 55 hours were taken to complete the training. Figure \[fig:loss\] demonstrates the normalized loss function value over the training time period. It is indicated that the convergence needed around 1,000,000 samples.
DRL Localization
----------------
The trained model was used for localization. The method in Subsection \[sec-test-des\] was used to generated 100 test trajectories, each had a length of 300 steps. Figure \[fig:loc-sol-traj\] illustrates the localization solutions of four example trajectories. On a relatively large spatial scale (e.g., the 100 m level spatial scale), the localization solution had a similar trend with the reference trajectories. This outcome indicates the potential of using DRL for wireless localization in the long term. On the other hand, on the 10 m level spatial scale, the action output from the DRL may deviate from the actual agent movement. This phenomenon may be caused by factors such as RSS fluctuations.
For comparison, the localization solutions from two comparison methods were computed. One method was DNN [@Zhang-Liu-2016] that uses supervised data and the other was multilateration [@ZhuangY-sens-2016] with unsupervised data. The former method provided a reference for the achievable localization accuracy with the test data, while the later indicated the localization accuracy when unsupervised data was used. Both comparison approaches used training and testing data that are same to the DRL-based method. On the other hand, only the supervised DNN method used the known location labels in the database-training step. The first comparison method was implemented by using a DNN with two hidden layers, each had 200 neurons. The second comparison method was applied by setting the path-loss model parameters for all GWs at experience values ($n$=2, $b$=-50). Figure \[fig:cdf-loc-err\] demonstrates the cumulative distribution function (CDF) curves of localization errors from 100 test trajectories. Figure \[fig:statistics-loc-err\] shows the location errors statistics, including the mean, root mean square (RMS), and the 80 % and 95 % quantile values.
Figures \[fig:cdf-loc-err\] and \[fig:statistics-loc-err\] indicate that
- The location errors from the DRL-based method had an RMS and 95 % quantile values of 12.2 m and 24.7 m, respectively. These values were respectively 59.0 % and 36.8 % smaller than those from the unsupervised multilateration method (RMS 19.4 m and 95 % in 39.1 m). This outcome indicates a positive effect by using the DRL-based method to train a DQN by using unlabeled data, and using the obtained model for localization.
- On the other hand, the RMS and 95 % quantile values of the DRL-based localization errors were respectively 90.6 % and 104.1 % higher than those from the supervised DNN method (RMS 6.4 m and 95 % in 12.1 m). Such result indicates that the localization performance of the unsupervised DRL-based method was still significantly lower than that of the supervised DNN method. The DRL-based localization method may be further enhanced by approaches such as improving the MDP modeling (e.g., the reward-setting mechanism), improving the DRL framework, and introducing geometrical localization models.
Moreover, the following experience and insights were obtained from the tests.
- The DRL algorithm is data-driven and thus can be implemented without a priori motion model. An advantage for this characteristic is that such self-supervised method is suitable for complex environments that are difficult to modeling and setting parameters. On the other hand, such data-driven methods require a large amount of data and a heavy computational load (e.g., tens of hours in training for even a small scenario). To accelerate computation, the use of DRL-based localization may need support from future AI hardware and chips. Meanwhile, the DRL method is highly dependent on the quality of data. Although the DRL method itself has a well-developed exploration mechanism that may mitigate the issue of over-training, this issue is difficult to eliminate. One method for further alleviating this issue is to integrate with geometrical localization approaches and motion models.
- The data in this research was randomly sampled from in-field IoT data. Thus, the used data was closer to real-world situations when compared to the simulated data in the majority of existing works on DRL-based navigation and localization. However, the data in this research still cannot fully reflect the performance of the algorithms in real-world IoT localization scenarios. One main reason is that real IoT localization data may be degraded by more environmental (e.g., multipath and obstruction), motion (e.g., motion diversity), and data (e.g., data loss, database outage) factors. A future work will be using real IoT big data for evaluating AI-based localization methods.
- The DRL algorithm itself is being enhanced due to its research and use in numerous fields. However, similar to many other AI algorithms, an DRL module is similar to a black box for most users. It is difficult to understand and adjust the internal algorithms explicitly. This factor is a potential obstacle to the study of DRL-based localization.
Conclusions
===========
This paper presents an unsupervised wireless localization method by using the DRL framework. Through processing field-testing data from 48 BT5 smart ear tags in a pasture, which had a size of 120 m by 70 m and 20 GWs, the proposed method provided location errors that had RMS and 95 % quantile values of 12.2 m and 24.7 m, which were respectively 59.0 % and 36.8 % lower than those by using an unsupervised multilateration method. Such outcome indicates a positive effect and the potential for using the DRL-based method for wireless localization. On the other hand, the RMS and 95 % quantile values of the location errors from the proposed method were respectively 90.6 % and 104.1 % higher than those from the supervised DNN method. This phenomenon indicates the possibility and necessity to improve the DRL-based localization algorithm in the future.
Meanwhile, the experimental verification process reflected several pros and cons of using DRL for localization. Its advantages include the capability to involve previous localization data and long-term rewards, the possibility to implement localization without geometrical modeling and parameterization of the environment, and the convenience of using the most state-of-the-art DRL platforms and algorithms. The challenges include the dependency on a large amount of data, the heavy computational load, and the black-box issue. The DRL-based localization method may be further enhanced by approaches such as improving the MDP modeling (e.g., the reward-setting mechanism), improving the DRL framework, and introducing geometrical localization models.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank Dr. Zhe He and Dr. Yuqi Li for designing the IoT system and devices, and Daming Zhang and Stan Chan for conducting tests and data pre-processing.
[99]{}
F. Gu, X. Hu, M. Ramezani, et. al., “Indoor Localization Improved by Spatial Context-A Survey", *ACM Comput Surv*, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 1-35, Jul. 2019.
W. Jiang, C. Xu, L. Pei, W. Yu, “Multidimensional scaling-based TDOA localization scheme using an auxiliary line", *IEEE Signal processing letters*, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 546-50, Mar. 2016.
B. Zhou, A. Liu, V. Lau, “Performance Limits of Visible Light-Based Positioning Using Received Signal Strength Under NLOS Propagation”, *IEEE T Wirel Commun*, 10.1109/TWC.2019.2934689, Aug. 2019.
Y. Li, Y. Zhuang, P. Zhang, et. al., “An Improved Inertial/Wifi/Magnetic Fusion Structure For Indoor Navigation”, *Information Fusion*, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 101-119, Mar. 2017.
B. Zhou, Q. Chen, P. Xiao, “Error Propagation Analysis of the Received Signal Strength-based Simultaneous Localization and Tracking in Wireless Sensor Networks”, *IEEE T Inform Theory*, Vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 3983 - 4007, Jun. 2017.
Y. Li, Z. He, Y. Li, et. al., “Enhanced Wireless Localization Based on Orientation-Compensation Model and Differential Received Signal Strength," *IEEE Sens J*, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 4201-4210, Jun. 2019.
Y. Li, Z. He, Z. Gao, et. al., “Toward Robust Crowdsourcing-Based Localization: A Fingerprinting Accuracy Indicator Enhanced Wireless/Magnetic/Inertial Integration Approach," *IEEE Internet Thing J*, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3585-3600, Apr. 2019.
W. Zhang, K. Liu, W. Zhang, et. al., “Deep Neural Networks for wireless localization in indoor and outdoor environments", *Neurocomputing*, vol. 194, no. 1, pp. 279-287, Jun. 2016.
B. Ferris, D. Hähnel and D. Fox. “Gaussian Processes for Signal Strength-Based Location Estimation", in Robot Sci Syst, Philadelphia, USA, 16-19, Aug. 2006.
X. Guo, N. Ansari, L. Li and H. Li, “Indoor Localization by Fusing a Group of Fingerprints Based on Random Forests," *IEEE Internet Thing J*, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2018.2810601, Feb. 2018.
S. Sun, Y. Li, W. Rowe, et. al., “Practical evaluation of a crowdsourcing indoor localization system using hidden Markov models," *IEEE Sens J*, vol. 19, no. 20, pp. 9332-40, Jun. 2019.
R. Timoteo, L. Silva, D. Cunha, G. Cavalcanti, “An approach using support vector regression for mobile location in cellular networks", *Comput Netw*, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 51-61, Feb. 2016.
F. Orujov, R. Maskeliūnas, R. Damaševičius, W. Wei, Y. Li, “Smartphone based intelligent indoor positioning using fuzzy logic", *Future Gener Comp Sy*, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 335-348, Dec. 2018.
K. Chiang, A. Noureldin and N. El-Sheimy, “A new weight updating method for INS/GPS integration architectures based on neural networks", *Meas Sci Technol*, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 2053-2061, 2004.
F. Gu, K. Khoshelham, S. Valaee, et. al, “Locomotion activity recognition using stacked denoising autoencoders", *IEEE Internet of Things Journal*, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 2085-93, Jun. 2018.
Y. Li, Z. Gao, Z. He, et. al., “Wireless Fingerprinting Uncertainty Prediction Based on Machine Learning." *Sensors*, vol. 19, no. 2, Jan. 2019.
P. Bolliger, “Redpin-adaptive, zero-configuration indoor localization through user collaboration", in Proc ACM Int Worksh Mobil Entity Loc Track GPS-less Env, pp. 55-60, Sept. 2008.
Y. Chen, R. Chen, L. Pei, T. Kroger, H. Kuusniemi, J. Liu, W. Chen, “Knowledge-based error detection and correction method of a Multi-sensor Multi-network positioning platform for pedestrian indoor navigation," in IEEE/ION Pos Loc Nav Symp, Indian Wells, USA, 4-6 May 2010.
A. Solin, M. Kok, N. Wahlström, et. al., “Modeling and Interpolation of the Ambient Magnetic Field by Gaussian Processes," *IEEE T Robotics*, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1112-1127, Aug. 2018.
L. Bruno and P. Robertson, “WiSLAM: Improving FootSLAM with WiFi," in Int Conf Ind Pos Ind Nav, Guimaraes, Portugal, 21-23 Sept. 2011.
B. Zhou, Q. Li, Q. Mao, et. al., “ALIMC: Activity Landmark-based Indoor Mapping via Crowdsourcing", *IEEE T Intell Transp*, vol. 16, no. 5, pp.2774-2785, May 2015.
Y. Li, Z. Gao, Z. He, et. al., “Multi-Sensor Multi-Floor 3D LocalizationWith Robust Floor Detection," *IEEE Access*, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 76689-99, Dec. 2018.
Y. Li, J. Georgy, X. Niu, et. al., “Autonomous Calibration of MEMS Gyros in Consumer Portable Devices," *IEEE Sens J*, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 4062-72, Jul. 2015.
P. Zhang, R. Chen, Y. Li, et. al., “A Localization Database Establishment Method based on Crowdsourcing Inertial Sensor Data and Quality Assessment Criteria," *IEEE Internet Thing J*, vol. 1, pp. 2327-4662, Mar. 2018.
X. Hu, S. Liu, R. Chen, et. al., “A Deep Reinforcement Learning-Based Framework for Dynamic Resource Allocation in Multibeam Satellite Systems," *IEEE Commun Lett*, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1612-1615, Aug. 2018.
J. Wang, J. Hu, G. Min, et. al., “Computation Offloading in Multi-Access Edge Computing Using a Deep Sequential Model Based on Reinforcement Learning," *IEEE Commun Magaz*, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 64-69, May, 2019.
M. Jaderberg, V. Mnih, W. Czarnecki, et. al., “Reinforcement learning with unsupervised auxiliary tasks," in Int Conf Learning Representations, Toulon, France, 24-26, Apr. 2017.
P. Mirowski, R. Pascanu, F. Viola, et. al., “Learning to Navigate in Complex Environments," in Int Conf Learning Representations, Toulon, France, 24-26, Apr. 2017.
V. Dhiman, S. Banerjee, B. Griffin, et. al., “A Critical Investigation of Deep Reinforcement Learning for Navigation", *ArXiv*, arXiv:1802.02274v2, Jan. 2019.
J. Zhang, J. Springenberg, J. Boedecker, W. Burgard, “Deep reinforcement learning with successor features for navigation across similar environments," IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robot Syst, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 2371-2378, 24-28 Sept. 2017.
L. Tai, G. Paolo and M. Liu, “Virtual-to-real deep reinforcement learning: Continuous control of mobile robots for mapless navigation," IEEE/RSJ Int Conf Intell Robot Syst, Vancouver, BC, Canada, pp. 2371-2378, 24-28 Sept. 2017.
J. Bruce, N. Sünderhauf,P. Mirowski, R. Hadsell, M. Milford, “One-Shot Reinforcement Learning for Robot Navigation with Interactive Replay", in Conf Neural Inf Process Syst, Long Beach, CA, USA, 4-9 Dec. 2017.
P. Mirowski, M. Grimes, M. Malinowski, et al., “Learning to Navigate in Cities Without a Map", *ArXiv*, arXiv:1804.00168, Mar. 2018.
M. Mohammadi, A. Al-Fuqaha, M. Guizani and J. Oh, “Semisupervised Deep Reinforcement Learning in Support of IoT and Smart City Services," *IEEE Internet Thing J*, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 624-635, Apr. 2018.
E. Bejar and A. Moran, “Deep reinforcement learning based neuro-control for a two-dimensional magnetic positioning system," Int Conf Control Autom Robot, Auckland, pp. 268-273, 20-23 Apr. 2018.
Y. Kato, K. Kato and K. Morioka, “Autonomous robot navigation system with learning based on deep Q-network and topological maps," in IEEE/SICE Int Sym Syst Integ, Taipei, 2017, pp. 1040-1046, 11-14 Dec. 2017.
Z. Zhao, T. Braun and Z. Li, “A Particle Filter-based Reinforcement Learning Approach for Reliable Wireless Indoor Positioning," *IEEE J Sel Area Commun*, doi: 10.1109/JSAC.2019.2933886, 2019.
B. Peng, G. Seco-Granados, E. Steinmetz, et. al., “Decentralized Scheduling for Cooperative Localization With Deep Reinforcement Learning," *IEEE T Veh Technol*, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 4295-4305, May 2019.
Y. Chen, M. Everett, M. Liu, J. How, “Socially Aware Motion Planning with Deep Reinforcement Learning", *ArXiv*, arXiv:1703.08862, May 2018.
O. Zhelo, J. Zhang, L. Tai, et. al., “Curiosity-driven Exploration for Mapless Navigation with Deep Reinforcement Learning", *ArXiv*, arXiv:1804.00456, May 2018.
Y. Zhu, R. Mottaghi, E. Kolve, et al., “Target-driven visual navigation in indoor scenes using deep reinforcement learning," in IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom, Singapore, 2017, pp. 3357-3364, 29 May-3 Jun. 2017.
A. Haeberlen, E. Flannery, A. Ladd, et. al., “Practical robust localization over large-scale 802.11 wireless networks," in Proc Int Conf Mobil Comput Netw, pp. 70-84, Philadelphia, PA, 26 Sept. - 01 Oct. 2004.
S. Liu, X. Hu, Y. Wang, et. al., “Deep Reinforcement Learning based Beam Hopping Algorithm in Multibeam Satellite Systems", *IET Commun*, in press, 2019.
Y. Li, K. Yan, Z. He, et. al., “Cost-Effective Localization Using RSS from Single Wireless Access Point," *IEEE T Instrum Meas*, doi: 10.1109/TIM.2019.2922752, Jun. 2019.
SGD, “Gradient Descent Optimizer," <https://www.tensorflow.org/api_docs/python/tf/train/GradientDescentOptimizer>, Retrieved 01 Sept. 2019.
S. Ioffe, C. Szegedy, “Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift", *ArXiv*, arXiv:1502.03167, Mar. 2015.
Texas Instruments, “CC2640R2F SimpleLink Bluetooth low energy Wireless MCU," <http://www.ti.com/product/cc2640r2f/description>, Retrieved 01 Sept. 2019.
TensorFlow, “Get Started with TensorFlow," <https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials>, Retrieved 01 Sept. 2019.
Y. Zhuang, J. Yang, Y. Li, et. al., “Smartphone-Based Indoor Localization with Bluetooth Low Energy Beacons," *Sensors*, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1-20, 2016.\
[^1]: Y. Li and N. El-Sheimy are with Department of Geomatics Engineering, University of Calgary ([email protected]; [email protected]). X. Hu is with the School of Electronic Engineering, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications ([email protected]). Y. Zhuang and P. Zhang are with the State Key Laboratory of Surveying, Mapping and Remote Sensing, Wuhan University ([email protected]; [email protected]). Z. Gao is with the Department of Land Sciences, China University of Geosciences (Beijing) ([email protected]). Y. Li and X. Hu contributed equally to this work. Corresponding author: X. Hu.
This paper is partly supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) CREATE Grants, NSERC Discovery Grants, NSERC Strategic Partnership Grants, the Alberta Innovates Technology Future (AITF) Grants, the Canada Research Chair (CRC) Grants, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) Grants (No. 41804027, 61771135, and 61873163).
[^2]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We report a multisite photometric campaign for the $\beta$ Cep stars V2052 Oph and V986 Oph. 670 hours of high-quality differential photoelectric Strömgren, Johnson and Geneva time-series photometry were obtained with eight telescopes on five continents during 182 nights. Frequency analyses of the V2052 Oph data enabled the detection of three pulsation frequencies, the first harmonic of the strongest signal, and the rotation frequency with its first harmonic. Pulsational mode identification from analysing the colour amplitude ratios confirms the dominant mode as being radial, whereas the other two oscillations are most likely $l=4$. Combining seismic constraints on the inclination of the rotation axis with published magnetic field analyses we conclude that the radial mode must be the fundamental. The rotational light modulation is in phase with published spectroscopic variability, and consistent with an oblique rotator for which both magnetic poles pass through the line of sight. The inclination of the rotation axis is $54\degr <i< 58\degr$ and the magnetic obliquity $58\degr <\beta<
66\degr$. The possibility that V2052 Oph has a magnetically confined wind is discussed. The photometric amplitudes of the single oscillation of V986 Oph are most consistent with an $l=3$ mode, but this identification is uncertain. Additional intrinsic, apparently temporally incoherent, light variations of V986 Oph are reported. Different interpretations thereof cannot be distinguished at this point, but this kind of variability appears to be present in many OB stars. The prospects of obtaining asteroseismic information for more rapidly rotating $\beta$ Cep stars, which appear to prefer modes of higher $l$, are briefly discussed.
author:
- 'G. Handler,$^{1}$ R. R. Shobbrook,$^{2}$ K. Uytterhoeven,$^{3,\,4}$ M. Briquet,$^{5,\,6}$ C. Neiner,$^{7}$'
- 'T. Tshenye,$^{8}$ B. Ngwato,$^{8}$ H. van Winckel,$^{6}$ E. Guggenberger,$^{9}$ G. Raskin,$^{6}$'
- 'E. Rodrguez,$^{10}$ A. Mazumdar,$^{11}$ C. Barban,$^{7}$ D. Lorenz,$^{9}$ B. Vandenbussche,$^{6}$'
- 'T. Şahin,$^{12,\,13}$ R. Medupe,$^{8}$ C. Aerts$^{6}$'
- |
\
$^1$ Copernicus Astronomical Center, Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland ([email protected])\
$^{2}$ Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia\
$^{3}$ Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (IAC), E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\
$^{4}$ Departamento de Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\
$^{5}$ Institut d’Astrophysique et de Géophysique, Université de Liège, Allée du 6 Août 17, Bât B5c, 4000, Liège, Belgium\
$^{6}$ Instituut voor Sterrenkunde, K. U. Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 200D, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium\
$^{7}$ LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS UMR 8109, UPMC, Université Paris Diderot; 5 place Jules Janssen, 92190 Meudon, France\
$^{8}$ Department of Physics, University of the North-West, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa\
$^{9}$ Institut für Astronomie, Universität Wien, Türkenschanzstrasse 17, A-1180 Wien, Austria\
$^{10}$ Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalucia, C.S.I.C., Apdo. 3004, 18080 Granada, Spain\
$^{11}$ Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education (TIFR), V. N. Purav Marg, Mumbai 400088, India\
$^{12}$ Akdeniz University, Faculty of Science, Space Science and Technologies Department, 07058, Antalya, Turkey\
$^{13}$ TUBITAK National Observatory, Akdeniz University Campus, 07058, Antalya, Turkey
date: 'Accepted 2005 July 17. Received 2005 August 13; in original form 2005 September 10'
title: 'A multisite photometric study of two unusual $\beta$ Cep stars: the magnetic V2052 Oph and the massive rapid rotator V986 Oph'
---
stars: variables: other – stars: early-type – stars: oscillations – stars: individual: V2052 Oph, V986 Oph – stars: magnetic field – stars: rotation
Introduction
============
For over a century, the $\beta$ Cep stars are known to be variable on time scales of hours (Frost 1902), but it took half a century longer to understand the nature of their variability, radial and nonradial pulsations (Ledoux 1951). Nowadays, about 300 members of this class of pulsating star are known (Stankov & Handler 2005, Pigulski & Pojma[ń]{}ski 2008).
Because of the simultaneous presence of radial and nonradial oscillation modes in these stars, and their rather simple overall structure (basically a convective core and a radiative envelope), their potential as asteroseismic targets is evident. Asteroseismology is the inference of the interior structure of pulsating stars. This is accomplished by measuring their oscillation frequencies, comparing them with the eigenfrequencies of corresponding stellar models, and then fine-tuning those models to match the observed frequencies (see, e.g., Aerts et al. 2010, Handler 2012).
Besides the Sun, the $\beta$ Cep stars were the first main sequence pulsators for which clear constraints on their inner structure could be obtained asteroseismically (for a heavily abbreviated literature, see Aerts et al. 2003, Pamyatnykh et al. 2004, Handler et al. 2009, Aerts et al. 2011). Results indicate that further increases in heavy-element opacities are needed, and some stars have been shown to rotate faster in their interior than on the outside.
These first successful studies were in most cases intentionally biased towards bright, slowly rotating stars. Slowly rotating $\beta$ Cep stars driven by the $\kappa$ mechanism tend to have higher pulsation amplitudes (Stankov & Handler 2005) and therefore offer better possibilities for mode identification. Obviously, effects of rotation on the observed frequencies of axisymmetric modes of oscillation are also smaller, and rotationally split m-mode patterns would not overlap in frequency. This way of approaching asteroseismology of $\beta$ Cep stars proved to be sound. Therefore it appears reasonable to investigate targets that pose more difficult initial conditions, but that may also be more rewarding astrophysically.
V2052 Oph (HR 6684, $V=5.8$, B2IV-V) was discovered as a $\beta$ Cep pulsator by Jerzykiewicz (1972), and its dominant mode identified as radial (Heynderickx, Waelkens & Smeyers 1994, Cugier, Dziembowski & Pamyatnykh 1994). Neiner et al. (2003) carried out an extensive multiwavelength spectroscopic and spectropolarimetric study of V2052 Oph that revealed several interesting properties of this star. Besides the detection of a second, nonradial, pulsation mode, these authors could derive an accurate rotation period of $3.638833\pm0.000003$ d. V2052 Oph also possesses a dipole magnetic field. Based on new data of superior quality, Neiner et al. (2012a) determined $B_{\rm pol} \approx 400 G$, that the magnetic field is likely off-centred, and that He patches are present close to the magnetic poles. Because of the presence of a radial pulsation mode (that allows the determination of the mean stellar density), and of the known rotation period that makes it spin about twice as fast as the most “rapidly” rotating seismically well studied $\beta$ Cep star (12 Lac, Desmet et al. 2009), it was deemed worthwhile to devote a large observational effort to V2052 Oph. To this end, the present paper reports photometric results of a multisite campaign, whereas a companion paper (Briquet et al. 2012) deals with contemporaneous spectroscopy.
Located only a few degrees in the sky from V2052 Oph is another $\beta$ Cep star, V986 Oph (HR 6747, $V=6.1$, B0IIIn), with an interesting history in the literature. It is among the longest-period variables ($P \approx 0.29$ d, e.g., Jerzykiewicz 1975) of its class, and among the most luminous and hence most massive (Jones & Shobbrook 1974, Stankov & Handler 2005). It is also a rapid rotator ($v \sin i =
300$, Abt, Levato & Grosso 2002) and has been classified as a single-lined spectroscopic binary ($P_{\rm orb}=25.56$ d, $e=0.23$, Fullerton, Bolton & Penrod 1985). Frequency analyses published by different authors indicate variability with periods between 7 to 8 hours, but all studies noted that further photometric variability is present. However, no good explanation of its physical cause could be obtained (see Cuypers, Balona & Marang (1989) for a detailed discussion). Furthermore, spectroscopic studies (Fullerton et al. 1985, Stateva, Niemczura & Iliev 2010) implied that the short period variation is due to a mode of rather high spherical degree ($l=4$, 6 or 8). V986 Oph was also photometrically monitored during this multisite campaign, in the hope to gain understanding of its variability.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
Our photometric observations were carried out at seven different observatories on five continents, from 11 March - 6 September 2004. An overview of the campaign observations is given in Table 1. In most cases, single-channel differential photoelectric photometry was acquired but at Sierra Nevada Observatory a simultaneous $uvby$ photometer was used. At observatories where no Strömgren $vy$ filters were available we used Johnson $V$, with Strömgren $u$ as possible complement. Finally, as the photometer at the Mercator telescope has Geneva filters installed permanently, we used this filter system. In the three seasons preceding this campaign, 72.7 hours of Geneva photometry had been obtained with the Mercator telescope. These are included here as well.
------------------------------------------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------- ----------------------------
Observatory Telescope Filter(s) Observer(s)
Nights hours
Tübitak National Observatory, Turkey 0.5m 2 6.1 V TS
South African Astronomical Observatory 0.5m 13 50.3 uvy EG, BN
South African Astronomical Observatory 0.75m 7 30.5 uvy GH
South African Astronomical Observatory 0.5m 9 35.0 uV TT
Piszkéstető Observatory, Hungary 0.5m 3 9.2 V DL
Sierra Nevada Observatory, Spain 0.9m 4 19.7 uvby ER
Roque de los Muchachos Observatory, Spain 1.2m Mercator 49 155.2 Geneva KU, MB, HW, GR, AM, CB, BV
Fairborn Observatory, USA 0.75m APT 55 198.7 uvy $--$
Siding Spring Observatory, Australia 0.6m 40 168.9 uvy RRS
Total 182 673.6
------------------------------------------- --------------- -------- ----------- ------------- ----------------------------
We chose two comparison stars: HR 6689 ($V=5.96$, A3V) was already used as a comparison for V2052 Oph by Jerzykiewicz (1972, 1993), but was in the second paper suspected to be variable. HR 6719 ($V=6.34$, B2IV) was used as a comparison star by Jerzykiewicz (1993), but also suspected of variability. Subsequent photometric studies of the star did not mention variability, but Telting et al. (2007) reported line profile variations pointing towards pulsation of high azimuthal order. Although this choice of comparison stars may not seem ideal, we did not find better suited candidates in this part of the sky. Fortunately, the comparison stars proved to be constant within the accuracy of our measurements, and did not affect our results in any way. The targets were therefore observed alternatingly with these comparison stars, but V986 Oph was measured only in every other cycle.
Data reduction was started by compensating for coincidence losses and subtracting sky background. Extinction corrections had to be made in two steps caused by the two comparison stars always being located at systematically different air mass (similar right ascension, but different declination and close to the celestial equator). This means that even small errors in the applied extinction coefficients cause variations in the nightly photometric zeropoints.
Consequently, we first determined the extinction coefficients with the standard Bouguer method from the comparison star measurements. We then examined the differential comparison star light curves for variability, resulting in a non-detection. Next, we imposed that the average nightly photometric zeropoints for each instrumental system be the same and correspondingly amended the extinction corrections within reasonable limits. This procedure considerably improved the accuracy of our final light curves, as examined with the target star data. The residual scatter in the differential comparison star data is between 4.6 and 3.5 mmag in the Strömgren filters, and between 3.1 and 2.4 mmag in the Geneva measurements.
Consequently, we computed differential light curves of the target stars and heliocentrically corrected their timings. The single-colour measurements were binned to sampling intervals similar to that of the multicolour measurements to avoid giving them higher weight in the consequent analyses. Finally, the photometric zeropoints of the different instruments were compared between the different sites and adjusted if necessary. The resulting final combined time series, spanning 179.3 d, was subjected to frequency analysis. Light curves from the central part of our campaign are shown in Fig. 1, together with fits to be derived and commented on in what follows.
{width="180mm"}
Frequency analysis
==================
The heliocentrically corrected data were searched for periodicities using the program [Period04]{} (Lenz & Breger 2005). This package applies single-frequency power spectrum analysis and simultaneous multi-frequency sine-wave fitting. It also includes advanced options such as the calculation of optimal light-curve fits for multiperiodic signals including harmonic and combination frequencies.
For purposes of frequency detection, the Strömgren $u$ and Geneva $U$ filter data were merged after checking that the oscillation amplitudes were the same within the errors. Measurements in the Strömgren $y$ and Johnson and Geneva $V$ filters were treated as equivalent due to the same effective wavelength of these filters, and were analysed together. After signals were believed to be detected, their presence was checked in the data of the individual filters (that is, the seven Geneva filters, Strömgren $uv$, and the combined Strömgren $y$/Johnson $V$ light curves). The Strömgren $b$ filter measurements were not used because too few data are available.
Amplitude spectra were computed, compared with the spectral window functions, and the frequencies of the intrinsic and statistically significant peaks in the Fourier spectra were determined. Multifrequency fits with all detected signals were calculated step by step, the corresponding frequencies, amplitudes and phases were optimized and subtracted from the data before computing residual amplitude spectra, which were then examined in the same way.
We consider an independent peak statistically significant if it exceeds an amplitude signal-to-noise ratio of 4 in the periodogram; combination signals must satisfy $S/N>3.5$ to be regarded as significant (see Breger et al. 1993, 1999). The noise level was calculated as the average amplitude in a 5 interval centred on the frequency of interest.
For the detection of pulsation frequencies we did not make use of the pre-campaign Geneva measurements as those were carried out without using comparison stars. They therefore have about a factor of 2.5 higher scatter than the campaign data and increase the noise level in a joint analysis. However, the pre-campaign measurements could in some cases be used to derive more precise frequency values.
V2052 Oph
---------
We started by computing the Fourier spectral window of the data, which turned out reasonably clean. The strongest aliases in the u/U and y/V data have only 36% of the amplitude of the true signal. The amplitude spectrum of the data itself, dominated by the known radial mode frequency, is shown in the upper panel of Fig. 2. We chose to use the u/U data for presentation purposes for the pragmatical reason that all signals to be reported are detected in this data set alone.
{width="85mm"}
Prewhitening the strongest signal from the data and examining the residual amplitude spectrum, we recover the stellar rotation frequency (second panel of Fig. 2). Further analysis reveals two more signals in the frequency domain of the radial mode, as well as the first harmonic of the first mode and of the rotation frequency. The residual amplitude spectrum after prewhitening these six frequencies shows a slight 1/f component, as expected from residual atmospheric effects in the data, and no signal in excess of 0.5 mmag.
With frequency solutions for the individual filters as starting values, we attempted to improve the accuracy of our frequency determinations by including the pre-campaign observations, therefore increasing the time base of the data set by a factor of 6.5. By examining the u/U and y/V data as well as confronting the results, we obtained more accurate values for all frequencies, with the exception of the second pulsation frequency where we encountered an aliasing problem. Tests on which value would result in lower residuals etc. did not allow to determine a preferred value, and the choice of this frequency did not affect the outcome on the others. We therefore adopted the average of the two candidate values, and used half the alias spacing as its uncertainty. The final values of the frequencies were then fitted to the campaign data alone but kept fixed, and only the amplitudes, phases and zeropoint were left as free parameters. The result of this procedure is listed in Table 2.
ID $f_{1}$ $f_{2}$ $f_{3}$ 2$f_{1}$ $f_{rot}$ $2f_{rot}$
-------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------------- -----------------
Frequency () 7.148474 $\pm$ 0.000005 7.7567 $\pm$ 0.0007 6.82216 $\pm$ 0.00005 14.296948 0.27480 $\pm$ 0.00002 0.54960
$u$ Ampl. (mmag) 26.98 $\pm$ 0.10 0.84 $\pm$ 0.10 0.54 $\pm$ 0.10 0.52 $\pm$ 0.10 2.76 $\pm$ 0.10 0.78 $\pm$ 0.10
$v$ Ampl. (mmag) 15.41 $\pm$ 0.09 0.85 $\pm$ 0.09 0.60 $\pm$ 0.09 0.20 $\pm$ 0.09 1.97 $\pm$ 0.09 1.05 $\pm$ 0.09
$y$ Ampl. (mmag) 13.37 $\pm$ 0.08 0.90 $\pm$ 0.08 0.56 $\pm$ 0.08 0.23 $\pm$ 0.08 1.62 $\pm$ 0.08 0.29 $\pm$ 0.08
$U$ Ampl. (mmag) 26.65 $\pm$ 0.16 0.93 $\pm$ 0.16 0.97 $\pm$ 0.16 0.53 $\pm$ 0.16 2.89 $\pm$ 0.16 0.47 $\pm$ 0.16
$B_1$ Ampl. (mmag) 16.08 $\pm$ 0.15 0.78 $\pm$ 0.15 0.97 $\pm$ 0.15 0.26 $\pm$ 0.15 2.56 $\pm$ 0.15 1.35 $\pm$ 0.15
$B$ Ampl. (mmag) 15.19 $\pm$ 0.15 0.81 $\pm$ 0.15 0.75 $\pm$ 0.15 0.27 $\pm$ 0.15 2.21 $\pm$ 0.15 0.91 $\pm$ 0.15
$B_2$ Ampl. (mmag) 14.40 $\pm$ 0.16 0.67 $\pm$ 0.16 0.60 $\pm$ 0.16 0.07 $\pm$ 0.16 1.88 $\pm$ 0.16 0.34 $\pm$ 0.16
$V_1$ Ampl. (mmag) 13.18 $\pm$ 0.15 0.90 $\pm$ 0.15 0.76 $\pm$ 0.15 0.38 $\pm$ 0.15 1.47 $\pm$ 0.15 0.29 $\pm$ 0.15
$V$ Ampl. (mmag) 13.22 $\pm$ 0.13 0.96 $\pm$ 0.13 0.74 $\pm$ 0.13 0.29 $\pm$ 0.13 1.40 $\pm$ 0.13 0.32 $\pm$ 0.13
$G$ Ampl. (mmag) 12.83 $\pm$ 0.16 1.04 $\pm$ 0.16 0.60 $\pm$ 0.16 0.41 $\pm$ 0.16 1.56 $\pm$ 0.16 0.27 $\pm$ 0.16
$S/N$ 200.2 6.4 4.0 3.9 14.1 4.0
The multifrequency fit listed in the table represents the data within rms residuals between 3.4 to 2.7 mmag (Strömgren data) and between 2.6 to 2.2 mmag (Geneva data). To search for possible additional signals, we merged the residual data from all filters and computed the combined amplitude spectrum (lowest panel of Fig. 2). It contains no peak in excess of 0.35 mmag, and none with $S/N \geq 3.2$.
Examining the wavelength dependence of the phases of the independent signals, we noticed that the dominant pulsation signal is not in phase in all filters, as demonstrated in Fig. 3. In particular, $\phi_v-\phi_y=0.9\pm0.3\degr$ and $\phi_u-\phi_y=4.2\pm0.2\degr$, i.e.the shorter the wavelength, the later light maximum/minimum is reached. As the amplitudes of the other two signals in this frequency range are by at least a factor of 15 smaller, the errors in the phases are correspondingly larger. Consequently, no statistically significant phase shifts within the different filter passbands have been detected for $f_2$ and $f_3$.
{width="85mm"}
The Fourier parameters of the rotational light variation change substantially from filter to filter (cf. Table 2). To determine its shape we first removed the pulsational variability from the data, and then phased them with respect to the rotation period. The Geneva data were summed into 20 phase bins and the more numerous Strömgren measurements in 25 bins. The rotational light curves are shown in Fig. 4. Unfortunately, these cannot be compared with counterparts from satellite missions such as Kepler and CoRoT as our passbands are not sufficiently red sensitive.
{width="85mm"}
While we have arbitrarily phased these light curves and fits relative to HJD 2453000.000, the hatched area in Fig. 4 indicates the phase of minimum equivalent width of the ultraviolet spectral lines studied by Neiner et al. (2003). We will return to discuss this phasing in Sect. 5.1.
V986 Oph
--------
The frequency analysis of our photometry of V986 Oph was performed in a similar way to that of V2052 Oph, and we also choose the u/U data for presentation. The amplitude spectrum of V986 Oph appears simple, with only one significant frequency present (Fig. 5). However, the residuals left behind a single-frequency solution are between 6.3 and 7.2 mmag per point in the Strömgren data, and between 7.0 and 8.1 mmag per point in the Geneva data, thus about a factor of two to three higher than those for V2052 Oph or for the differential comparison star data. The poorer fit for V986 Oph is also readily visible in Fig. 1. The noise level in the residual amplitude spectrum of V986 Oph is even about a factor of five higher because of the smaller amount of data points available. Furthermore, the single frequency is not significantly detected in the Geneva data alone, neither in those obtained during the campaign, nor in the pre-campaign observations.
{width="85mm"}
Investigating the matter deeper and keeping in mind that spectroscopic binarity of V986 Oph has been reported, we first looked for a possible light time effect. We therefore merged the u/U, v and y/V data into bins no larger than 2.5 d as a compromise between not undersampling the reported 25.56 d orbit and having enough data points to determine the phase of the main light variation. We did not find a statistically significant light time effect, within a limit of 1270s at the orbital period. In one night of observation (around HJD 2453158.9, see Fig. 1) a $\sim0.02$ mag drop in light, suspicious of an eclipse, was present, but another data set obtained one prospective orbital period later did not show such a feature.
Looking at the pulsation amplitude now, it appears that it dropped somewhat during the course of the campaign, but not exceeding the $2\sigma$ level. We therefore assumed a constant amplitude for the remainder of this work, calculated the frequency of the single significant signal as a S/N-weighted average in the different Strömgren filters, and determined its amplitude and phase in all filters (see Table 3). The signal was found to be in phase within the errors in all passbands.
ID $f_{1}$
------------------ ---------------------
Frequency () 3.2886 $\pm$ 0.0003
$u$ Ampl. (mmag) 4.0 $\pm$ 0.3
$v$ Ampl. (mmag) 4.1 $\pm$ 0.3
$y$ Ampl. (mmag) 3.3 $\pm$ 0.2
$S/N$ 7.1
: Frequency solution for our time-resolved Strömgren photometry of V986 Oph. The error on the frequency was determined from considering both formal errors (following Montgomery & O’Donoghue 1999) and differences between the u, v, and y frequency solutions. The quoted errors on the amplitudes are the formal values. The S/N ratio is for the u filter data.
Mode identification
===================
We now attempt to identify the spherical degree $l$ of the pulsation modes by means of the $uvy$ and Geneva passband amplitudes of the pulsational signals detected in the light curves. These amplitudes are to be compared with theoretically predicted ones from model computations, requiring the model parameter space to be constrained first. In other words, we need to determine the positions of the two target stars in the HR diagram as a starting point.
V2052 Oph
---------
The latest spectroscopic $T_{\rm eff}$/log $g$ values for V2052 Oph originate from Morel et al. (2006): $T_{\rm eff} = 23000 \pm 1000$ K and log $g=4.0\pm0.2$, who also list $v \sin i = 61$(including the macroturbulence velocity). Niemczura & Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz (2005) derived $T_{\rm eff} = 23300 \pm 700$ K and log $g=3.89$ from low-resolution ultraviolet spectra.
The online version of The General Catalogue of Photometric Data (GCPD; Mermilliod, Mermilliod & Hauck 1997) contains standard Strömgren and Geneva photometric colours for the star. The Strömgren system calibration by Napiwotzki, Schönberner & Wenske (1993), yields $T_{\rm eff} = 22700 \pm 900$K, log $g=3.9 \pm 0.3$, and also provides an absolute magnitude estimate using the calibration of Balona & Shobbrook (1974): $M_v=-2.59$. The model atmosphere calibration of the Geneva system (Künzli et al. 1997) gives $T_{\rm eff} = 22800 \pm
500$K, log $g=3.8\pm0.3$. A relatively accurate HIPPARCOS parallax (van Leeuwen 2007) is also available: $\pi = 2.40 \pm 0.41$mas. Adopting $E(b-y)=0.230$ from Strömgren photometry, this leads to $M_v=-3.3^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$.
All these individual determinations are in very good agreement. We therefore assume $T_{\rm eff} = 22900 \pm 1000$ K and log $g=4.0\pm0.2$. The tables by Flower (1997) then provide $BC=-2.20$. A comparison of the $T_{\rm eff}$/log $g$ values with model evolutionary tracks prefers the lower value of our two absolute magnitude estimates, and suggests $M=9.2^{+0.9}_{-0.7}$ M$_{\odot}$.
Therefore we computed theoretical photometric amplitudes of the $0
\leq l \leq 7$ modes for models with masses between 8.5 and 10.0 $M_{\sun}$ in steps of 0.5 $M_{\sun}$, in a temperature range of $4.340 \leq \log T_{\rm eff} \leq 4.379$. We used OP opacities (e.g., Seaton 2005) and the Asplund et al. (2004) mixture. An overall metal abundance $Z=0.012$ and a hydrogen abundance of $X=0.7$ has been adopted, and no convective core overshooting was used. We are aware that Morel et al. (2006) and Niemczura & Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz (2005) derived a somewhat lower metallicity, but this small inconsistency is not crucial in the mode identification process.
We extracted theoretically calculated nonadiabatic parameters from the models to determine the amplitudes in the different wavebands. This approach follows that by Balona & Evers (1999) and uses the same software, hence we refer to this paper for details on the procedure. Consequently, we computed the ratios of the theoretical amplitudes with respect to those in the Strömgren u filter, for modes of spherical degree $0 \leq l \leq 7$ and frequencies between 6.3 and 8.3 , and compared them with the observations (left-hand side panels of Fig. 6).
The right-hand side of Fig. 6 shows a $\chi^2$ analysis of the photometric amplitudes, as outlined by Handler, Shobbrook & Mokgwetsi (2005). These $\chi^2$ values use the measurements and standard errors of the amplitudes normalized to the mean of all passbands only, as the pulsation phases carry no additional information on the mode type in our case.
Because of the high $S/N$ of the dominant mode of V2052 Oph, the amplitude ratios in all the individual Strömgren and Geneva filters could be incorporated. Such an approach is not optimal for the two low-amplitude pulsation modes. For their identification, we considered the combined $u/U$, $y/V$ as well as the Strömgren $v$ data only.
Like all previous authors, we identify the strongest mode as radial. The theoretically predicted amplitude ratios with respect to $u$ are systematically higher than observed. We do not believe that this is a normalisation error because the measured $u$ and $U$ amplitudes agree quite well. We rather think that this is due to an imperfect choice of model parameters and because we ignored the chemical peculiarity of the atmosphere. Nevertheless, the data strongly suggest that the dominant mode is radial.
The photometric amplitudes of the two other modes indicate they are of rather high and even spherical degree, most likely $l=4$ or 6. Our neglect of convective core overshoot does not affect these mode identifications. Whereas overshooting would modify the deeper interior structure of the star, the photometric amplitude ratios are mostly determined in the stellar photosphere.
Neiner et al. (2003) identified the 6.822mode as either $l=3$ or 4. Therefore, the combined evidence points towards an $l=4$ mode, which is also the more likely identification for the 7.757signal because of reasons of geometrical cancellation (Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz et al. 2002). This result is supported by Briquet et al. (2012), who could spectroscopically constrain the azimuthal order of the modes and who also discuss V2052 Oph more deeply in terms of convective core overshooting.
V986 Oph
--------
For this star, no spectroscopic temperature and surface gravity determinations are available in the literature. The GCPD contains Strömgren colour indices for V986 Oph, but no Geneva indices. However, we have our own photometry in this system available. In Table 4, we first compare the standard Geneva colours for V2052 Oph from the GCPD to those obtained from our data, demonstrating that they agree within a few millimagnitudes. Consequently, we trust the values that we obtained for V986 Oph.
Star $VM$ $U$ $V$ $B1$ $B2$ $V1$ $G$
------------------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
V2052 Oph (literature) 5.803 0.598 0.855 0.834 1.543 1.563 2.018
V2052 Oph (this work) 5.805 0.594 0.856 0.832 1.543 1.561 2.014
V986 Oph (this work) 6.119 0.268 0.984 0.791 1.584 1.682 2.163
$^1 VM$ is the visual magnitude, whereas the other parameters are colour indices with respect to the $B$ band magnitude (Golay 1972).
Using the standard values in the two photometric systems as input for photometric calibrations, we must proceed with caution. First, the Geneva colours of the star are somewhat out of the range of the calibrations by Künzli et al. (1997). Extrapolating their grids, one arrives at $T_{\rm
eff} \approx 36000$ K, log $g\approx 3.8$. Second, the mean Strömgren colours listed in the GCPD and the calibrations implemented by Napiwotzki et al. (1993) yield $T_{\rm eff} \approx 35600$ K, log $g \approx 3.0$. The latter values however imply a stellar mass in excess of $40
M_{\odot}$, inconsistent with its B0IIIn spectral type. More reliable seems to be the $T_{\rm eff} \approx 34700$ K value from the calibration of the $[u-b]$ index by Napiwotzki et al. (1993).
Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz (2001) determined $T_{\rm eff} = 30100 \pm
2300$K, log $g=4.0 \pm 0.5$, $[m/H]=0.0$, and $E(B-V)=0.228\pm0.029$ from IUE and visual fluxes. The value for reddening is consistent with $E(b-y)=0.203$ from Strömgren photometry, but the effective temperature is much lower, and the surface gravity higher than from the photometric calibrations. These parameters rather imply a $16 M_{\odot}$ star, but the large error bar on log $g$ would allow masses up to $25
M_{\odot}$.
For the purpose of example, we continue with $T_{\rm eff} =
34700\pm1400$ K, log $g = 3.8\pm0.3$. We proceeded similar as we did for V2052 Oph, computing theoretical photometric amplitudes of the $0 \leq l
\leq 7$ modes, but for models with masses between 25 and 36 $M_{\sun}$ in steps of 1 $M_{\sun}$, and in a temperature range of $4.522 \leq \log
T_{\rm eff} \leq 4.558$. A frequency range of $2.7 - 3.8$ was considered for nonradial modes, and $3.2 - 3.4$ for radial modes (to restrict the number of possible radial overtones). The comparison between the observed and computed amplitude ratios and a $\chi^2$ analysis are shown in Fig. 7, where we have restricted ourselves to the Strömgren data because the oscillation was not present at a significant level in the Geneva measurements.
{width="85mm"}
The results of this process clearly argue against a radial pulsation mode. Considering nonradial modes, the observed amplitude ratios imply that the dominant signal in the light curve is most likely due to an $l=3, 5$ or 7 mode. The lowest $\chi^2$, but also the smallest geometrical cancellation, then favour an identification as $l=3$, if taken at face value. Adopting a lower mass, as implied by the $T_{\rm
eff}/\log g$ values by Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz (2001) results in a qualitatively consistent picture with $l=3, 5$ or 7 as the modes best reproducing the observed amplitude ratios. We refer to the discussion of the credibility of this mode identification near the end of Sect. 5.2.
Discussion
==========
V2052 Oph
---------
As mentioned in the Introduction, the presence of a radial mode in the star’s pulsation spectrum allows to derive its mean density, provided the radial overtone is known. To this end, model evolutionary tracks were computed with the Warsaw-New Jersey stellar evolution code, for a rotational velocity of 80 on the ZAMS (to match the rotation period) and other input parameters as specified in Sect. 4.1. Nonadiabatic mode frequencies were calculated with the Warsaw pulsation code (e.g., see Pamyatnykh et al. (1998) for a description of these codes), and models sought that had a radial mode at the observed frequency. Fig. 8 shows the result of this procedure in the form of a theoretical HR diagram.
{width="85mm"}
The effective temperature and luminosity derived for V2052 Oph in Sect. 4.1 is in best agreement with the hypothesis that the radial mode is the fundamental, but it cannot be excluded that it is the first overtone. In the first case, the stellar radius would be $5.3\pm0.1$R$_{\odot}$ and the inclination of the rotation axis thus $54\degr <i< 58\degr$, given the star’s rotation period and $v \sin i$. These values change to $6.45\pm0.15$R$_{\odot}$ and $42\degr <i< 44\degr$ if the radial mode was the first overtone. Unfortunately, the scarcity of additional pulsation modes and their unknown azimuthal order leave meager prospects for asteroseismic constraints other than deriving the mean stellar density.
Attempting to fit the $l=4$ mode frequencies with models of the same radial mode period but varying mass gave a number of possible solutions. Unsurprisingly, if the radial mode was the fundamental, models of lower mass appear more likely because these are more evolved (cf. Fig. 8) and therefore have more mixed modes of $l=4$. If the radial mode was assumed to be the first overtone, no such preference was seen.
The only statement we can make is that the two $l=4$ modes are unlikely to be rotationally split m-modes of the same radial overtone unless allowing for differential interior rotation. The same conclusion was reached by Briquet et al. (2012), with their independent model approach and identifications of $m$. The reason for this finding is that the effect of the Coriolis and centrifugal forces on the rotational frequency splitting are very similar at the given rotation rate and for $l=4$, no matter whether the mode under consideration is a p, g or mixed mode.
Neiner et al. (2003) determined a very precise rotation period for the star despite a non-optimal temporal distribution of their data in terms of annual aliasing problems. The rotation period we have obtained is consistent within the errors with the more precise one by Neiner et al. (2003), and accurate enough to rule out that their value is affected by aliases. Therefore we confirm 3.638833 d as the best available rotation period of V2052 Oph.
In Fig. 4, the phase of minimum rotational light variation coincides with minimum magnetic field strength and minimum UV spectral line equivalent width, as determined by Neiner et al. (2012a). In $B1, v$ and $B$ there is also a double maximum, as in the UV line strength. The shape of these variations indicates that both magnetic poles are seen during a rotation cycle, i.e. the sum of the angles of the inclination of the rotation axis and the magnetic obliquity $i+\beta$ must exceed $90\degr$.
Neiner et al. (2012a) determined $i$ to be $53\degr<i<77\degr$ from modelling Stokes profiles. This is consistent with the inclination of the rotation axis we obtained with a stellar radius corresponding to radial fundamental mode pulsation, but not with the value assuming the radial mode is the first overtone. We therefore rule out the latter possibility. Using $r=B_{\rm min}/B_{\rm
max}=\cos(i-\beta)/\cos(i+\beta)$, where $r$ is the ratio of the minimum and maximum magnetic field strength of the rotation cycle, and the $r$ values determined by Neiner et al. (2012a), we obtain $58\degr<\beta<66\degr$.
As mentioned, the light curve of V2052 Oph shows rotational modulation (Fig. 4) in phase with the magnetic field and UV wind variations. This could be due to spots at the surface of the star (such as those suggested by Neiner et al. 2012a) or magnetically confined clouds in the circumstellar environment (e.g. Townsend & Owocki 2005). Using the magnetic field value ($B_{\rm pol} = 400$ G, Neiner et al. 2012a), the wind velocity estimated in UV data ($v_{\rm inf} = 500$, Neiner et al. 2003), the stellar parameters from Sect. 4.1 and above ($M = 9.2$ M$_\odot$, $R = 5.3$ R$_\odot$, $v \sin i = 61$, $i = 56^\circ$), and a mass loss typical of a B2 star ($\dot{M} = 10^{-9}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$), we derived the magnetic confinement parameter $\eta_*$ (see ud-Doula & Owocki 2002) of V2052 Oph.
We obtained that $\eta_* = 2576$, the Alfven radius is $R_A = 7.12 R$, and the Kepler radius is $R_K = 3.05 R$. This implies that magnetic confinement should occur ($\eta_* > 1$) at the magnetic equator between $R_K$ and $R_A$. Indeed in this region wind particles get trapped in closed field loops and remains centrifugally supported. Above $R_A$ material escapes as the wind streches field lines open. Below $R_K$ material lacks sufficient centrifugal support and falls back onto the star, but this transient material can still create a dynamical magnetosphere (ud-Doula, Owocki & Townsend 2008, Petit et al. 2011).
However, a centrifugally supported magnetosphere usually produces H$\alpha$ emission and such emission has never been observed in V2052 Oph. Moreover, Oskinova et al. (2011) showed that V2052 Oph is only very weakly X-ray luminous. A centrifugally supported magnetosphere could exist without producing H$\alpha$ or much X-ray emission if the density or temperature of the wind was not appropriate or if the confinement timescale was too long (see, e.g., Neiner et al. 2012b for a more detailed discussion of the emission measure in magnetospheres).
V2052 Oph is not the only magnetic $\beta$ Cep star known. Telting, Aerts & Mathias (1997) spectroscopically detected rotationally equally split frequencies around the dominant radial pulsation mode of $\beta$ Cep itself, and discussed whether these could be temperature spots on the surface or due to a magnetically distorted oblique pulsation mode (the magnetic field was reported by Henrichs et al. 2000). On the other hand, no such rotational frequency splitting has been reported for $\xi^1$ CMa (Saesen, Briquet & Aerts 2006, Fourtune-Ravard et al. 2011). Both stars have a single or dominant radial mode, such as V2052 Oph. For our target, we find no signals at frequencies split by one or two times the rotation frequency around the radial pulsation, within a limit of 0.2 mmag in amplitude.
V986 Oph
--------
In Sect. 3.2 we remarked that the residual scatter in our light curves prewhitened by the single coherent frequency is considerably higher than that in the other time series from this campaign. Since the two comparison stars are farther apart from each other on the sky as V986 Oph is from either of them, this cannot be due to residual data reduction errors. Furthermore, the scatter in colour light curves of V986 Oph, e.g. $u-y$, is much less than the residual scatter in the individual passbands, and virtually the same as in the differential comparison star data in the same filter combination. We therefore conclude that this high apparent scatter in the light curves actually represents intrinsic variability of V986 Oph, and that this kind of variability is not dominated by changes in the stellar effective temperature.
The main variability frequency we found is consistent with the one in the 1987 data by Cuypers et al. (1989), and the amplitude is comparable. However, these authors also remarked on the presence of longer-term light variations on time scales longer than half a day. We do not find coherent variability on such time scales in the complete data set. We therefore subdivided our measurements into chunks comparable to the extent of the data by Cuypers et al. (1989) and analysed the residuals after prewhitening the main periodicity. Longer-term variability is present, but we find nothing periodic. Unfortunately, our data have too low a duty cycle for invoking techniques such as Time-Fourier analysis to search for some possible short-lived periodic variations.
V986 Oph is not the first case of a $\beta$ Cep star for which unknown additional variability besides that of pulsational origin has been found. Jerzykiewicz (1978) and Handler et al. (2006) discussed this problem for the star 12 (DD) Lac (11.5 M$_{\odot}$), Jerzykiewicz et al. (2005) for $\nu$ Eridani (9.6 M$_{\odot}$), and Handler et al. (2005) for $\theta$Oph ($\sim 8.5$ M$_{\odot}$), where it seems present at a lower level. On the other hand, for V2052 Oph we did not find such evidence, and it is hardly, if at all present in the MOST photometry of $\gamma$ Peg (8.5 M$_{\odot}$, Handler et al. 2009). One might therefore speculate that the more massive the star, the stronger this additional variability.
In this context it is very interesting that Blomme et al. (2011) analysed CoRoT light curves of three O stars and also found some apparently incoherent variability, in all three targets. These authors suggested that it could be due to subsurface convection, granulation or wind variability. On the other hand, Balona et al. (2011) suggested that the low frequencies observed in the amplitude spectra of Kepler B-type stars are due to many simultaneous gravity mode oscillations with high spherical degree. The present data for V986 Oph do not allow us to distinguish between those possibilites, and also not to argue against pulsation in modes of high spherical degree, because those would not generate strong colour variability (cf. Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz & Pamyatnykh 2012). However, we do point out that this presently unexplained variability may occur in stars with masses down to 9M$_{\odot}$.
Some authors have (e.g., Jerzykiewicz 1975) questioned the membership of V986 Oph to the class of $\beta$ Cep stars due to its long variability period. Because the star rotates rapidly, several possibilities need to be considered. With the temperature and luminosity estimate for V986 Oph from the photometric data in Sect. 4.2 the star would have a radius of $12\pm4$R$_{\odot}$, which yields a rotation period of about two days assuming $v_{rot} = 300$. As the critical (break-up) rotational velocity of such massive stars is around 400, the rotation frequency cannot exceed 0.7. For the possibility of a $\sim 16$M$_{\odot}$, star, this upper limit increases to 2.7. Therefore we rule out that the single coherent signal we found in the light curves of V986 Oph is due to rotation.
Another hypothesis would be a g mode frequency rotationally split into the p/mixed mode domain. However, because of the large uncertainties in the stellar mass and effective temperature, we cannot reach a conclusion for this possibility and stay with the assumption that V986 Oph is a $\beta$ Cephei star.
The frequency of the single coherent variability signal has changed from the first published observations, as summarized by Jerzykiewicz (1975). Up to his paper, the frequency was quoted as 3.44or somewhat higher. Later, Fullerton et al. (1985) gave two different periods for the different seasons 1980 and 1984, the latter consistent with the 3.29frequency determined by Cuypers et al. (1989) and us. Therefore this frequency must have changed some time in the 1980’s, by an amount too large to be explicable by stellar evolution. Most likely, it is just due to a change of the dominant pulsation mode of the star, which has been observed in at least one other $\beta$ Cep star before (Jerzykiewicz & Pigulski 1996).
Concerning the amplitude, the published light range is of the order of 0.02 to 0.03 mag. This is comparable to what we see in our data (cf. Fig. 1). However, the amplitude of the main periodicity may have dropped, or the larger values reported in the literature, based on much smaller data sets, are biased by the incoherent variability. Jerzykiewicz (1975) already remarked on the unusually low $U/B$ amplitude ratio from the viewpoint of $\beta$ Cep pulsation, as manifested in the data of Hill (1967). Our observed $u/v$ amplitude ratio is consistent with that, and can be best explained with an odd-l mode of fairly high degree ($l\geq3$).
Such a mode identification is unexpected for two reasons. First, geometrical cancellation is very strong for modes with odd spherical degree larger than one (Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz et al. 2002). Second, for such a rapidly rotating star one would naively expect a preference for $l=2$ modes due to the distortion of the stellar shape. However, as demonstrated by Townsend (2003), our implicit assumption that the geometry of the pulsation mode of V986 Oph can be described in the form of a single spherical harmonic may not be correct. Also, the photometric amplitudes of rapidly rotating stars depend on the azimuthal order of the modes as well as the aspect under which they are viewed (Townsend 2003).
Our most likely mode identification as $l=3$ is therefore uncertain and calls for a high-resolution spectroscopic investigation. This would also serve to derive more reliable values of the stellar temperature and surface gravity than we have available. In particular, it would be interesting to confirm or reject the high stellar mass we inferred.
Conclusions
===========
In an attempt to understand the pulsational behaviour of $\beta$ Cep stars that are more complicated than those previously studied with asteroseismic methods (slow rotators with fairly large amplitudes), we have carried out an extensive multisite campaign. Results from the photometric investigation were however insufficient to perform a detailed asteroseismic study, as only three pulsation modes were detected for V2052 Oph, and one for V986 Oph.
However, it is interesting that the nonradial modes present are of higher spherical degree than commonly found. We are aware of only a few cases with observationally identified $l=3$ (e.g., Briquet et al. 2009) or $l=4$ modes (e.g., Aerts, Waelkens & De Pauw 1994), and these stars tend to rotate more rapidly than those dominated by modes of low spherical degree.
Therefore the often-made assumption that $\beta$ Cep pulsation modes detected photometrically from the ground are $l\leq2$ needs to be questioned. In the context of highly sensitive space photometry this assumption is of course even more doubtful. Since the amplitude reduction due to geometrical cancellation of sufficiently high-l pulsation modes only goes as $\sim l^{-1/2}$ (e.g., Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz et al. 2002), the gain in the number of oscillation frequencies detected is offset by the larger uncertainty in mode typing.
Photometric identifications of modes with high spherical degree become largely degenerate for even and odd modes with $l \geq 3$. This situation can be relieved by obtaining simultaneous spectroscopy. The amplitude ratios and phase shifts between the radial velocity and light curves allow some separation between high-l modes (Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz & Pamyatnykh 2012), and of course line-profile variations offer a multitude of possibilities for identifying modes (e.g., Telting 2008 and references therein).
It therefore seems that if we are to understand the interior structure of more rapidly rotating $\beta$ Cep stars than those studied so far, all observationally and theoretically available tools need to be exploited. Photometric measurements need to be made in multiple passbands, and (simultaneous) spectroscopic observations must be acquired. The interpretation of these data may require the inclusion of the effects of rotation on a star-to-star basis because observables can be affected to the extent that mode identifications, a prerequisite for asteroseismology, may be erroneous (see Townsend 2003). However, to shed light on important astrophysical problems, such as internal angular momentum transport, such concerted efforts will be worthwhile.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work has been supported by the Austrian Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung under grant R12-N02. KU acknowledges financial support by the Spanish National Plan of R&D for 2010, project AYA2010-17803. GH thanks Jadwiga Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz and Patrick Lenz for helpful discussions, and Luis Balona for permission to use his software. EG acknowledges support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), project number P19962-N16. MB is a F.R.S.-FNRS Postdoctoral Researcher, Belgium.
This work is based in part on observations made with the Mercator Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma by the Flemish Community, at the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, and at the South African Astronomical Observatory.
[99]{}
Abt H. A., Levato H., Grosso M. 2002, ApJ 573, 359
Aerts C., Waelkens C., de Pauw M., 1994, A&A 286, 136
Aerts C., Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Kurtz D. W. 2010, Asteroseismology, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin)
Aerts C., et al. 2003, Science, 300, 1926
Aerts C., Briquet M., Degroote P., Thoul A., van Hoolst T., 2011, A&A 534, 98
Asplund M., Grevesse N., Sauval A. J., Allende Prieto C., Kiselman D., 2004, A&A 417, 751
Balona L. A., Shobbrook R. R., 1974, MNRAS 211, 375
Balona L. A., Evers E. A., 1999, MNRAS 302, 349
Balona L. A., et al., 2011, MNRAS 413, 2403
Blomme R., et al., 2011, A&A 533, A4
Breger M., et al., 1993, A&A 271, 482
Breger M., et al., 1999, A&A 349, 225
Briquet M., et al., 2009, A&A 506, 269
Briquet M., et al., 2012, MNRAS, to be submitted
Crawford D. L., 1978, AJ 83, 48
Cugier H., Dziembowski W. A., Pamyatnykh A. A., 1994, A&A 291, 143
Cuypers J., Balona L. A., Marang F. 1989, A&AS, 81, 151
Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz J., 2001, PhD thesis, University of Wroc[ł]{}aw
Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz J., Pamyatnykh A. A., 2012, in [*Impact of new instrumentation and new insights in stellar pulsations*]{} eds. L. A. Balona et al., Astrophys. Space Sci. Proc. series, in press (arXiv:1112.2572)
Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz J., Dziembowski W. A., Pamyatnykh A. A., Goupil M.-J., 2002, A&A 392, 151
Desmet M., et al., 2009, MNRAS 396, 1460
Flower P. J., 1996, ApJ 469, 355
Fourtune-Ravard C., Wade G. A., Marcolino W. L. F., Shultz M., Grunhut J. H., Henrichs H. F., in [*Active OB stars: structure, evolution, mass loss, and critical limits*]{}, Proc. IAU Symp. 272, p. 180
Frost E. B., 1902, ApJ, 15, 340
Fullerton A. W., Bolton C. D., Penrod G. D., 1985, JRASC 79, 236
Golay M., 1972, Vistas in Astronomy 14, 13
Handler G., et al., 2006, MNRAS 365, 327
Handler G., et al., 2009, ApJ 698, L56
Handler G., in [*Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems*]{}, eds. T. D. Oswalt et al., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2012, in press (Chapter 27)
Handler G., Shobbrook R. R., Mokgwetsi T., 2005, MNRAS 362, 612
Hauck B., Mermilliod M., 1998, A&A 129, 431
Henrichs H. F., et al., 2000, in [*The Be Phenomenon in Early-Type Stars*]{}, eds. M. A. Smith & H. F. Henrichs, ASP Conf. Ser. 214, p. 324
Heynderickx D., Waelkens C., Smeyers P., 1994, A&AS 105, 447
Hill G., 1967, ApJS 14, 263
Jerzykiewicz M., 1972, PASP 84, 718
Jerzykiewicz M., 1975, Acta Astr. 25, 81
Jerzykiewicz M., 1978, Acta Astr. 28, 465
Jerzykiewicz M., 1993, A&AS 97, 421
Jerzykiewicz, M., Pigulski, A., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 853
Jerzykiewicz M. et al. 2005, MNRAS 360, 619
Jones D. H. P., Shobbrook R. R., 1974, MNRAS 166, 649
Künzli M., North P., Kurucz R. L., Nicolet B., 1997, A&AS 122, 51
Ledoux P., 1951, ApJ 114, 373
van Leeuwen F., 2007, A&A 474, 653
Lenz P., Breger M., 2005, Comm. Asteroseism. 146, 53
Mermilliod J.-C., Mermilliod M., Hauck B., 1997, A&AS 124, 349
Montgomery M. H., O’Donoghue D., 1999, Delta Scuti Star Newsletter 13, 28 (University of Vienna)
Morel T., Butler K., Aerts C., Neiner C., Briquet M., 2006, A&A 457, 651
Napiwotzki R., Schönberner D., Wenske V., 1993, A&A 268, 653
Neiner C., et al., 2003, A&A 411, 565
Neiner C., et al., 2012a, A&A 537, A148
Neiner C., et al., 2012b, A&A, in press
Niemczura E., Daszy[ń]{}ska-Daszkiewicz J., 2005, A&A 433, 659
Pamyatnykh A. A., Ziomek, W., 2007, Comm. Asteroseism. 150, 207
Pamyatnykh A. A., Dziembowski W. A., Handler G., Pikall H., 1998, A&A 333, 141
Pamyatnykh A. A., Handler G., Dziembowski W. A., 2004, MNRAS 350, 1022
Petit V., et al., 2012, in [*Four Decades of Massive Star Research*]{}, ed. L. Drissen, ASP Conf. Ser., in press (arXiv:1111.1238)
Pigulski A., Pojma[ń]{}ski G., 2008, A&A 477, 917
Saesen S., Briquet M., Aerts C., 2006, Comm. Asteroseism. 147, 109
Seaton M. J., 2005, MNRAS 362, L1
Stankov A., Handler G., 2005, ApJS 158, 193
Stateva I., Niemczura E., Iliev I., 2010, Pub. Astr. Obs. Belgrade 90, 179
Telting J. H., 2008, Comm. Asteroseism., 157, 112
Telting J. H., Aerts C., Mathias, P., 1997, A&A 322, 493
Telting J. H., Schrijvers C., Ilyin I. V., Uytterhoeven K., De Ridder J., Aerts C., Henrichs H. F., 2006, A&A 452, 945
Townsend R. H. D., 2003, MNRAS 343, 125
Townsend R. H. D., Owocki S. P., 2005, MNRAS 357, 251
ud-Doula A., Owocki S. P., 2002, ApJ 576, 413
ud-Doula A., Owocki S. P., Townsend R. H. D., 2008, MNRAS, 385, 97
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recently it has been demonstrated that the combination of continuous position detection with detuned parametric driving can lead to significant steady-state mechanical squeezing, far beyond the 3 dB limit normally associated with parametric driving. In this work, we show the close connection between this detuned scheme and quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement of a single mechanical quadrature. In particular, we show that applying an experimentally realistic detuned parametric drive to a cavity optomechanical system allows one to effectively realize a QND measurement despite being in the bad-cavity limit. In the limit of strong squeezing, we show that this scheme offers significant advantages over standard backaction evasion, not only by allowing operation in the weak measurement and low efficiency regimes, but also in terms of the purity of the mechanical state.'
address:
- '$^1$ Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia'
- '$^2$ Department of Physics, McGill University, Montréal, Canada'
- '$^3$ Centre for Engineered Quantum Systems, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia'
author:
- 'A Szorkovszky$^1$, AA Clerk$^2$, AC Doherty$^3$, and WP Bowen$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'bae1.bib'
title: 'Detuned Mechanical Parametric Amplification as a Quantum Non-Demolition Measurement'
---
Introduction
============
Recently, much attention has been focused on the problem of measuring a macroscopic harmonic oscillator at the level of its quantum mechanical fluctuations, and thereby controlling its quantum state. For example, measuring the position with an uncertainty smaller than the quantum zero-point motion results in a “squeezed” state. Such quantum states are the basis for sensing at an unprecedented scale[@caves] and for new kinds of information processing[@braunstein]. Squeezing the quantum noise in mechanical oscillators is a non-trivial task — not only because exquisite sensitivity is required, but also due to the fact that the position and momentum are dynamically linked. Since Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle dictates that a position measurement produces a momentum kick (also known as backaction), this linkage necessarily produces a position disturbance later in the oscillator’s cycle, with the resulting noise precluding localisation with precision below the level of the zero-point motion.
The most common ways of mitigating this noise — known as backaction evading (BAE) techniques — involve making position measurements that are essentially periodic. Using this method, by which the backaction heating only heats the unmeasured quadrature, it follows that an arbitrarily sensitive measurement of the other quadrature is possible. This technique, first theoretically developed by Braginsky et al.[@braginsky], is the prototypical quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement of an oscillator — since joined by QND protocols for energy[@jayich] and atomic spin[@sewell].
Periodic modulation of an oscillator’s spring constant at twice the resonance frequency, such that one quadrature of motion is amplified, allows one to circumvent practical sensitivity limits that arise due to measurement noise. Accordingly, parametric amplification of this kind has been used in nanomechanical systems[@paramp1; @paramp3] in addition to microwave systems[@micro1] as a way of transducing small signals. Since in principle it adds no extra noise, even in the quantum regime, parametric amplification has long been viewed as a cousin of back-action evasion in this limited sense[@rugar]. However, since it influences the measured quadrature of the oscillator, unlike BAE, it cannot be considered a type of QND measurement.
Recently, we have proposed[@prl1; @njp] and demonstrated[@prl2] a method to accurately measure and squeeze one quadrature of motion via the orthogonal amplified quadrature by using a detuned parametric drive. In this paper, we show there exists a special case of this detuned mechanical parametric amplification (DMPA), such that which one quadrature is not disturbed by the parametric drive. This quadrature is therefore a QND observable. We show that it is possible to equate a weak measurement of the oscillator to a strong but imperfect backaction evading measurement. This allows us to quantify the effectiveness of DMPA as a QND measurement, and hence directly compare DMPA to one-mode backaction evading protocols as used in cavity optomechanics[@clerk; @purdy; @suh13], as well as a more recently studied two-mode version[@woolley]. We show that the parametric scheme is directly analogous to backaction evading measurement, and that in the regime where the oscillator is localised well below the zero-point motion, the effective measurement strength scales linearly with the parametric drive strength. Hence, conditional quantum squeezing of the mechanical state with weak or inefficient measurement, or in the optomechanical bad cavity regime, is made possible with parametric driving. In addition we show that, in contrast to backaction evasion, approaching the limit of perfect squeezing does not degrade the purity. Furthermore, the purity scales more favourably with the measurement efficiency and is therefore more robust to measurement loss.
Model
=====
We begin by recapping the essential elements of the DMPA scheme introduced in Refs. [@prl1; @njp]; unlike the presentation in those works, we focus on the connection to QND measurement. One starts with a standard optomechanical system where a mechanical resonator of frequency $\omega_m$ is dispersively coupled to a cavity mode of damping rate $\kappa$[@kippenberg]. In the good-cavity limit $\omega_m \gg \kappa$, one can use the cavity output to make a QND measurement of a single mechanical quadrature by simultaneously driving both the red- and blue-detuned mechanical sidebands[@clerk]; such a QND measurement when combined with feedback can then in principle lead to high levels of mechanical squeezing. Here, we focus instead on the bad-cavity limit $\kappa \gg \omega_M$, where the conventional QND scheme for squeezing is impossible: even if one drives both mechanical sidebands, the cavity will couple to (and thus measure) both mechanical quadratures.
To realize something akin to a QND measurement in the bad-cavity regime, we will take a different approach: as opposed to engineering the cavity-mechanical interaction by two-tone driving, we will instead modify the coherent dynamics of the mechanical resonator. This is done by simply introducing a strong parametric modulation of the mechanical spring constant (via, e.g. electromechanical means[@prl1] or otherwise) at a frequency $2\omega_d$ where $\omega_d = \omega_m + \Delta$. Letting $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{p}$ denote position and momentum, the mechanical Hamiltonian is $$H = \frac{\hat p^2}{2m} + \frac{\hat x^2}{2}[k_0 + k_r \cos(2t(\omega_m+\Delta))]\; .$$ Moving to a rotating frame at the reference frequency $\omega_d$, the position can be decomposed into canonically-conjugate quadratures $$\sqrt{\frac{m\omega_m}{\hbar}}\,\hat x = \hat X\sin(\omega_d t) + \hat Y\cos(\omega_d t)\; ,$$ where $[\hat X,\hat Y] = i$ and the ground state variance is $$V_g = \langle \hat X^2 \rangle - \langle \hat X \rangle^2 = \langle \hat Y^2 \rangle - \langle \hat Y \rangle^2 = 1/2.$$ Introducing creation and annihilation operators in the rotating frame via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{quadx}
\hat X = (\hat a + \hat a^\dag)/\sqrt{2}, \,\,\,\,\, \hat Y = -i(\hat a - \hat a^\dag)/\sqrt{2}. \label{quady}\end{aligned}$$ and make a rotating-wave approximation (which requires $\omega_m \gg \gamma$, $k_0\gg k_r$), the resulting mechanical Hamiltonian is $$\label{ham}
\tilde H = \hbar\Delta \hat a^\dag\hat a - \frac{\hbar\chi}{2}(\hat a^2+\hat a^{\dag2}) \; ,$$ where $\chi=\omega_m k_r/2 k_0$. The second term causes parametric squeezing of one mechanical quadrature $\hat{U_1} = (\hat X - \hat Y)/\sqrt{2}$ (and amplification of the conjugate quadrature $\hat{U_2} = (\hat X + \hat Y)/\sqrt{2}$) at rate $\chi$, while the first detuning term induces rotation in phase space and hence a mixing of squeezed and amplified quadratures. At first glance, this additional rotation seems problematic if the eventual goal is mechanical squeezing. One is thus tempted to set $\Delta = 0$, i.e. a resonant parametric drive. In this case, the maximum possible steady-state squeezing of the squeezed quadrature $\hat{U_1}$ is by 50%, the so-called 3 dB limit[@prl1]. For the seemingly ideal case of $\Delta = 0$, this limit cannot be improved by adding continuous position detection[@prl1].
Unconditional QND dynamics
--------------------------
Here, we will instead take a value of the detuning $\Delta$ close to the instability threshold $|\Delta_\mathrm{th}|=\sqrt{\gamma^2+\chi^2}$. In particular, one obtains extremely simple dynamics in the case where $\Delta = -\chi$, as the Hamiltonian takes the form $$\label{ham2}
\tilde H = -\frac{\hbar\chi}{2}\, (\hat X^2+1)\; .$$ In this case, the squeezing and rotation operations conspire to produce simple coherent dynamics analogous to that of a free particle: similar to momentum, the $\hat{X}$ quadrature is a constant of the motion, while similar to position, $\hat Y$ grows at a rate determined by $\hat X$. That is, in the absence of external influences, $(d/dt) \hat{Y} = \chi \hat{X}$. It follows trivially that while the $\hat{X}$ quadrature is unaffected by the parametric driving, at long times (or low frequencies) the $\hat{Y}$ quadrature becomes an amplified version of $\hat{X}$. To make this more precise, we include mechanical dissipation in the standard way. With mechanical amplitude damping at rate $\gamma$, the quantum Langevin equations describing the mechanical resonator take the form $$\label{lang}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{d}\hat X \\
\mathrm{d}\hat Y \end{array} \right] =
\left[ \begin{array}{cc}
-\gamma & 0 \\
\chi & -\gamma \end{array} \right] \,
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\hat X \\
\hat Y \end{array} \right] \, \mathrm{d}t + \sqrt{2\gamma}
\left[ \begin{array}{c}
\mathrm{d}\hat X_\mathrm{in} \\
\mathrm{d}\hat Y_\mathrm{in} \end{array} \right] \; ,$$ where $X_\mathrm{in},Y_\mathrm{in}$ describe the input noise from the mechanical bath. The above is easily solved in the frequency domain as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{spectrum}
\hat X(\omega) = \hat X_0(\omega), \,\,\,\,\,
\hat Y(\omega) = \hat Y_0(\omega) + \frac{2\chi}{\gamma- i\omega}\, \hat X_0(\omega) \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat X_0(\omega) = \frac{\hat X_\mathrm{in}}{\gamma - i\omega}, \,\,\,\,\,
\hat Y_0(\omega) = \frac{\hat Y_\mathrm{in}}{\gamma - i\omega} \; ,\end{aligned}$$ are the mechanical quadratures when $\chi = 0$; they simply correspond to the quadratures of a mechanical resonator in thermal equilibrium.
Eqs. \[spectrum\] express the key idea underlying our DMPA-based backaction evasion scheme: for low frequencies and large $\chi / \gamma$, the detuned parametric drive causes $\hat{Y}$ to become an amplified version of $\hat{X}$, whereas $\hat{X}$ is completely unaffected by the parametric driving. The situation is reminiscent of a QND measurement: the mechanical $\hat Y$ quadrature “measures" the $\hat X$ quadrature, without any backaction disturbance. The amplification induced by the detuned parametric driving also means that a standard continuous position measurement made using the cavity output effectively becomes a single-quadrature measurement of $\hat{X}$. We make this precise in what follows.
Measurement conditioning
------------------------
The next step of the analysis is to understand how a standard conditional position measurement[@jacobs] is modified by the effective amplification described above. As described in Ref. [@doherty], the transformation into a rotating frame allows for simple equations of motion for the conditional state of the oscillator. As the mechanical Hamiltonian is quadratic and we are making a linear measurement, an initially Gaussian mechanical state will also remain Gaussian at all times. Hence, the conditional evolution equations reduce to equations for the means and covariance matrix (see \[masterapp\]). Letting $V_X \equiv \langle \langle \hat{X}^2 \rangle \rangle$, $V_Y \equiv \langle \langle \hat{Y}^2 \rangle \rangle$ and $C \equiv \langle \langle \{ \hat{X} ,\hat{Y}\}/2 \rangle \rangle$ denote the elements of the conditional covariance matrix, one finds (again taking $\Delta = - \chi$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master1}
\frac{d}{dt}V_X & = & -2\gamma V_X + 2\gamma(N+1/2+N_{BA}) - 4\eta\mu(V_X^2+C^2) \\
\label{mastery}
\frac{d}{dt}V_Y & = & -2\gamma V_Y + 4\chi C + 2\gamma(N+1/2+N_{BA}) - 4\eta\mu(V_Y^2+C^2)\\
\label{master2}
\frac{d}{dt}C & = & -2\gamma C + 2\chi V_X - 4\eta\mu C(V_X+V_Y) \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the mean bath phonon number, $\mu$ is the measurement rate, and $\eta$ is the efficiency of the measurement ($\eta = 1$ corresponds to a quantum-limited continuous position measurement), while $N_{BA} = \mu / 2 \gamma$ describes the backaction heating of both quadratures from the continuous position measurement, parameterised as an additional mean phonon occupation. These equations have a simple interpretation: the $\chi$ terms correspond to the coherent dynamics due to the detuned parametric drive, whereas the nonlinear $\mu$-dependent terms correspond to the conditioning terms due to the measurement (i.e. the measurement leads to an effective nonlinear damping of the variances). Throughout this paper, we assume a situation where the mechanical susceptibility is not modified by the measurement. In cavity optomechanics, this is achieved by driving the cavity on resonance rather than on the red or blue sidebands.
For comparison, the corresponding conditional evolution equations for a near-QND measurement of the mechanical X quadrature (via, for example, dual sideband driving) take the general form[@jacobs; @clerk] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{baemaster1}
\frac{d}{dt}V_X & = & -2\gamma V_X + 2\gamma(N+1/2 + N_{\mathrm{bad}}) - 4\eta\mu V_X^2 \\
\frac{d}{dt}V_Y & = & -2\gamma V_Y + 2\gamma(N+1/2 + N_\mathrm{BA}) - 4\eta\mu C^2 \\
\label{baemaster2}
\frac{d}{dt}C & = & -2\gamma C - 4\eta\mu V_X C \; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $N_\mathrm{BA}$ is defined as above, and $N_\mathrm{bad}<N_\mathrm{BA}$ is the spurious backaction heating of the $\hat X$ quadrature due to imperfect QND measurement. Here, the measurement conditioning terms now reflect the fact that only the $\hat X$ quadrature is being measured. Further, in the ideal QND limit, the parameter $N_{\rm bad} = 0$, and there is no backaction heating of the measured $\hat X$ quadrature. Small deviations from the ideal QND limit result in a small amount of backaction heating of the $X$ quadrature; we parameterize this (as in Ref. [@clerk]) by $N_{\rm bad}$. Note that one can easily verify from Eq. \[baemaster2\] that the stationary conditional state has $C=0$.
QND Measurement via DMPA
========================
We can now substantiate our claim that as far as the stationary conditional state is concerned, weak measurement of the $\hat Y$ quadrature with strong detuned parametric amplification approximates an efficient QND measurement of $\hat X$. This is done by directly comparing the conditional $\hat X$ quadrature variance equations for DMPA and the backaction evasion case, allowing an effective measurement strength for the $\hat X$ quadrature to be defined. Simple solutions for the $\hat X$ variance and purity are then found in the strong driving limit. Later, the respective roles of the parametric drive and measurement are clarified using the general solution for the effective measurement strength.
Effective Measurement Strength
------------------------------
To define the effective measurement strength, we return to Eqs (\[master1\]-\[master2\]) and solve for the stationary value of the covariance $C$. We obtain $$\label{mueff_imp}
C = \frac{\chi}{\gamma + 2 \eta \mu (V_X + V_Y) } V_X \equiv g V_X \; .$$ Unlike the BAE case, here the stationary value of $C$ is non-zero. We now use this result to eliminate $C$ from the steady-state equation of motion for $V_X$, obtaining $$\label {qndlike}
0 = -2\gamma V_X + 2\gamma(N + 1/2 +N_\mathrm{bad,eff}) - 4\eta\mu_{\rm eff}(V_X,V_Y) V_X^2 \; ,$$ where we have described the effective measurement strength: $$\mu_{\rm eff}(V_X, V_Y) = \mu \left(1+\frac{C^2}{V_X^2}\right) = \mu (1+g^2) \; ,$$ and introduced an effective bad-cavity parameter $$N_{\rm bad,eff} = \mu / (2\gamma) \; .$$
Comparing against Eq. (\[baemaster1\]) describing backaction evasion, we see that Eq. (\[qndlike\]) is now of the same form. For a large measurement enhancement ($g \gg 1$), there is a strong similarity to a near-ideal QND measurement of the $X$ quadrature in that the measurement conditioning parameter $\mu_\mathrm{eff}$ is enhanced far above $\mu$ without a coinciding increase in the backaction heating $N_\mathrm{bad,eff}$, which is independent of $g$.
In the complete absence of measurement ($\mu\!=\!0$), the coherent amplification alone determines the covariance so that $g = C/V_X = \chi'$ (where from here onward $\chi'$ denotes the dimensionless ratio $\chi/\gamma$, equalling unity at the self-oscillation threshold of a non-detuned parametric amplifier). As the measurement strength is increased, the ratio $g$ is attenuated by the conditioning of the quadratures. This can be seen in Eq. (\[mueff\_imp\]), where even though increasing $\mu$ reduces $V_X$ and $V_Y$, the product $\mu(V_X+V_Y)$ is a monotonically increasing function of $\mu$. This attenuation of $g$ reflects the fact that the damping effect of the position measurement on the covariance counteracts the coherent amplification due to the parametric drive. In the limit of a perfect measurement ($\mu/\gamma\rightarrow\infty$), $g$ approaches zero and the parametric drive becomes irrelevant.
A bandwidth picture provides a useful heuristic explanation for the form of Eq. (\[mueff\_imp\]), as follows. The measurement conditioning terms $\eta\mu V_X$ and $\eta\mu V_Y$ in this equation also appear in Eqs (\[master1\]) and (\[mastery\]), where they may be understood as damping rates in addition to the intrinsic rate $\gamma$. Accordingly, the conditioning associated with a position measurement makes use of information gathered over time-scales $1 / (\eta\mu V_X)$ and $1 / (\eta\mu V_Y)$. However, the effective amplification dynamics are only significant on timescales longer than the mechanical decay time, given by $1/\gamma$. This is shown by Eq. (\[spectrum\]), where the additional term in $\hat Y(\omega)$ decays for $|\omega|\gg\gamma$. Therefore, for sufficiently short measurement timescales the amplification is effectively frozen out and plays no role in the conditioning.[^1] This explains the appearance of the rates $\eta\mu V_X$ and $\eta\mu V_Y$ as attenuating terms in the measurement gain given by Eq. (\[mueff\_imp\]).
Strong Driving Limit
--------------------
Since Eq. (\[mueff\_imp\]) is an implicit equation, the net effect of the parametric drive and measurement in the regime where the measurement is significant ($2\eta\mu(V_Y+V_X)\gg \gamma$) is not immediately clear. For instance, increasing $\chi'$ will further increase the amplified variance $V_Y$, while increasing the measurement strength $\mu$ will condition $V_Y$ to a smaller value. The situation simplifies in the case of a strong parametric drive ($\chi'\gg 1$), such that the squeezing is strong and $V_Y\gg V_X$. The net heating of $V_Y$ is then found by keeping only the $\mu V_Y$ term in the denominator of Eq. (\[mueff\_imp\]) so that $$\label{capprox}
C\approx\chi V_X/2\eta\mu V_Y \; ,$$ and substituting this into Eq. (\[mastery\]). A cubic equation is then obtained for $V_Y$ in the steady-state, with the solution $$V_Y \approx \left(\frac{\chi}{\eta\mu}\right)^{2/3}\left(\frac{V_X}{2}\right)^{1/3} \; .$$ Inserting this back into Eq. (\[capprox\]), and then into Eq. (\[master1\]) using the steady-state condition gives an equation for $V_X$ that can be solved $$\label{vxexp}
0 = -2\gamma V_X + 2\gamma(N+1/2+N_{BA}) - 4\eta\mu V_X^2 - (4\chi^2\eta\mu)^{1/3}V_X^{4/3} \; .$$ We can see that the extra conditioning term due to the covariance is now proportional to $V_X^{4/3}$. That is, in the regime where the measurement and parametric drive are both significant, the overall effect of the conditioning via the $Y$ quadrature lies between that of damping (linear in $V_X$) and that of direct conditioning (quadratic in $V_X$).
In the strong driving limit, $V_X$ becomes small enough that the terms proportional to $V_X$ and $V_X^2$ in Eq. (\[vxexp\]) can be neglected, yielding the simple solution $$\label{vxsoln1}
V_X \approx \left[\frac{(2N+2N_\mathrm{BA}+1)^3}{4\chi'^2\eta\mu/\gamma}\right]^{1/4} \; .$$ Since $N_\mathrm{BA}$ is proportional to the measurement strength $\mu$, there is clearly an optimum value of $\mu$ that minimises $V_X$, located around where this backaction term becomes important. Differentiating to find the optimal measurement strength in this limit yields $$\label{muopt}
\mu_\mathrm{opt}(\chi'\rightarrow \infty) = \gamma(N+1/2) \; ,$$ which corresponds to the backaction noise equalling half of the original noise in the oscillator. This trade-off between conditioning and backaction is in contrast to backaction evasion, where the conditional variance of the measured quadrature decreases monotonically with $\mu$, even with spurious heating.
Substituting this optimal measurement strength back into Eq. (\[vxsoln1\]) leaves $$\label{vxquant}
V_X \approx \frac{3^{3/4}}{2\eta^{1/4}}\; \sqrt{\frac{2N+1}{\chi'}} \; ,$$ Therefore, arbitrarily strong quantum squeezing is possible if $\chi'\gg 2N+1$. This can be compared with the variance obtained for backaction evasion in the strong measurement regime (where $\mu/\gamma\gg 1$) $$V_X \approx \frac{1}{\eta^{1/2}}\; \sqrt{\frac{2N+1}{\mu/\gamma}} \; .$$ Notably, the DMPA scheme is clearly more suited to a sub-optimal efficiency $\eta$, consistent with previous numerical analysis[@prl1]. This is especially relevant to nanomechanical systems, where even the best state-of-the-art optomechanical devices have loss factors of the order of 10%[@groblacher].
Squeezing
---------
![\[purity\] Comparison of purity and key parameters for ideal backaction evasion (light, dashed lines) and optimal detuned parametric amplification (solid lines) in the quantum squeezing regime $V_X<0.5$. For DMPA, the measurement strength $\mu$ (middle panel) is optimised to minimise the squeezed variance for each parametric drive strength $\chi/\gamma$ (lower panel). In both cases, the set parameters are an efficiency of $\eta=1$ and the mean thermal phonon occupation of $N=10$.](purity_vs_vsq.eps){width="10cm"}
We can now easily see that setting $\mu$ to near the backaction-dominated regime allows the equivalent QND measurement strength $\mu_\mathrm{eff}$ to be deeply within it. Measurement of the proxy $\hat Y$ quadrature can therefore be used to condition the $\hat X$ quadrature to below the level of the zero-point motion. This can be shown in the general case by using numerical solutions to Eqs (\[master1\]-\[master2\]). Figure \[purity\] shows the minimum parametric drive strength required to achieve a fixed level of quantum squeezing using the optimum measurement rate $\mu_\mathrm{opt}$, as well as the purity of the final conditional state. The required measurement strength and achievable purity for backaction evasion are shown for comparison. In the limit of strong squeezing, the parametric drive takes over the measurement’s role in backaction evasion, while the optimal measurement strength approaches the constant given by Eq. (\[muopt\]) as expected. For low temperatures, this is currently an experimentally feasible parameter, with recent electromechanical[@naik] and optomechanical[@purdy; @suh13] experiments demonstrating backaction noise exceeding zero-point and thermal fluctuations ($\mu > 2\mu_\mathrm{opt}$).
With the measurement strength optimised, the squeezing is limited only by the normalised parametric drive strength $\chi'$. In this analysis, the rotating wave approximation forces the restriction $\chi'\ll Q$, where $Q=\omega_m/\gamma$. Experimental limits on $\chi'$ are also set by the linear response range of the resonator, since the antisqueezed quadrature has variance exceeding the thermal variance by a factor of $1+\chi'^2$. Finally, the condition $\Delta=\pm\chi$ requires precise frequency control of both the resonator and parametric modulation to avoid the instability threshold $|\Delta_\mathrm{th}|=\sqrt{\chi^2+\gamma^2}$, which becomes closer with increasing $\chi'$. Therefore, environmental influences on the oscillator frequency such as temperature fluctuations are detrimental in the strong driving regime, as is also the case for backaction evading protocols[@suh12].
Purity
------
So far in this analysis, the parallels between DMPA and backaction evasion have been demonstrated for the dynamics and statistics of the $\hat X$ quadrature. It is interesting to note that these parallels do not extend to the orthogonal $\hat Y$ quadrature, which is amplified and conditioned in the DMPA scheme rather than heated. The variance of the $\hat Y$ quadrature is relevant to future quantum applications, many of which rely on a pure or almost-pure squeezed Gaussian state as a building block. These include the production of exotic nonclassical states[@neergaard], entanglement between multiple oscillators[@bowen2] and continuous variable quantum computing[@datta]. To illustrate the difference between the two schemes considered, we compare the quantity $P=V_g^2/(V_X V_Y - C^2)$, which reaches a maximum value of one for a pure state.
For a backaction evading measurement, the purity can be obtained from the solutions of (\[baemaster1\]-\[baemaster2\]) $$\label{purity_bae}
P_\mathrm{BAE} = \frac{\eta}{1+\gamma(2N+1)/\mu}\;\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+4\eta\mu(2N+2N_\mathrm{bad}+1)/\gamma} - 1} \; .$$ In the ideal good cavity limit $N_\mathrm{bad}=0$ and for a strong measurement $\eta\mu'\gg 2N+1$, the backaction causes a decrease in purity towards zero as $\mu$ is increased $$P_\mathrm{BAE}(\eta\mu/\gamma \gg 2N+1) \approx \sqrt{\frac{\eta\gamma}{\mu(2N+1)}} \; .$$
In contrast to the above, the purity of the steady-state conditional state after applying a detuned parametric drive with the QND condition $|\Delta|=\chi$ and $\mu\neq 0$ can be derived from the general solutions of the variances in Ref. [@njp], and written as $$P_\mathrm{DMPA} = \frac{\eta}{1+\gamma(2N+1)/\mu}\;\left(1 + \frac{2}{\chi'/g - 1}\right) \; .$$ In the limit of weak measurement, this purity approaches a very small value due to the amplification of the $Y$ quadrature. However, with an intermediate measurement strength, the conditioning of the $Y$ quadrature allows for a higher purity than the equivalent backaction evading measurement. Since $\chi'/g-1$ is always positive, it is possible to assign a lower bound from the above that is independent of the parametric drive $$P_\mathrm{DMPA} > \frac{\eta}{1+\gamma(2N+1)/\mu} \; .$$ In the strong measurement limit this lower bound on the purity approaches $\eta$, in contrast to Eq. \[purity\_bae\] where the purity approaches zero for backaction evading measurement. This difference is attributed to the fact that in the DMPA scheme, both quadratures are conditioned by the measurement. Therefore, even though the $\hat Y$ variance is amplified, this quadrature is still kept confined by a nonlinear conditioning term. In contrast, backaction evasion heats the unmeasured $\hat Y$ quadrature, causing $V_Y$ to increase linearly with $\mu'$.
If we consider the optimal measurement strength $\mu_\mathrm{opt}$ that minimises $V_X$ with a fixed parametric drive $\chi$, the purity is reduced from the maximum of $\eta$. This purity is plotted in Figure \[purity\] for a squeezed $\hat X$ variance (i.e. $V_X<1/2$), where it is compared with the backaction evading case. It can be clearly seen that while the purity deteriorates as squeezing improves for backaction evasion, the DMPA purity approaches the lower bound of $\eta/3$ (since in this limit $\mu_\mathrm{opt}/\gamma\rightarrow N+1/2$ and $\chi'\gg g$). Furthermore, a compromise can be made by increasing the measurement strength beyond the optimal level, reducing the strength of QND squeezing of the $X$ quadrature in return for higher state purity. This preservation of purity in the strong squeezing limit is in stark contrast to conventional QND quadrature measurement of an oscillator and other methods for steady-state mechanical squeezing. One notable recent proposal using dissipative optomechanics results in purity scaling more favourably than for backaction evasion[@kronwald], however in this case the purity also degrades in the strong squeezing limit.
General Solution for Effective Measurement Strength
---------------------------------------------------
Some additional light can be shed on the parallel between DMPA and backaction evasion by quantifying the effective measurement enhancement $\mu_\mathrm{eff}/\mu$. This was found to be equal to $(1+\chi'^2)$ in the limit of no measurement, and reduced to unity in the strong measurement limit. It is between these two limits, where weak measurement and strong parametric driving work in concert, that our scheme finds utility in QND measurement. This intermediate regime — described above for the limit of strong driving — will now be examined in detail. Making use of already derived exact solutions to Eqns (\[master1\]-\[master2\])[@njp], we can explicitly find $\mu_\mathrm{eff}$ in terms of experimental parameters. This also allows direct comparisons to be made with state-of-the art backaction evasion experiments.
The ratio $\mu_\mathrm{eff}/\mu$, quantifying the ratio of conditioning measurement to backaction-inducing measurement, is given by (see \[mueffapp\]) $$\label{mueffsoln}
\frac{\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mu} = \frac{2(1+\chi'^2)}{1+\sqrt{(1+4\mathrm{SNR})^2 + 16\chi'^2\mathrm{SNR}} - 4\mathrm{SNR}} \; ,$$ where $\mathrm{SNR} = \eta\mu(2N+2N_\mathrm{BA}+1)/\gamma$ defines the signal-to-noise ratio with which the combined thermal and back-action driven motion can be resolved over the measurement noise in the absence of driving. Since $N_\mathrm{BA}\propto \mu$, the inclusion of backaction means that in the limit $N_\mathrm{BA} \gg N+1/2$, the SNR becomes quadratic in $\mu$ rather than linear.
![\[mueff\] Effective enhancement of the measurement strength as a function of the combined parameter $\mathrm{SNR}/\chi'^2$. For each trace, $\chi'$ is kept constant. The far-left limit corresponds to the weak-measurement limit, where the maximum enhancement is determined by $\chi'$. On the far right, in the strong measurement limit, the enhancement disappears. In the intermediate region, the gradient is approximately $-1/2$, indicating a linear increase with $\chi$.](mueff3.eps){width="10cm"}
As SNR is increased, the effective measurement enhancement given by Eq. (\[mueffsoln\]) passes through three regimes, as illustrated in Figure \[mueff\] for three values of $\chi'$. For a strong drive ($\chi'\gg 1$), these regimes have simple, well-defined boundaries. The weak measurement limit, where the enhancement is maximised, ends when $\mathrm{SNR}\approx \chi'^{-2}$. Beyond this is an intermediate region of nonzero but reduced gain, where the term $\chi'^2\mathrm{SNR}$ is dominant in the denominator of Eq. (\[mueffsoln\]). This corresponds to the amplified $\hat Y$ quadrature being well transduced above the measurement noise. Comparing to Eq. (\[mueff\_imp\]), this is also where the term $\mu V_Y$ becomes important and the effective measurement ceases to be dominated by the coherent parametric drive. Finally, when SNR exceeds $\chi'^2$, the direct measurement of the $X$ quadrature is more efficient than the proxy measurement and $\mu_\mathrm{eff}/\mu$ approaches 1.
To utilise the full performance of the DMPA-based backaction evasion scheme, the effective measurement strength $\mu_\mathrm{eff}$ must be large compared to $\gamma$, while the spurious heating $N_\mathrm{BA}$ must be weak compared to the thermal noise. It is in the aforementioned intermediate regime that this occurs and the level of quantum squeezing is optimised. When $\chi'\gg 1$ this regime corresponds to an SNR of order unity, signifying that the thermal motion is barely transduced without the aid of the parametric drive. We can then simplify Eq. (\[mueffsoln\]) to $$\frac{\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mu} \approx \frac{\chi'}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{SNR}}} \; .$$ We see that in this intermediate regime, the enhancement is linear with $\chi'$, as is also seen in Figure \[mueff\]. This linear enhancement is in contrast to the weak measurement limit, where the enhancement scales as $\chi'^2$. Substituting the above expression into Eq. (\[qndlike\]) and solving in the limit $\chi' \gg 1$, we get $$V_X \approx \frac{\mathrm{SNR}^{3/4}}{\sqrt{2\chi'}\eta\mu/\gamma} \; ,$$ in exact agreement with Eq. (\[vxsoln1\]).
Conclusion
==========
The goal of backaction evasion is to provide better resolution in a quantum measurement without adding noise to the observable being measured. While parametric amplification is widely known as a means to improve resolution, this generally comes at the cost of disturbing the measured system. In this work, we examine a special case of detuned parametric amplification in which both of these criteria are satisfied; that is, measurement of one quadrature can be enhanced by a parametric drive without disturbing it or increasing the level of backaction noise. We have shown that in the weak measurement regime, the effective enhancement scales as the square of the parametric drive strength, while in the quantum squeezing regime the enhancement scales linearly. Furthermore, in the latter regime, the state purity is favourable compared to traditional backaction evasion, while the squeezing is more robust to measurement inefficiency. With the ability to strongly parametrically drive, this alternative method allows QND measurement in the optomechanical bad-cavity and weak coupling regimes, both of which otherwise preclude this goal. This equivalent approach to backaction evasion is useful for experimental scenarios where purely measurement-based methods may not be viable or sufficient for the preparation of quantum states.
This research was funded by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence CE110001013 and Discovery Project DP0987146. AAC acknowledges support from the DARPA ORCHID program under a grant from the AFOSR. WPB acknowledges DARPA via a grant through the ARO.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Master equation {#masterapp}
===============
The stochastic master equation, introduced in Ref. [@prl2], models the measurement as well as the dissipation of the oscillator, leading to quadrature variances conditioned on the processing of the measurement record. An observer’s expected knowledge of the observable $A$ evolves as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{master}
\fl\mathrm{d}\langle\hat A\rangle =& -\frac{i}{\hbar}\langle[\hat A,\tilde H]\rangle\,\mathrm{d}t + 2\gamma\langle\mathcal{D}[\hat a]\hat A\rangle\,\mathrm{d}t + j\sqrt{\eta \mu}\langle\mathcal{H}[\hat X]\hat A\rangle\,\mathrm{d}W_1 + k\sqrt{\eta\mu}\langle\mathcal{H}[\hat Y]\hat A\rangle\,\mathrm{d}W_2 \nonumber \\
\fl & + 2\gamma[N + j(1\!-\!k)N_{\mathrm{bad}} + kN_{\mathrm{BA}}]\langle\mathcal{D}[\hat X]\hat A\rangle\,\mathrm{d}t \\
\fl & + 2\gamma[N + k(1\!-\!j)N_{\mathrm{bad}} + jN_{\mathrm{BA}}]\langle\mathcal{D}[\hat Y]\hat A\rangle\,\mathrm{d}t \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where $N$ is the mean bath phonon number, $\gamma=\omega_m/Q$ is the intrinsic damping rate, $\eta$ is the quantum efficiency and $\mathrm{d}W_1$ and $\mathrm{d}W_2$ are uncorrelated Wiener processes defining the residual noise given the measurement results. The measurement strength $\mu$ defines the maximum amount of conditioning as well as the standard backaction noise via $N_{BA} = \frac{\mu}{2\gamma}$.
The integers $j$ and $k$, where $\{j,k\}\in\{0,1\}$, allow the measurement to be turned off and on in each quadrature. When only one quadrature is measured, the orthogonal quadrature experiences the normal effective increase in phonon occupation due to backaction $N_\mathrm{BA}$. Meanwhile, the measured quadrature experiences a reduced spurious backaction $N_{\mathrm{bad}}$, an amount less than $N_\mathrm{BA}$ and ideally zero. When both quadratures are measured (e.g. a continuous position measurement), both experience the full backaction $N_\mathrm{BA}$.
Effective measurement strength {#mueffapp}
==============================
The general solution for the conditional variances $V_+,V_-$ when the quadrature phase space is optimally rotated can be found in Ref. [@njp]. We can use these solutions, including the squeezing angle $\alpha$ to re-obtain $V_X$ and $C$, and thus calculate $g$. $$\begin{aligned}
V_X &=& \frac{1}{2}(V_+ + V_-) - \frac{1}{2}(V_+ - V_-) \cos(2\alpha) \label{rot1}\\
V_Y &=& \frac{1}{2}(V_+ + V_-) + \frac{1}{2}(V_+ - V_-) \cos(2\alpha) \label{rot2}\\
C &=& \frac{1}{2}(V_+ - V_-) \sin(2\alpha)\end{aligned}$$ Using the result[@njp] that when $\Delta=\chi$ $$V_+ + V_- = \frac{V_+ - V_-}{\cos (2\alpha)}$$ we end up, via simple trigonometry, with $$g = \frac{C}{V_X} = \cot (2\alpha)$$ so $$\frac{\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mu} = 1 + g^2 = \frac{1}{\sin^2(2\alpha)}$$ An explicit general solution for $\cos (2\alpha)$ is given in Ref. [@njp]. The effective measurement strength is then easily derived as $$\frac{\mu_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\mu} = \frac{2(1+\chi'^2)}{1+\sqrt{(1+4\mathrm{SNR})^2 + 16\chi'^2\mathrm{SNR}} - 4\mathrm{SNR}}$$ where $\chi'=\chi/\gamma$ is the normalised parametric drive strength and $\mathrm{SNR} = \eta\mu(2N+2N_{BA}+1)/\gamma$ defines the signal-to-noise ratio for the thermal noise.
Filter width {#filterapp}
============
The relevant timescale of a measurement can be illustrated by the filter parameters — specifically, the filter width — that produce the optimal position estimates from the noisy time-series measurements. These parameters are found by Fourier transforming and solving the conditional equations of motion, then transforming back to the time domain[@njp]. The exponential decay that specifies the filter width contains the rate $$\Gamma = \gamma + 2\eta\mu (V_X + V_Y)$$ This sum of variances is identical to that for the optimal quadratures (see Eqs \[rot1\]-\[rot2\]) and so previously derived results[@njp] can be used $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma &=& \gamma + 2\eta\mu (V_+ + V_-) \\
&=& \Delta \tan (2\alpha)\end{aligned}$$ and using $\Delta=\chi$ in addition to the result $g=\cot (2\alpha)$ $$\frac{\Gamma}{\gamma} = \frac{\chi'}{g}$$ The filter width then blows up as $g$ deviates from $\chi'$ and approaches 0. This effect exactly coincides with the enhancement factor $\mu_{\rm eff} / \mu$ dropping from $1 + \chi'^2$ back to $1$, and the amplification becoming redundant. After some algebra, the filter width can be rewritten in terms of experimental parameters as $$\frac{\Gamma}{\gamma} = \sqrt{(1+4\mathrm{SNR} + \sqrt{(1+4\mathrm{SNR})^2+ 16\chi'^2 \mathrm{SNR}})/2}$$ We can see that when $\chi'=0$, the standard expression[@njp] is recovered $$\frac{\Gamma}{\gamma} = \sqrt{1+4\mathrm{SNR}}$$ If instead, we let it be non-zero but restrict ourselves to the ultraweak measurement case in which the amplified peak is still obscured under the measurement noise ($\mathrm{SNR}(1+\chi'^2)\ll 1$ where $\chi' \gg 1$), we can expand the inner square root to give $$\frac{\Gamma}{\gamma} \approx \sqrt{1+4\mathrm{SNR}(1+\chi'^2)}$$ which has exactly the same form, but with SNR effectively enhanced by the amplification factor. However, as this approximation breaks down, the filter widens more slowly as a function of this enhanced SNR. In the opposite limit $\mathrm{SNR}(1+\chi'^2)\gg 1$, we obtain $$\frac{\Gamma}{\gamma} \approx \sqrt[4]{\chi'^2\mathrm{SNR}}$$ This is due to the fact that the unconditional Y spectrum only contains a filtered version of the X spectrum (as given by Eq. \[spectrum\]), and hence contains the most accurate X information within a narrow band around the peak. As this peak rises above the noise floor, the measurement fidelity does not scale in the same way as for a direct, high-fidelity measurement of the X quadrature.
[^1]: A rigorous approach to this argument is given in \[filterapp\] by the filter width parameter used to obtain the optimal position estimate from the measurement results.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Numerical exact diagonalization is the ultimate method of choice in order to discuss static, dynamic, and thermodynamic properties of quantum systems. In this article we consider Heisenberg spin-systems and extend the range of applicability of the exact diagonalization method by showing how the irreducible tensor operator technique can be combined with an unrestricted use of general point-group symmetries. We also present ideas how to use spin-rotational and point-group symmetries in order to obtain approximate spectra.'
author:
- Roman Schnalle
- 'J[ü]{}rgen Schnack'
title: 'Numerically exact and approximate determination of energy eigenvalues for antiferromagnetic molecules using irreducible tensor operators and general point-group symmetries'
---
Introduction {#sec-1}
============
The knowledge of energy spectra of small magnetic systems such as magnetic molecules is indispensable for the (complete) understanding of their spectroscopic, dynamic, and thermodynamic properties. In this respect numerical exact diagonalization of the appropriate quantum Hamiltonian is the ultimate method of choice. Nevertheless, such an attempt is very often severely restricted due to the huge dimension of the underlying Hilbert space. For a magnetic system of $N$ spins of spin quantum number $s$ the dimension is $(2s+1)^N$ which grows exponentially with $N$. Group theoretical methods can help to ease this numerical problem. A further benefit is given by the characterization of the obtained energy levels by quantum numbers and classification according to irreducible representations.
Along these lines much effort has been put into the development of an efficient numerical diagonalization technique of the Heisenberg model using irreducible tensor operators, i.e. employing the full rotational symmetry of angular momenta.[@GaP:GCI93; @BCC:IC99; @BeG:EPR; @Tsu:group_theory; @Tsu:ICA08] A combination of this meanwhile well established technique with point-group symmetries is not very common since a rearrangement of spins due to point-group operations easily leads to complicated basis transformations between different coupling schemes. A possible compromise is to use only part of the spin-rotational symmetry (namely rotations about the $z$–axis) together with point-group symmetries[@RLM:PRB08] or to expand all basis states in terms of simpler product states.[@PhysRevB.64.064419; @PhysRevB.68.029902; @PhysRevB.64.014408] To the best of our knowledge only two groups developed a procedure in which the full spin-rotational symmetry is combined with point-group symmetries. O. Waldmann combines the full spin-rotational symmetry with those point-group symmetries that are compatible with the spin coupling scheme, i.e. avoid complicated basis transforms between different coupling schemes.[@Wal:PRB00] Sinitsyn, Bostrem, and Ovchinnikov follow a similar route for the square lattice antiferromagnet by employing $D_4$ point-group symmetry.[@BOS:TMP06; @SBO:JPA07] This already establishes a very powerful numerical method.
In this article we show how the irreducible tensor operator technique can be combined with an unrestricted use of general point-group symmetries. The problem, that the application of point-group operations leads to states belonging to a basis characterized by a different coupling scheme whose representation in the original basis is not (easily) known, can be solved by means of graph theoretical methods that have been developed in another context.[@FPV:CPC97; @FPV:CPC95] We discuss how this methods can be implemented and present results for numerical exact diagonalizations of Heisenberg spin systems of unprecedented size.
Having these methods developed we also discuss ideas of approximately obtaining energy spectra of so-called bipartite, i.e. non-frustrated, antiferromagnetic spin systems. The idea is to perform numerical diagonalizations in the orthogonal Hilbert subspaces characterized by spin and point-group quantum numbers using only a restricted but carefully chosen basis subset. We demonstrate how this idea works for archetypical spin systems such as bipartite or slightly frustrated spin rings. The advantage compared to alternative approximate methods such as Density Matrix Renormalization Group[@Whi:PRB93; @ExS:PRB03; @Sch:RMP05] (DMRG), Lanczos,[@Lan:JRNBS50] or Quantum Monte Carlo[@SaK:PRB91; @San:PRB99; @EnL:PRB06] (QMC) techniques is, that one obtains many energy levels together with their spectroscopic classification which can be of great use for the discussion of Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR), Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR), or Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS) spectra. In this respect our idea can provide a valuable complement to the already established approximate methods.
The article is organized as follows. In Sec. [\[sec-2\]]{} we explain the idea of a combined usage of spin-rotational and point-group symmetry. Section [\[sec-3\]]{} provides examples for full diagonalization studies. Our approximate diagonalization scheme is introduced in Sec. [\[sec-4\]]{}, whereas Sec. [\[sec-5\]]{} provides example calculations on bipartite systems. The paper closes with a summary.
Theoretical method {#sec-2}
==================
Irreducible tensor operator approach
------------------------------------
The physics of many magnetic molecules can be well understood with the help of the isotropic Heisenberg model with nearest-neighbor coupling. The action of an external magnetic field is accounted for by an additional Zeeman term. The resulting Hamiltonian then looks like $$\label{eq:Hamiltonoperator}
{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}= - \sum_{i,j} J_{ij} { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(i) \cdot { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(j) +
g \mu_B { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!} \cdot \vec{B}
\ .$$ The sum reflects the exchange interaction between single spins given by spin operators ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$ at sites $i$ and $j$. For the sake of simplicity we assume a common isotropic $g$–tensor. Then the Zeeman term couples the total spin operator ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}=\sum_{i=1}^N { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(i)$ to the external magnetic field $\vec{B}$. A negative value of $J_{ij}$ refers to an antiferromagnetic coupling.
For the following discussion an antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor exchange coupling of constant value $J<0$ is assumed (which can easily be generalized), then the Heisenberg part can be written as $$\label{eq:Heisenberg_WW}
{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{Heisenberg} = -J \sum_{<i,j>} { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(i) \cdot
{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(j)
\ ,$$ where the summation parameter $<i,j>$ indicates the summation running over nearest-neighbor spins counting each pair only once. Since the commutation relations $$\label{eq:Kommutatior_Gesamtspin}
{\ensuremath{\left[ { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{Heisenberg},\,{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!} \right]}} = 0$$ hold it is possible to find a common eigenbasis $\{ {\ensuremath{|\nu\rangle}}
\}$ of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{Heisenberg}$, ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^2$ and ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_z$. We denote the corresponding eigenvalues as $E_\nu$, $S_\nu$ and $M_\nu$. Due to spin-rotational symmetry, Eq. [(\[eq:Kommutatior\_Gesamtspin\])]{}, the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian [(\[eq:Hamiltonoperator\])]{} can be evaluated (later) according to $$E_\nu(B)=E_\nu + g \mu_B B M_\nu
\ ,$$ where the direction of the external field $\vec{B}$ defines the $z$-axis.
Calculating the eigenvalues here corresponds to finding a matrix representation of the Hamiltonian and diagonalizing it numerically. A very efficient and elegant way of finding the matrix elements of Eq. [(\[eq:Heisenberg\_WW\])]{} is based on the use of irreducible tensor operators. Apart from its elegance it drastically reduces the dimensionality of the problem because it becomes possible to work directly within the subspace $\mathcal{H}(S,M=S)$ of the total Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ characterized by quantum numbers $S$ and $M=S$; for typical dimensions compare for instance Ref. .
The calculation of matrix elements of the given Hamiltonian using irreducible tensor operators is compulsorily related to the application of the Wigner-Eckart-theorem. The Wigner-Eckart-theorem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wigner-eckart}
&& {\ensuremath{\langle \alpha \, S \, M|}} {\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k)}_{q}}} {\ensuremath{|\alpha' \, S' \, M'\rangle}} = \nonumber \\
&& (-1)^{S-M} {\ensuremath{\langle \alpha \, S||{\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k)}}} || \alpha' \, S' \rangle}} {\ensuremath{\begin{pmatrix} &S& \quad &k& \quad &S'& \\ &-M& \quad &q& \quad &M'& \end{pmatrix}}}\end{aligned}$$ states that a matrix element of the $q$-th component of an irreducible tensor operator ${\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k)}}}$ of rank $k$ is given by the reduced matrix element ${\ensuremath{\langle \alpha \,
S||{\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k)}}} || \alpha' \, S' \rangle}}$ and a factor containing a Wigner-3J symbol.[@VMK:quantum_theory]
It should be emphasized that the reduced matrix element is completely independent of any magnetic quantum number $M$. The basis in Eq. [(\[eq:wigner-eckart\])]{} is given following the well-known vector-coupling-scheme. The quantum number $\alpha$ within the ket ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ refers to a set of intermediate spin quantum numbers resulting from the coupling of single spins $s$ to the total spin quantum number $S$. In order to apply the Wigner-Eckart-theorem it is necessary to express the Heisenberg Hamiltonian in Eq. [(\[eq:Heisenberg\_WW\])]{} with the help of irreducible tensor operators. Therefore the single-spin vector operators ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(i)$ can be seen as irreducible tensor operators of rank $k=1$ with components $q=-1,0,1$. The relation to the components of the vector operators is given by $$\label{eq:spintensors}
{\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(1)}_{0}}} = { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^z,\quad {\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(1)}_{\pm 1}}} = \mp
\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}} \left( { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^x \pm i { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^y \right)
\ .$$ Writing the Heisenberg exchange term as a tensor product of the single-spin irreducible tensor operators results in[@BCC:IC99] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Tensor_Heisenberg}
&& { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{Heisenberg} = \nonumber \\
&& \quad \sqrt{3} J \sum_{<i,j>} {\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(0)}_{}}}(\{ k_l \},\{
\overline{k}_m \}|k_i=k_j=1)
\ .\end{aligned}$$ ${\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(0)}_{}}}$ is a zero-rank irreducible tensor operator depending on the sets $\{ k_l \}$, $l=1,\dots,N$, which give the ranks of single-spin irreducible tensor operators and $\{
\overline{k}_m \}$, $m=1,\dots,N-1$, which refers to the ranks of intermediate irreducible tensor operators. In a successive coupling scheme within a system of $N$ spins an irreducible tensor operator of this kind would look like $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:allg_coupl}
&& {\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(0)}_{}}} (\{ k_l \},\{ \overline{k}_m \}) =
\{ \dots \{ \{ { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k_1)}(1) \otimes { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k_2)}(2) \}^{(\overline{k}_{1})} \otimes \nonumber \\
&& \quad { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k_3)}(3) \}^{(\overline{k}_2)} \dots
\}^{(\overline{k}_{N-2})} \otimes { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k_N)}(N) \}^{(0)}
\ .\end{aligned}$$ The notation ${\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(0)}_{}}}(\{ k_l \},\{ \overline{k}_m
\}|k_i=k_j=1)$ corresponds to the situation in which the ranks of all single-spin tensor operators are zero except those at sites $i$ and $j$ which are tensor operators of rank $1$.
The set $\{ \overline{k}_m \}$ results from the chosen coupling scheme, for example of the form of Eq. [(\[eq:allg\_coupl\])]{}, with known ranks of single-spin tensor operators taking into account addition rules for spin quantum numbers of the vector coupling scheme like $\overline{k}_1=|k_1-k_2|,\dots,k_1 +
k_2$.
After writing the Heisenberg Hamiltonian as a sum of irreducible tensor operators the matrix elements within a basis of the form ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ can be calculated by the application of the Wigner-Eckart-theorem. The reduced matrix elements are determined using the so-called *decoupling* procedure.[@BeG:EPR; @Tsu:group_theory] Since the irreducible tensor operator ${\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k)}}}$ is given as a tensor product of irreducible tensor operators with regard to a certain coupling scheme (comp. Eq. [(\[eq:allg\_coupl\])]{}), the reduced matrix element ${\ensuremath{\langle \alpha \, S||{\ensuremath{{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{T}\smash{T}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^{(k)}}} || \alpha' \, S' \rangle}}$ can successively be decomposed into a product of single-spin irreducible tensor operators and Wigner-9J symbols.
General point-group symmetries
------------------------------
The use of irreducible tensor operators for the calculation of the matrix elements of the Hamiltonian and as a result also of the energy spectrum is essential for the treatment of magnetic molecules containing many interacting paramagnetic ions. Nevertheless, it is sometimes necessary to further reduce the dimensionality of the problem, either because computational resources are limited or a labeling of certain energy levels becomes advantageous, e.g. for spectroscopic classification.[@Gri:SB72; @TBF:SSRBC87] Such a reduction can be done if the Hamiltonian remains invariant under certain permutations of spin centers. Often the spin-permutational symmetry of the Hamiltonian coincides with spatial symmetries of the molecule, i.e. point-group symmetries, therefore the term point-group symmetry is used while one refers to the invariance of the Hamiltonian under permutations of spins.
Using point-group symmetries of the system results in a decomposition of the Hamilton matrix ${\ensuremath{\langle \alpha \, S \,
M|}}{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}{\ensuremath{|\alpha' \, S \, M\rangle}}$ into irreducible representations $\Gamma^{(n)}(\mathcal{G})$ of a group $\mathcal{G}$ whose elements ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R)$, i.e. the operators corresponding to the symmetry operations $R$, do commute with ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$.
The symmetrized basis functions which span the irreducible representations $n$ are found by the application of the projection operator $\mathcal{P}^{(n)}$ to the full set of basis vectors ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ and subsequent orthonormalization. The over-complete set of basis states $\{
{\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M \, \Gamma^{(n)}\rangle}} \}$ spanning the $n$-th irreducible representation $\Gamma^{(n)}(\mathcal{G})$ is generated by[@Tin:Group_theory] $$\label{eq:Projektionsoperator}
\mathcal{P}^{(n)}{\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}} =
\left( \frac{l_n}{h} \sum_{R} \left(\chi^{(n)}(R)\right)^\ast
\, { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R) \right) {\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}
\ ,$$ where $l_n$ is the dimension of the irreducible representation $\Gamma^{(n)}$, $h$ denotes the order of $\mathcal{G}$ and $\chi^{(n)}(R)$ is the character of the $n$-th irreducible representation of the symmetry operation $R$.
Equation [(\[eq:Projektionsoperator\])]{} contains the main challenge while creating symmetrized basis states. The action of the operators ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R)$ on basis states of the form ${\ensuremath{|\alpha
\, S \, M\rangle}}$ has to be known. Of course, one could expand ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ into a linear combination of product states ${\ensuremath{|m_1 \, m_2 \dots m_N\rangle}}$. Then the action of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R)$ leads to a permutation of magnetic quantum numbers $m_i$ within the ket ${\ensuremath{|m_1 \, m_2 \dots m_N\rangle}}$. But, the recombination of the symmetry-transformed product states into basis states ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ will then be much too time consuming for larger systems.
Following Ref. the action of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R)$ on states ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ can directly be evaluated without expanding it into product states. Suppose there is a certain coupling scheme $a$ in which spin operators ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(i)$ are coupled to yield the total spin operator ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$. Generally the action of operators ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R)$ on states ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}$ leads to a different coupling scheme $b$. Now those states which belong to the coupling scheme $b$ have to be reconverted into a linear combination of states belonging to $a$. This is technically a rather involved calculation, and one would not like to do it by hand and for every coupling scheme separately. To the best of our knowledge it has never been noted or even used that the conversion from any arbitrary (!) coupling scheme $b$ into the desired coupling scheme $a$ can be well automatized. Suppose there is a state ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}_a$ belonging to the coupling scheme $a$. The action of a arbitrary group element ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R)$ results in a state ${\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}_b$ belonging to a different coupling scheme $b$. Then the re-expression takes the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gen_rec_coeff}
&&{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{G}\smash{G}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}(R) {\ensuremath{|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}_a = \nonumber \\
&& \quad \sum_{\alpha'} {\ensuremath{|\alpha' \, S \, M\rangle}}_a \;
_a{\ensuremath{\langle \alpha' \, S \, M|\alpha \, S \, M\rangle}}_b
\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where a term like $_a{\ensuremath{\langle \alpha' \, S \, M|\beta \, S \,
M\rangle}}_b$ is known as *general re-coupling coefficient*. The calculation of general re-coupling coefficients and the evaluation of Eq. [(\[eq:gen\_rec\_coeff\])]{} can be performed with the help of graph theoretical methods.[@FPV:CPC97; @FPV:CPC95] An implementation of these methods within a computer program is a straightforward task (follow directions given in Refs. ) and one can deal with any point-group symmetry.
Numerical exact diagonalization {#sec-3}
===============================
![Structure of the cuboctahedron (l.h.s.) and the truncated tetrahedron (r.h.s.).[@mathworld][]{data-label="F-1"}](ito-fig-1a.eps "fig:"){width="32mm"} ![Structure of the cuboctahedron (l.h.s.) and the truncated tetrahedron (r.h.s.).[@mathworld][]{data-label="F-1"}](ito-fig-1b.eps "fig:"){width="35mm"}
In this section we like to present two applications for realistic spin systems that can be treated using irreducible tensor operator techniques and point-group symmetries, but not otherwise. Both systems – cuboctahedron and truncated tetrahedron – consist of $N=12$ spins of spin quantum number $s=3/2$ (Hilbert space dimension 16,777,216). The two spin systems, which are realized as antiferromagnetic molecules – cuboctahedron[@BGG:JCSDT97] and truncated tetrahedron[@PLK:CC07], see [Fig. \[F-1\]]{} for the structure – belong to the class of geometrically frustrated spin systems[@SSR:JMMM05; @SSR:PRB07; @ScS:P08] and are thus hardly accessible by means of Quantum Monte Carlo.
![(Color online) Complete energy spectrum of the antiferromagnetic cuboctahedron with $s=3/2$.[]{data-label="F-2"}](ito-fig-2.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Figure [\[F-2\]]{} shows the energy spectrum of the antiferromagnetic cuboctahedron with $s=3/2$. This spectrum was obtained using only $D_2$ point-group symmetry which is already sufficient in order to obtain sufficiently small Hamilton matrices. In addition [Fig. \[F-3\]]{} demonstrates for the subspaces of total spin $S=0$ and $S=1$ that a representation in the full $O_h$ group can be achieved which yields level assignments according to the irreducible representations of this group.
![(Color online) Low-lying energy spectrum of the antiferromagnetic cuboctahedron with $s=3/2$ in subspaces of $S=0$ and $S=1$. The symbols denote the irreducible representations of the $O_h$ group.[]{data-label="F-3"}](ito-fig-3.eps){width="7.5cm"}
A complete energy spectrum allows to calculate thermodynamic properties as functions of both temperature $T$ and magnetic field $B$. For the cuboctahedron this was already done elsewhere.[@ScS:P08] Therefore, we like to discuss another frustrated structure, the truncated tetrahedron which was synthesized quite recently.[@PLK:CC07] In principle this geometry permits two different exchange constants, one inside the triangles ($J_1$) and the other between the triangles ($J_2$), compare [Fig. \[F-1\]]{}. A practical symmetry for this molecule is for instance $C_{2v}$, whereas the full symmetry is $T_d$. Figure [\[F-4\]]{} displays the complete energy spectrum for the case $J_1=J_2=J$. The inset of [Fig. \[F-4\]]{} magnifies the low-energy sector. As in the case of many other frustrated antiferromagnetic systems the spectrum exhibits more than one singlet below the first triplet.[@SSR:JMMM05]
![(Color online) Complete energy spectrum of the antiferromagnetic truncated tetrahedron with $J_1=J_2=J$. The inset shows low-lying levels in subspaces with $S=0, 1, 2$.[]{data-label="F-4"}](ito-fig-4.eps){width="7.5cm"}
In [Fig. \[F-5\]]{} we show the zero-field specific heat (top) as well as the zero-field differential magnetic susceptibility (bottom). The fine structure of the specific heat, which is especially pronounced for $s=3/2$, results from the low-energy gap structure. The sharp peak is an outcome of the gap between the lowest singlet and the group of levels around the second singlet and the first two triplets, the latter being highly degenerate (both nine-fold including $M$-degeneracy). This unusual degeneracy of the lowest triplets is also the origin of the quick rise and subsequent flat behavior of the susceptibility in the case of $s=3/2$.
![(Color online) Specific heat $c(T,B=0)$ (top) and differential magnetic susceptibility $\chi(T,B=0)$ (bottom) of the truncated tetrahedron with $J_1=J_2=J$.[]{data-label="F-5"}](ito-fig-5a.eps){width="7.5cm"}
![(Color online) Specific heat $c(T,B=0)$ (top) and differential magnetic susceptibility $\chi(T,B=0)$ (bottom) of the truncated tetrahedron with $J_1=J_2=J$.[]{data-label="F-5"}](ito-fig-5b.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Approximate diagonalization {#sec-4}
===========================
The previous sections demonstrate that numerical exact diagonalization in connection with irreducible tensor operators is a powerful tool to investigate thermodynamical properties of large magnetic molecules. Nevertheless, sometimes the use of total-spin and point-group symmetries is not sufficient to obtain small enough matrices. For such cases we suggest an approximate diagonalization in this section. The approximation is partially based on perturbation theory arguments. First ideas along this line were already suggested in Ref. . We will generalize and largely extend this idea.
Let’s assume that the spin system is described by a Hamiltonian ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$ which acts in the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Suppose there is a zeroth-order Hamiltonian ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$ and a decomposition according to $$\label{eq:approxDiag_gen}
{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!} = { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0 + \lambda { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}'
\ .$$ In the case of non-degenerate eigenstates ${\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(0)}\rangle}}$ of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$ the series expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pert_series}
{\ensuremath{|\phi_i\rangle}} &=& {\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(0)}\rangle}} + \lambda
{\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(1)}\rangle}}
+ \lambda^2 {\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(2)}\rangle}} + \dots , \label{eq:reihenentwicklung_Phi}\\
E_i &=& E_i^{(0)} + \lambda E_i^{(1)} + \lambda^2 E_i^{(2)}
+ \dots
\ , \label{eq:reihenentwicklung_E}
\end{aligned}$$ holds for the exact eigenstates ${\ensuremath{|\phi_i\rangle}}$ and corresponding eigenvalues $E_i$. The index $i=1,\dots,n$ denotes the states of the system. The energy eigenvalues and eigenstates in zeroth-order result from a (typically simple or even analytical) diagonalization of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$ within an arbitrary basis of $\mathcal{H}$.
We label the eigenvalues $E_i^{(0)}$ and eigenstates ${\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(0)}\rangle}}$ in such a manner that $$\label{eq:conv_exp}
E_i^{(0)} < E_{i+1}^{(0)}, \quad \forall \, i=1,\dots,n-1$$ holds. Now we do not follow conventional perturbation theory as it would lead to a successive introduction of additional terms within the series expansion in Eq. [(\[eq:pert\_series\])]{}, i.e. terms with increasing order of $\lambda$. Instead, we diagonalize the full Hamiltonian ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$ within a reduced set $\{ {\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(0)}\rangle}} \}$, $i=1,\dots,n_\text{red}$, of eigenstates of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$, where $n_\text{red} \leq n$ is referred to as *cut-off parameter*. The resulting eigenvalues and eigenstates of this approximation are denoted as $E_i^\text{approx}$ and ${\ensuremath{|\phi_i^\text{approx}\rangle}}$. Such an approximate scheme is always converging since for $n_\text{red}
= n =\text{dim}(\mathcal{H}$) all basis states are incorporated and the diagonalization corresponds to an exact treatment of the system, i. e. $$E_i^\text{approx} \xrightarrow{n_\text{red} \rightarrow n}
E_i
\ , \quad {\ensuremath{|\phi_i^\text{approx}\rangle}} \xrightarrow{n_\text{red}
\rightarrow n} {\ensuremath{|\phi_i\rangle}}
\ \forall\ i
\ .$$ It is clear that the speed of convergence depends on the choice of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$.
The speed of convergence will be different for the various states. Since the approximate diagonalization is performed with the $n_\text{red}$ low-lying states of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$ according to [(\[eq:conv\_exp\])]{} one expects that the low-lying energy levels converge quickest against their true values. As in perturbation theory this assumption relies on the hypothesis that energetically higher-lying levels do mix into the desired low-lying state with decreasing weight. In perturbation theory this expresses itself in the second order corrections $$\begin{aligned}
E_i^{(2)}&=& \sum_{i \neq j} \frac{|{\ensuremath{\langle \phi_i^{(0)}|}}{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}'
{\ensuremath{|\phi_j^{(0)}\rangle}}|^2}{E_i^{(0)}-E_j^{(0)}}
\ , \label{eq:korrektur2_E}\end{aligned}$$ which decrease with increasing energetic distance $E_i^{(0)}-E_j^{(0)}$. In our approximate diagonalization the diagonal $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\langle \phi_i^{(0)}|}}{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}{\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(0)}\rangle}} &=& E_i^{(0)} +
\lambda E_i^{(1)}
\\
E_i^{(1)}&=&{\ensuremath{\langle \phi_i^{(0)}|}}{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}'{\ensuremath{|\phi_i^{(0)}\rangle}}\end{aligned}$$ and off-diagonal terms ${\ensuremath{\langle \phi_i^{(0)}|}}{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}'{\ensuremath{|\phi_j^{(0)}\rangle}}$ of perturbation theory appear as diagonal and off-diagonal matrix elements of the reduced Hamilton matrix. Therefore, the approximate diagonalization includes zeroth and first order by definition and all higher orders partially up to the cutoff. The inclusion of eigenstates belonging to degenerate eigenvalues of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$ poses no problem in our scheme. One should only include all eigenstates of a degenerate eigenvalue into the approximate diagonalization, otherwise the convergence is unnecessarily deteriorated.
Approximate diagonalization based on the rotational-band model
--------------------------------------------------------------
As a zeroth-order approximation ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0$ of the isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian [(\[eq:Heisenberg\_WW\])]{} the rotational-band Hamiltonian[@ScL:PRB00; @Wal:PRB01; @SLM:EPL01] $$\label{eq:H_rb_allgemein}
{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_0\equiv { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{RB} = -\frac{D J}{2N} \left[{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^2 - \sum_
{n=1}^{N_s} { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}^2_n \right]
\ .$$ is chosen.[@Wal:PRB07] This choice rests on the observation that in bipartite antiferromagnetic spin systems the lowest eigenvalues within subspaces of total spin $S$ follow the *Landé-rule*,[@LGC:PRB97A; @LGC:PRB97B] i.e. $$\label{eq:lande}
E_\text{min}(S) - E_0 \propto S(S+1) \ .$$ The prefactor $-\frac{D J}{2N}$ in Eq. (\[eq:H\_rb\_allgemein\]) can be seen as an effective exchange constant which couples the sublattice spins ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_n$ to the total spin ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$ of the system. The value of $D$ $$D = 2 \cdot \frac{N_b}{N} \cdot \frac{1}{1-1/N_s}$$ is chosen to match the energy of the ferromagnetic state of the system described by an isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian.[@ScL:PRB00] $N_s$ denotes the number of sublattices which the classical ground state of the system is composed of, $N_b$ represents the number of bonds of the system. The eigenstates of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{RB}$ are analytically given in the form ${\ensuremath{|S_1 \, \dots \, S_{N_s} \, S \, M\rangle}}$, which is an enormous advantage for the following calculations. The corresponding eigenvalues are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:E_RB}
&& E_\text{RB}(S_1,\dots,S_{N_s},S) =\nonumber \\
&& \quad - \frac{D J}{2 N} \left[ S(S+1)
- \sum_{n=1}^{N_s} S_n \left( S_n + 1 \right) \right]
\ .\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum of the rotational-band Hamiltonian consists of eigenvalues that form parabolas, so-called rotational-bands. In the following a rotational-band is defined as a set of eventually energetically degenerate eigenstates ${\ensuremath{|S_1 \,
\dots S_{N_s} \, S \, M\rangle}}$ with fixed values of quantum numbers $S_n$ of the sublattice spins.
![(Color online) Part of the energy spectra of the rotational-band Hamiltonian for a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$, $s=5/2$. Seven super-bands are colored.[]{data-label="F-6"}](ito-fig-6.eps){width="7.5cm"}
Figure \[F-6\] shows the spectrum of the rotational-band Hamiltonian for a spin ring of $N=8$ spins with $s=5/2$. The lowest bands refer to a sublattice spin configuration of $S_1=S_2=4 \cdot 5/2 = 10$. The next bands result from a deviation of one sublattice spin from its maximum value $S_{n,\text{max}}=N/N_s \cdot s$. In such a way the whole spectrum can be constructed following Eq. [(\[eq:E\_RB\])]{}. The eigenstates of the rotational-band Hamiltonian are highly degenerate due to the many possibilities of combining single spins ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{s}\smash{s}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_i$ to the sublattice spins ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_n$ and further on sublattice spins ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_n$ to the total spin ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\textbf{\vphantom{S}\smash{S}}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}$.
Figure \[F-6\] also shows that the rotational-band spectrum is clustered into *super-bands* (highlighted by color). A super-band contains those rotational-bands for which the sum of sublattices spin quantum numbers is the same. One clearly sees that within the rotational-band spectrum the low-lying super-bands are well separated.
Inserting ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{RB}$ into Eq. [(\[eq:approxDiag\_gen\])]{} yields $${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}={ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{Heisenberg} = { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{RB} + { \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}'$$ as a starting point for an approximate diagonalization. With respect to computational resources and due to the fact that the eigenstates of ${ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}_\text{RB}$ are given in the form ${\ensuremath{|S_1 \, \dots \, S_{N_s} \, S \, M\rangle}}$ the diagonalization is performed in subspaces $\mathcal{H}(S,M=S)$ using the irreducible tensor operator technique. In addition, point-group symmetries can be used for a further reduction of the dimensionality. However, only those point-groups can be applied which do not alter the sublattice structure, i.e. do not lead to rotational-bands that are not included in the approximate basis set. Then the symmetry operations on a state belonging to a certain rotational-band will always produce states which belong to the same band.
Bipartite systems - spin ring {#sec-5}
=============================
Convergence
-----------
![(Color online) Energy levels of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ (top), $S=1$ (center) and $S=2$ (bottom). The arrows in the $S=2$ subspace refer to the steps within the convergence behavior mentioned in the text. The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-7"}](ito-fig-7a.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}\
![(Color online) Energy levels of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ (top), $S=1$ (center) and $S=2$ (bottom). The arrows in the $S=2$ subspace refer to the steps within the convergence behavior mentioned in the text. The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-7"}](ito-fig-7b.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}\
![(Color online) Energy levels of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ (top), $S=1$ (center) and $S=2$ (bottom). The arrows in the $S=2$ subspace refer to the steps within the convergence behavior mentioned in the text. The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-7"}](ito-fig-7c.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
In the following we discuss the properties of the proposed approximate diagonalization for the example of an antiferromagnetic spin ring of $N=8$ spins with $s=5/2$. Figure \[F-7\] shows the convergence of the energy levels. In order to label the levels the full symmetry group $D_8$ of an octagon was used. One clearly sees that the convergence within the $S=0$ subspace is fast and smooth (looking almost exponential).
In subspaces of $S=1$ and $S=2$ the convergence is also fast, but when only few bands are incorporated sharp steps can be observed. This is highlighted by two arrows in the bottom graph of [Fig. \[F-7\]]{}. The stepwise convergence is continued in subspaces with $S > 2$ in a very regular way. It can be observed that with increasing energy within a certain subspace $\mathcal{H}(S,M=S)$ the steps are slightly washed out. The occurrence of the steps depends on the rotational-band the states are belonging to. For example, the energy of the lowest state (i.e. the first rotational-band) within $\mathcal{H}(S=2,M=2)$ is decreasing if 7 bands are incorporated into the approximate diagonalization while the energies of states belonging to the second rotational-band are lowered if 8 bands are incorporated, see also discussion in Sec. \[sec-5-b\].
![(Color online) Convergence of the eigenstates of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ (top) and $S=1$ (bottom). The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-8"}](ito-fig-8a.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}\
![(Color online) Convergence of the eigenstates of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ (top) and $S=1$ (bottom). The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-8"}](ito-fig-8b.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
In Fig. \[F-8\] the convergence of some low-lying eigenstates of this spin ring are presented. The convergence behaves in analogy to the convergence of the eigenvalues. The stepwise convergence in $S=1$ becomes obvious. Nevertheless, while using only a fraction of basis states (approximately $30\%$ of the basis states within each subspace) the approximate low-lying eigenstates are practically converged against the exact eigenstates. In addition, it can be seen that states of higher energy converge slower than low-lying states.
![(Color online) Relative difference between approximate and exact energy eigenvalues for the lowest states of the first three occupied rotational-bands for an antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with various $s$ and total spin $S=0$. $E_0$ refers to the energy of the lowest state of the first rotational-band, $E_1$ to the lowest state of the second rotational-band and $E_3$ to the lowest state of the third rotational-band respectively.[]{data-label="F-9"}](ito-fig-9.eps){width="7.5cm"}
We also investigate the convergence for various single spin quantum number $s$. In Fig. \[F-9\] the relative difference between the approximate energy values and the exact values is displayed for various $s$ in the subspace $S=0$. The levels which have been chosen belong to the first three occupied rotational-bands. One clearly sees that the approximate diagonalization converges more rapidly the higher the single spin is. This is not surprising since the rotational-band model [(\[eq:H\_rb\_allgemein\])]{}, which is based on classical assumptions, is itself more accurate the larger $s$ is.
Approximate selection rule {#sec-5-b}
--------------------------
It turns out that the aforementioned occurrence of steps can be understood and even be employed for a further reduction of the size of Hamilton matrices. The underlying reason is that the full Hamiltonian connects states belonging to different rotational-bands with very different strength. After having inspected the reduced Hamilton matrices of various bipartite systems we arrive at the following empirical selection rule.
The matrix elements ${\ensuremath{\langle S_{1,a} \, S_{2,a} \, S \, M|}}{ \fontdimen12\textfont3=2pt\fontdimen12\scriptfont3=1.4pt \!\null\mathop{\vphantom{H}\smash{H}}\limits_{\sim}\null\!}{\ensuremath{|S_{1,b}
\, S_{2,b} \, S \, M\rangle}}$ of the full Hamiltonian between rotational-band states are (several) orders of magnitude bigger than all other matrix elements if $$\label{eq:selection_ring}
|S_{1,a} - S_{2,a}| - |S_{1,b} - S_{2,b}| = 0 \ .$$ Here $S_{1,a}$ and $S_{2,a}$ denote the total spins of sublattices one and two in ${\ensuremath{\langle S_{1,a} \, S_{2,a} \, S \, M|}}$, respectively. Matrix elements that are not compatible with this rule can be neglected which (after a proper rearrangement) results in a new block-diagonal structure of the reduced Hamilton matrix. These blocks are of smaller size and can be diagonalized separately.
Application to $\{\text{Fe}_{12}\}$ {#sec-5-c}
-----------------------------------
We now apply the approximate diagonalization to an existing molecular spin ring[@CCF:ACIE99] that contains 12 $\text{Fe}^{3+}$ ions with $s=5/2$. The system can be modeled by an isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor coupling $J$.[@CCF:ACIE99; @IAA:JPSJ03] It was theoretically investigated in Ref. with the help of QMC methods; the exchange parameter was determined to be $J=35.2~\text{K}$.
Our intention is to show that it is advantageous to combine a stochastic method such as QMC and an exact or approximate diagonalization. In such a combination the role of QMC would be to determine the exchange parameters from thermodynamical observables as done in Ref. . For large systems this is practically impossible using exact or approximate diagonalization since diagonalization requires an enormous numerical effort whereas QMC methods scale much more favorable with system size for bipartite systems or even frustrated systems above a certain temperature. The role of exact or approximate diagonalization then would be to use the exchange parameters obtained by QMC for the evaluation of the energy spectrum which then can be used e.g. to interpret INS measurements.[@BBC:CPC03; @BCC:IC99]
![(Color online) Approximate spectrum of a spin ring with $N=12$ spins $s=5/2$ calculated using 8 bands, $D_2$ point-group symmetry and the approximate selection rule in Eq. (\[eq:selection\_ring\]) (top). Corresponding magnetization of the system (bottom). The dashed red lines refer to experimental data of the first three magnetization steps from Ref. with $J=35.2~\text{K}$ and $k_B T/J=0.01$.[]{data-label="F-10"}](ito-fig-10a.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}\
![(Color online) Approximate spectrum of a spin ring with $N=12$ spins $s=5/2$ calculated using 8 bands, $D_2$ point-group symmetry and the approximate selection rule in Eq. (\[eq:selection\_ring\]) (top). Corresponding magnetization of the system (bottom). The dashed red lines refer to experimental data of the first three magnetization steps from Ref. with $J=35.2~\text{K}$ and $k_B T/J=0.01$.[]{data-label="F-10"}](ito-fig-10b.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Figure [\[F-10\]]{} shows the low-energy part of the approximate spectrum of the $\{\text{Fe}_{12}\}$ compound modeled by an isotropic Heisenberg Hamiltonian. For the approximate calculation of the spectrum full rotational symmetry as well as $D_2$ point-group symmetry are used. The calculations are performed using 8 occupied rotational-bands in the $S=0$ subspace and the corresponding number of bands in subspaces with $S>0$. Overall $21,570,976$ states have been taken into account, which are only about 15 % of all basis states ($\text{dim}(\mathcal{H})=144,840,476$). Additionally the approximate selection rule given in Eq. [(\[eq:selection\_ring\])]{} was used in order to reduce the dimensionality of the matrices which have to be diagonalized. Figure [\[F-10\]]{} also displays the magnetization curve which of course can be obtained for a bipartite system by QMC as well. The magnetization steps[@IAA:JPSJ03] can be reproduced using the approximate diagonalization.
Next-nearest-neighbor coupling – introducing frustration
--------------------------------------------------------
In the previous parts we demonstrate that the approximate diagonalization scheme based on the rotational-band Hamiltonian yields good results for bipartite, i.e. unfrustrated antiferromagnetic spin systems. We now want to investigate how robust the approximate diagonalization is against the introduction of frustration. To this end we study a spin ring with $N=8$ and $s=5/2$ with antiferromagnetic nearest-neighbor coupling $J=J_{nn}$ and an additional antiferromagnetic next-nearest-neighbor-coupling $J_{nnn}$ which acts frustrating. In a corresponding classical system the Néel state (up-down-up-down- …) would no longer be the ground state, instead canting can occur. One can qualitatively say that with increasing $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}$ also the frustration increases.
![(Color online) Energy levels of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ and additional next-nearest-neighbor coupling $J_{nnn}$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ with $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.2$ (top), $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.3$ (center) and $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.4$ (bottom). The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-11"}](ito-fig-11a.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}\
![(Color online) Energy levels of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ and additional next-nearest-neighbor coupling $J_{nnn}$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ with $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.2$ (top), $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.3$ (center) and $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.4$ (bottom). The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-11"}](ito-fig-11b.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}\
![(Color online) Energy levels of an a antiferromagnetic spin ring $N=8$ with $s=5/2$ and additional next-nearest-neighbor coupling $J_{nnn}$ as a function of the number of occupied rotational-bands used for diagonalization in subspaces $S=0$ with $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.2$ (top), $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.3$ (center) and $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.4$ (bottom). The states are labeled according to irreducible representations of $D_8$.[]{data-label="F-11"}](ito-fig-11c.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Figure \[F-11\] displays the effect of $J_{nnn}$ in the subspace $\mathcal{H}(S=0,M=S)$ for the same system that is discussed in [Fig. \[F-7\]]{} for $J_{nnn}=0$. The energy gap between the ground state and the first excited state decreases with increasing frustration. Moreover, the convergence of the ground state as well as of excited states becomes slower. With $J_{nnn}/J_{nn}=0.4$ the convergence is rather poor and the quantum mechanical ground state now belongs to the irreducible representation $B_1$ of the symmetry group $D_8$. This means that the true ground state is not the result of an adiabatic continuation ($\lambda:0\rightarrow 1$ in Eq. [(\[eq:approxDiag\_gen\])]{}) from the ground state of the rotational-band model, which belongs to $A_1$. We just like to mention for the interested reader, that this change of the character of the ground state constitutes a so-called Quantum Phase Transition; in this case for the antiferromagnetic chain with next-nearest-neighbor exchange.
Summarizing, if frustration is only small the approximate diagonalization still yields good results. Moreover, the approximate selection rule [(\[eq:selection\_ring\])]{} is also applicable which is very helpful in calculating the full spectrum of the system.
Summary
=======
In this work we have demonstrated that the full spin-rotational symmetry can be combined with arbitrary point-group symmetries. This enables us to obtain exactly the complete energy spectrum of Heisenberg spin systems for so far unprecedented system sizes. Moreover, we have outlined a scheme to approximately diagonalize the Hamilton matrix again using the full spin-rotational symmetry and point-group symmetries. This approximation works well for bipartite antiferromagnetic spin systems. For frustrated systems the quality reduces with increasing frustration. How such a scheme can be refined for frustrated systems will be the subject of future investigations.
[41]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ** (, ), ed.
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, **, <http://mathworld.wolfram.com>.
, , , , , , pp. ().
, , , , pp. ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, (), .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
2[[cm\^[-2]{}]{}]{} 2[[[cm]{}\^2]{}]{} 3[[[cm]{}\^[-3]{}]{}]{} 3[[[gcm\^[-3]{}]{}]{}]{} \#1[\#1]{} \#1\#2[3.6pt]{}
\
Robert E. Lopez,$^{1}$ Scott Dodelson,$^2$ Andrew Heckler,$^3$ and Michael S. Turner$^{1,2,4}$\
[*$^1$Department of Physics\
The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637-1433*]{}\
[*$^2$NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Center\
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510-0500*]{}\
[*$^3$Department of Physics\
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210*]{}\
\
**ABSTRACT**
In the standard Big Bang cosmology the canonical value for the ratio of relic neutrinos to CMB photons is 9/11. Within the framework of the Standard Model of particle physics there are small corrections, in sum about 1%, due to slight heating of neutrinos by electron/positron annihilations and finite-temperature QED effects. We show that this leads to changes in the predicted cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies that might be detected by future satellite experiments. NASA’s MAP and ESA’s PLANCK should be able to test the canonical prediction to a precision of 1% or better and could confirm these corrections.
[*Introduction.*]{} Neutrinos are almost as abundant as photons in the Universe and contribute almost as much energy density [@WEINBERG]. Under the assumption that neutrinos decoupled completely before electrons and positrons annihilated (at a time of around 1sec), the ratio of the number density of neutrinos to that of photons is $${n_\nu \over n_\gamma} = \left( { 3N_\nu \over 11} \right)
,\label{eq:canonical}$$ where $N_\nu = 3$ is the number of neutrino species. Further, because of the heating of the photons by $e^+/e^-$ annihilations, the ratio of the neutrino temperature to the photon temperature is $(4/11)^{1/3}=0.714$. It follows that the ratio of the energy density of neutrinos to that of photons is $${\rho_\nu \over \rho_\gamma} =
{7\over 8}\left( {4 \over 11}\right)^{4/3}\,N_\nu = 0.681
.\label{eq:energyratio}$$
It has been pointed out that the assumption that neutrinos decoupled completely before $e^+/e^-$ annihilations is not precisely valid [@DICUS]. There is now a consensus that the neutrinos share in the heating somewhat, so their number and energy density is slightly larger than the canonical values, Eqs. (\[eq:canonical\], \[eq:energyratio\]). The increase is equivalent to having slightly more than three neutrino species and the canonical ratios. (This is just a heuristic device, of course; the actual number of generations is fixed at three.) The change in the effective number of neutrino generations is [@DICUS; @HERRERA; @RANA; @DT; @DOLGOV; @MADSEN; @DHS] $$\delta N_\nu^{\rm ID} = 0.03.
\label{eq:ID}$$ The first calculations [@DICUS; @HERRERA; @RANA] of this effect were “one-zone” estimates that evolved integrated quantities through the process of neutrino decoupling. More refined “multi-zone” calculations tracked many energy bins, assumed Boltzmann statistics and made other approximations [@DT; @DOLGOV]. The latest refinements have included these small effects as well [@MADSEN; @DHS]. (A very recent calculation makes no approximations whatever and tracks the neutrino momentum distribution over 8 orders of magnitude in momentum [@GNEDIN], and arrives at slightly higher value, $\delta N_\nu^{\rm ID} = 0.045$. Until the discrepancy is understood we will stick with the earlier estimates; in any case it is simple to rescale our results.)
There is another effect operating at roughly the same time which acts in the same direction; it involves finite-temperature QED corrections to the energy density of the electron, positron and photon portion of the plasma due to interactions [@HECKLER; @LT]. This effect decreases the energy density of the $e^{\pm}\gamma$ plasma. Consequently this reduces the amount of energy converted to photons when electrons and positrons annihilate thereby slightly raising the ratio of the neutrino to photon energy densities. This QED effect can also be expressed as an increase in the number of neutrino species [@HECKLER; @LT] $$\delta N_\nu^{\rm QED} = 0.01.
\label{QED}$$
Together, incomplete annihilation and QED finite-temperature corrections lead to an increase in the neutrino energy density over the canonical value by slightly more than 1%, corresponding to $$\delta N_\nu = 0.04 .
\label{dnufinal}$$ These two corrections were initially considered in the context of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Their net effect is to increase the predicted $^4$He abundance by a tiny amount, $\Delta Y_P = + 5\times 10^{-4}$, which given the present observational uncertainties, $\sigma_{Y_P}\ge
10^{-2}$, is undetectable and likely to remain so for quite some time. (The quantity $Y_P$ denotes the primordial mass fraction of $^4$He.)
On the other hand, the small increase in the neutrino energy density can have a significant – and potentially detectable effect – on another remnant of the Big Bang – the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In particular, the anisotropies in the CMB are very sensitive to the epoch of matter-radiation equality, which depends on the neutrino energy density. As we shall show, the sensitivity is so great that by itself the additional energy density in neutrinos should be detectable by the very precise measurements of the CMB anisotropy that will by made the two forthcoming satellite experiments, NASA’s MAP and ESA’s PLANCK Surveyor. However, the situation is complicated somewhat by the fact that predictions for the CMB anisotropies also depend on other cosmological parameters.
The aim of this paper is to address quantitatively the detectability of the small increase in neutrino energy density due to incomplete decoupling and finite-temperature QED effects. For definiteness, we assume that the primordial density perturbations that seed structure formation and lead to CMB anisotropy were set during inflation and allow five other parameters to vary. They are: baryon density ($\Omega_B$); Hubble constant ($H_0$); amplitude of primordial perturbations; slope of primordial perturbations ($n$); and epoch of reionization. We find that (i) if these other parameters are held fixed (e.g., because they are determined by other measurements), then detectability is a sure thing; and (ii) if the other parameters are allowed to vary, then the situation is less promising; but, assuming non-linear effects are not a serious contaminant and polarization of the CMB anisotropy is also measured with precision[@Polarization], these small corrections should be detectable.
[ *Probing Neutrino Physics with the CMB.*]{} Anisotropies in the CMB are best characterized by expanding the temperature field on the sky in terms of spherical harmonics: $$T(\theta,\phi) = \sum_{l=0}^\infty \sum_{m=-l}^l a_{lm}
Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)
.$$ A given theory, specified by the primordial spectrum of perturbations and cosmological parameters, makes predictions about the multipole amplitudes, the $a_{lm}$’s. The predictions take the form of statements about the distribution of the $a_{lm}$’s. Inflationary theories typically predict that each of these coefficients is drawn from a Gaussian distribution; as such, the distribution can be defined by its variance. Thus, the fundamental predictions of inflationary models are $$C_l \equiv \langle a_{lm} a^*_{lm} \rangle.$$
Much effort has gone into computing the $C_l$’s over the last few years; they can be calculated very accurately once the cosmological parameters are chosen [@CMBCalculations]. Viewed simplistically, the results of a CMB experiment are estimates of the $C_l$’s, with errors given by $\Delta C_l$. Then, by minimizing a $\chi^2$ statistic $$\label{CHI}
\chi^2\left(\left\{\lambda_i\right\}\right) \equiv \sum_{l=2}^\infty
{ \left( C_l\left(\big\{\lambda_i\big\}\right) - C_l^{\rm estimate}
\right)^2
\over (\Delta C_l)^2 }\,,$$ the underlying set of unknown cosmological parameters $\left\{\lambda_i\right\}$ can be estimated.
Of course, we cannot know in advance the values of $C_l$’s that a given experiment will measure; however, by knowing what we expect for the $\Delta C_l$’s, we can estimate how large the uncertainties in the parameters should be (“error forecasting”). To do this, we assume that the measured $C_l$’s will be close to the true $C_l$’s. Then, by expanding $\chi^2$ around its minimum at $\left\{ \lambda_i^{\rm true} \right\}$ we can estimate the precision to which a parameter can be determined (for further discussion of “error forecasting” in parameter estimation, see e.g., Refs. [@PROCEDURES]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EXCHI}
\chi^2\left(\left\{\lambda_i\right\}\right) &&\simeq
\chi^2\left(\left\{\lambda_i^{\rm true}\right\}\right)
+ {1\over 2} \left.
{\partial^2\chi^2 \over
\partial\lambda_i\partial\lambda_j}\right|_{\lambda=\lambda^{\rm true}}
\left(\lambda_i - \lambda_i^{\rm true}\right)
\left(\lambda_j - \lambda_j^{\rm true}\right)
\cr
&&\equiv \chi^2\left(\left\{\lambda_i^{\rm true}\right\}\right)
+ C_{ij} \left(\lambda_i - \lambda_i^{\rm true}\right)
\left(\lambda_j - \lambda_j^{\rm true}\right)
. \end{aligned}$$ The second-derivative (Fisher) matrix $C_{ij}$ carries information about how quickly $\chi^2$ increases as the parameters move away from their true values. Therefore, under some reasonable assumptions [@PRESS], the uncertainties in the parameters are determined by this matrix. We are interested only in the parameter[^1] $N_\nu$. If all the other cosmological parameters are held fixed, it is a simple exercise to show that its variance is given by $$\sigma_{N_\nu}^2 = {1\over C_{N_\nu ,N_\nu}}
\label{eq:novar}$$ If all other parameters are allowed to vary, then $$\sigma_{N_\nu}^2 = (C^{-1})_{N_\nu ,N_\nu}
\label{eq:var}$$
To proceed we need to specify
- [**Cosmological Model.**]{} For definiteness, we take this to be a Cold Dark Matter model with Hubble constant $H_0 =
50\,{\rm km}\,{\rm sec}^{-1}\, {\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, baryon density $\Omega_B = 0.08$, COBE-normalized spectrum of scale invariant density perturbations (i.e., power-law index $n=1$), no reionization, and energy density in cold dark matter particles $\Omega_{\rm CDM} = 1 -\Omega_B = 0.92$. (We assume the simplest inflationary prediction of $\Omega = 1$.)
- [**Experimental Errors.**]{} Instead of tying ourselves to a particular experiment, we assume that the experimental uncertainty is given by $$\Delta C_l = \cases{ \sqrt{2\over 2l+1} C_l & $l \le l_{\rm max}$ \cr
\infty & $l > l_{\rm max} $
}
. \label{eq:DCL}$$ The error $[2/(2l+1)]^{1/2} C_l$ is the smallest possible given that each multipole amplitude $a_{lm}$ can be sampled only $2l+1$ times; it is the irreducible sampling or [*cosmic*]{} variance. Equation (\[eq:DCL\]) is obviously a simplification, but we have found it to be a reasonable approximation to the more realistic formula [@KNOX] which also accounts for detector noise. Further, it allows us to display our results as a function of $l_{\rm
max}$, which will give a clear sense of what angular scales need to be probed. We use a similar formula for polarization (with different $l_{\rm
max}$). For orientation, MAP is characterized by $l_{\rm max}
\simeq 1000$ and PLANCK by $l_{\rm max} \simeq 2500$.
- [**Model Parameters.**]{} We allow for variation in five parameters besides the neutrino energy density: overall amplitude of the spectrum of density perturbations, epoch of reionization parametrized by the optical depth back to last scattering $\tau$, $H_0$, $\Omega_B$, and $n$.
Figure 1 shows the angular power spectrum ($C_l$ vs. $l$) and how it changes as each of the six parameters is varied. Figure 2 shows the same for the polarization power spectrum. Using these derivatives, we can evaluate the Fisher matrix and compute the expected error in $N_\nu$. Our results are summarized in Fig. 3.
The lower set of curves in figure 3 show the one-sigma errors on $N_\nu$ if all the other parameters are known. Even without polarizarion information, both PLANCK and MAP will detect the predicted $\delta N_\nu \sim 0.04$. If the other parameters are not well determined by other considerations, even a very high resolution temperature anisotropy experiment will have difficulty detecting the small predicted increase in $N_\nu$. However, as Fig. 3 illustrates, with polarization information, the prospects are considerably brighter.
We should note here that other effects may also mimic a change in the effective number of neutrino species- particularly any field or particle with a relativistic equation of state at the matter-radiation equality epoch. For example, the presence of a random magnetic field will contribute to the relativistic energy density of the universe. For a given average field strength $B_{\rm
eq}$ at the radiation-matter equality epoch, one could misconstrue this as an effective change in the number of neutrino species: $$\delta N_{\nu}^{\rm Mag.} \approx 0.03\left(\frac{B_{\rm
eq}}{10\,{\rm gauss}}\right)^{2}(\Omega_0 h_{50}^2)^{-4},
\label{dnumag}$$ where $h_{50}$ is the Hubble constant normalized to 50 km sec$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. If for example we constrain $\delta N_{\nu}^{\rm Mag.}<
.01$ this translates to $B_{\rm eq}< 6\,{\rm
gauss}\,(\Omega_{0}h_{50}^2)^{2}$. Assuming that the magnetic field $B\propto a^{-2}$, where $a$ is the scale factor, then this limit is an order of magnitude greater than the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis limit [@CHENG]. More importantly, a magnetic field this of this order may be measured or ruled out by Faraday rotation of the CMB [@KOSOWSKY] and perhaps other CMB measurements [@ADAMS; @BARROW], thus the magnetic field effect may be disentangled from $\delta N_{\nu}$.
[ *Concluding Remarks.*]{} As our analysis shows, future, high-precision CMB anisotropy measurements have the potential to measure the cosmic energy density in neutrinos to a precision of 1% or better. Such a measurement would have significant implications:
- If $N_\nu = 3$, further evidence for the existence of the tau neutrino. Note, the tau neutrino has yet to be directly detected in the laboratory.
- Determination that “$N_\nu = 3$” by CMB anisotropy would confirm the canonical assumption for the energy density in relativistic particles at the epoch of big-bang nucleosynthesis, which is an important input parameter for these calculations.
- Confirmation of the standard cosmology prediction that $T_\nu/T_\gamma = (4/11)^{1/3}$ to better than 1%. This would test the physics of $e^+/e^-$ annihilation and neutrino decoupling in the early Universe.
- Confirmation of two small physics effects that together increase the cosmic neutrino energy density by about 1%. In particular, this would be the first evidence for finite-temperature QED corrections and a constraint to the strength of neutrino interactions in the early Universe.
- If a deviation from the expected $N_\nu = 3.04$ is found, evidence for additional relativistic particle species (or magnetic field) present in the early Universe or new physics in the neutrino sector (e.g., neutrino mass or decay) [@DLST]. This would have significant implications for big-bang nucleosynthesis, structure formation in the Universe, and elementary-particle physics.
Realizing the full potential of the CMB as a probe of the cosmic neutrino backgrounds will require precision polarization and anisotropy maps out to multipole number 3000. This seems very ambitious and perhaps even unattainable. Nonetheless, the potential payoff discussed here makes the goal worth striving for. If we have learned nothing else in the years since COBE, we have certainly learned that the experimenters have consistently manage to surprise theorists by achieving more than was once thought reasonable.
Finally, we should acknowledge that there is room to improve upon our analysis. For example, we have assumed only six cosmological parameters and ignored prior information about them. We have not considered the adverse role that “secondary anisotropies” that are generated at late times might play. There is clearly room for more work on this important subject.
The CMB spectra used in this work were generated by CMBFAST [@CMBCalculations]. This work was supported by the DOE and the NASA grant NAG 5-2788 at Fermilab and by the DoE grant DE-FG02-91ER40690 at Ohio State.
[99]{}
S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Chapter 15.
D. Dicus et al., [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**26**]{}, 2694 (1982) ]{}.
M. A. Herrera and S. Hacyan, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**336**]{}, 539 (1989) ]{}.
N. C. Rana and B. Mitra, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**44**]{}, 393 (1991) ]{}.
S. Dodelson and M. S. Turner, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**46**]{}, 3372 (1992) ]{}.
A. D. Dolgov and M. Fukugita, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**46**]{}, 5378 (1992) ]{}.
S. Hannestad and J. Madsen, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**52**]{}, 1764 (1995) ]{}.
A. D. Dolgov, S. H. Hansen, and D. .V. Semikoz, [ [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B503**]{}, 426 (1997) ]{}.
N. Y. Gnedin and O. Y. Gnedin, [astro-ph/9712199]{} (1997).
A.F. Heckler, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**49**]{}, 611 (1994) ]{}.
R. Lopez and M. S. Turner, [*in preparation*]{}.
U. Seljak, [astro-ph/9608131]{} (1996); M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and A. Stebbins, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**55**]{}, 7368 (1997) ]{}; D. N. Spergel and M. Zaldariagga, [ [*Physical Review Letters*]{} [**79**]{}, 2180 (1997) ]{}; M. Kamionkowski and A. Kosowski, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**57**]{}, 685 (1998) ]{}; W. Hu and M. White, [*New Astronomy*]{} [**2**]{}, 323 (1997).
See e.g. U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**469**]{}, 437 (1996) ]{}.
G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, and D. N. Spergel, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**54**]{}, 1332 (1996) ]{}; S. Dodelson, E. .I. Gates, and A. Stebbins, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**467**]{}, 10 (1996) ]{}; M. Zaldarriaga, D. Spergel and U. Seljak, [astro-ph/9702157]{} (1997); J. R. Bond, G. Efstathiou, and M. Tegmark, [*Mon. Not. Roy. Ast. Soc.*]{} [**291**]{}, L33 (1997); M. Tegmark, A. Taylor, and A. Heavens, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**480**]{}, 22 (1997) ]{}.
W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, [*Numerical Recipes*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), Chapter 15 (1992).
L. Knox, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**52**]{}, 4307 (1995) ]{}.
B. Cheng [*et al.*]{}, [ [*Physical Review D*]{} [**54**]{}, 4714 (1996) ]{}.
A. Kosowsky and A. Loeb, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**469**]{}, 1 (1996) ]{}.
J. Adams [*et al.*]{} [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**338**]{}, 253 (1996).
J. Barrow, P.G. Ferreira, and J. Silk, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**78**]{}, 3610 (1997).
S. Dodelson, R. Lopez, R. Scherrer, and M. S. Turner, [*in preparation*]{}.
[^1]: The only other parameter estimation paper we are aware of which considers $N_\nu$ as a free parameter is Jungman et al. [@PROCEDURES]. Their analysis, performed several years ago, only considered $l \la
1000$ (then considered optimistic). Further they did not consider polarization. Where it is possible to compare with them, our results agree.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (tSZ) effect offers a means of probing the hot gas in and around massive galaxies and galaxy groups and clusters, which is thought to constitute a large fraction of the baryon content of the Universe. The [*Planck*]{} collaboration recently performed a stacking analysis of a large sample of ‘locally brightest galaxies’ (LBGs) and, surprisingly, inferred an approximately self-similar relation between the tSZ flux and halo mass. At face value, this implies that the hot gas mass fraction is [*independent*]{} of halo mass, a result which is in apparent conflict with resolved X-ray observations. We test the robustness of the inferred trend using synthetic tSZ maps generated from cosmological hydrodynamical simulations and using the same tools and assumptions applied in the [*Planck*]{} study. We show that, while the detection and the estimate of the ‘total’ flux (within $5 r_{500}$) is reasonably robust, the inferred flux originating from within $r_{500}$ (i.e. the limiting radius to which X-ray observations typically probe) is highly sensitive to the assumed pressure distribution of the gas. Using our most realistic simulations with AGN feedback, that reproduce a wide variety of X-ray and optical properties of groups and clusters, we estimate that the derived tSZ flux within $r_{500}$ is biased high by up to to an order of magnitude for haloes with masses $M_{500} \sim 10^{13}$ M$_{\odot}$. Moreover, we show that the AGN simulations are consistent with the total tSZ flux–mass relation observed with [*Planck*]{}, whereas a self-similar model is ruled out.'
author:
- |
Amandine M. C. Le Brun$^{1,2}$[^1], Ian G. McCarthy$^1$[^2], Jean-Baptiste Melin$^3$\
$^{1}$Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, 146 Brownlow Hill, Liverpool L3 5RF, United Kingdom\
$^{2}$Laboratoire AIM, IRFU/Service d’Astrophysique – CEA/DSM – CNRS – Université Paris Diderot, Bât. 709, CEA-Saclay,\
91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France\
$^{3}$DSM/Irfu/SPP, CEA Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
bibliography:
- 'stacking.bib'
date: 'Accepted ... Received ...'
title: 'Testing Sunyaev–Zel’dovich measurements of the hot gas content of dark matter haloes using synthetic skies'
---
\[firstpage\]
galaxies: clusters: general – galaxies: groups: general – galaxies : general – galaxies : formation – submillimetre : galaxies – intergalactic medium
Introduction
============
Developing a detailed understanding of the formation and evolution of galaxies is one of the ‘holy grails’ of modern astrophysics. It has become clear in recent years that achieving this goal requires developing physical models that faithfully capture the thermodynamic history of the gas in dark matter haloes, of which only a very small fraction is able to cool and collapse enough to form stars (e.g. @Balogh2001 [@Budzynski2014]). The problem is a challenging one, as the gas can be affected by a myriad of physical processes, such as feedback from supernovae and Active Galactic Nuclei (hereafter AGN), radiative cooling and associated thermal instabilities, as well as the action of magnetic fields, thermal conduction, viscosity, plasma instabilities, etc. The situation is made even more difficult by the fact that a large fraction of the baryons are ‘missing’ observationally (e.g. @Fukugita1998). That is, only a relatively small fraction of the total baryonic content of the Universe (as inferred by measurements of the cosmic microwave background, hereafter CMB, or implied by big bang nucleosynthesis theory combined with measurements of light elements at high redshift) has been mapped in any detail. Simple theoretical calculations, as well as the predictions of detailed hydrodynamical simulations, suggest that a large fraction of the missing baryons is in the form of warm-hot ($10^{5-7}$ K) gas within and surrounding dark matter haloes (e.g. @White1978 [@White1991; @Cen1999; @Dave2001]), but this gas has so far been very difficult to detect observationally (e.g. @Bregman2007).
X-ray observations offer one way to probe this component, but they are generally limited to relatively high-mass systems (clusters and X-ray-bright groups) and to only the central regions of nearby galaxies and low-mass groups, whereas the bulk of the gas/baryons are expected to be at much larger radius. The thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (tSZ) effect [@Sunyaev1970; @Sunyaev1972], which is a spectral distortion of the CMB background due to inverse Compton scattering of CMB photons off hot gas, has recently emerged as a new tool for probing this hot gas component. Since the tSZ effect depends only linearly on the gas density (as opposed to X-ray emission, which depends on the square of the density) it is more sensitive to gas at large radii. Binning (or ‘stacking’) large numbers of systems offers a means of probing the average hot gas content down to low mass. This technique has recently been exploited in a number of recent studies, such as the binning of optically-selected and X-ray-selected clusters using tSZ data from [*WMAP*]{} and [*Planck*]{} (e.g. @Afshordi2007 [@Bielby2007; @Melin2011; @Planck2011a; @Planck2011c]), as well as the binning of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)-selected Luminous Red Galaxies using observations made with the Atacama Cosmology Telescope [@Hand2011].
Recently, the [*Planck*]{} collaboration reported the detection of significant amounts of hot gas via the tSZ effect down as far as $M_{500} \approx 4\times10^{12}$ M$_\odot$ (i.e. in systems only a factor a few more massive than the Milky Way and M31) by performing a binning analysis on a large sample of Locally Brightest Galaxies (LBGs) from the SDSS (@Planck2013, hereafter ; see also @Greco2014). Intriguingly, the inferred mean relation between the integrated tSZ flux and halo mass is close to the self-similar expectation. That is, taken at face value, the results suggest that galaxies, groups, and clusters have nearly the same baryon fraction measured within $r_{500}$[^3]. This is a surprisingly result to say the least, as numerous X-ray studies of X-ray-bright galaxy groups and clusters have consistently found that groups show a marked deficit of baryons with respect to their more massive cousins [e.g. @David2006; @Gastaldello2007; @Pratt2009; @Sun2009]. Furthermore, cosmological hydrodynamical simulations that invoke AGN feedback and that can reproduce the X-ray gas mass fractions of groups and clusters without overcooling (e.g. @Puchwein2008 [@Fabjan2010; @McCarthy2010; @Battaglia2013; @LeBrun2014]) predict that the gas mass fractions will continue to steadily decline well down into the individual galaxy regime. Therefore, if it holds, the result has fundamental implications for theories of galaxy formation and cosmic feedback.
However, the measurement of the tSZ signal down to such low masses is not a simple one by any means. Not only is stacking required, but strong assumptions about the distribution of the hot gas are required to estimate the flux within radii that are comparable to (or smaller than) the instrumental beam size. Furthermore, the contribution of both correlated and uncorrelated line-of-sight hot gas has not yet been well quantified. Fortunately, the impact of all these effects on the recovered signal can be tested using synthetic observations from a suite of reasonably realistic hydrodynamical simulations.
In the present study, we undertake a critical assessment of the recovery of the integrated tSZ flux ($Y_{500}$) as a function of halo mass in current observations, by using synthetic observations generated from a suite of state-of-the-art, large-volume cosmological hydrodynamical simulations (cosmo-OWLS). Although our methodology and tests have been geared towards a comparison with the trends reported recently in , the conclusions should be broadly applicable to stacked tSZ flux measurements based on matched filter techniques.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we briefly describe the hydrodynamical simulations (Section 2.1), our tSZ mapmaking techniques (Section 2.2), and our halo selection and flux recovery approach (Section 2.3). In Section 3, we compare the true and recovered tSZ flux–mass relations and quantify the difference (bias) between the two. In Section 4, we re-examine the pressure profiles of the hot gas in the simulations and design a new mass-dependent spatial template for the tSZ matched filter. Finally, in Section 5, we summarize and discuss our findings.
Simulations {#sec:sims}
===========
cosmo-OWLS {#sec:owls}
----------
Simulation UV/X-ray background Cooling Star formation SN feedback AGN feedback $\Delta T_{heat}$
----------------------------------------------------------- --------------------- --------- ---------------- ------------- -------------- -------------------
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} Yes No No No No ...
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} Yes Yes Yes Yes No ...
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $10^{8.0}$ K
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes $10^{8.5}$ K
We use the cosmo-OWLS suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations described in detail in @LeBrun2014 [hereafter L14; see also @McCarthy2014; @vanDaalen2014; @Velliscig2014]. They form an extension to the OverWhelmingly Large Simulations project [OWLS; @Schaye2010]. The cosmo-OWLS suite consists of large volume ($400~h^{-1}$ comoving Mpc on a side) periodic box simulations with $1024^3$ dark matter and $1024^3$ baryonic particles with updated initial conditions derived either from the 7-year [*Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe*]{} ([*WMAP*]{}) data [@Komatsu2011] {$\Omega_{m}$, $\Omega_{b}$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$, $\sigma_{8}$, $n_{s}$, $h$} = {0.272, 0.0455, 0.728, 0.81, 0.967, 0.704} or the [*Planck*]{} data (@Planck_cosmology) = {0.3175, 0.0490, 0.6825, 0.834, 0.9624, 0.6711}. This yields dark matter and (initial) baryon particle masses of $\approx4.44\times10^{9}~h^{-1}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ ($\approx3.75\times10^{9}~h^{-1}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$) and $\approx8.12\times10^{8}~h^{-1}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ ($\approx7.54\times10^{8}~h^{-1}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$), respectively for the [*Planck*]{} ([*WMAP*]{}7) cosmology. The gravitational softening is set to $4~h^{-1}$ kpc (in physical coordinates below $z=3$ and in comoving coordinates at higher redshifts). Note that we use $N_{ngb}=48$ neighbours for the smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) interpolation and the minimum SPH smoothing length is set to one tenth of the gravitational softening. Below we present results based on the [*WMAP*]{}7 runs only, but the results and conclusions are insensitive to the choice of cosmology.
In addition to these large-volume runs, we have carried out additional runs with eight (two) times higher mass (spatial) resolution but in smaller volumes (the boxes are $100~h^{-1}$ comoving Mpc on a side). The motivation for this is two-fold: (i) to allow an exploration of the role of numerical convergence on the results; and (ii) to test the recovery of the tSZ flux down to lower halo masses than can be reliably probed with our larger, lower resolution boxes. Note that the Locally Brightest Galaxy (LBG) sample of spans approximately three orders of magnitude in halo mass, from massive clusters with $M_{500}\sim2-3\times10^{15}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ down to individual galaxies with $M_{500}\sim2-3\times10^{12}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$.
The simulations were carried out with a version of the Lagrangian TreePM-SPH code <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget3</span> [last described in @Springel2005a], which has been significantly modified to include new ‘sub-grid’ physics. Starting from identical initial conditions (in each cosmology), the key parameters that govern the most important sub-grid physics, including feedback from supernovae (SNe) and active galactic nuclei (AGN), are systematically varied. We use four of the five physical models described in : a non-radiative model ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{}); a model ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} which corresponds to the OWLS reference model) which includes prescriptions for metal-dependent radiative cooling [@Wiersma2009a], stellar evolution, mass loss and chemical enrichment [@Wiersma2009b], star formation [@Schaye2008] and kinetic stellar feedback [@DallaVecchia2008] and two models ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0, which was simply called [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} in the original OWLS papers, and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5) which further include a prescription for supermassive black hole growth and AGN feedback [@Booth2009], which is a modified version of the model developed by @Springel2005b. The black holes store the feedback energy until they can heat neighbouring gas particles by a pre-determined amount $\Delta T_{heat}$. As in @Booth2009, 1.5 per cent of the rest-mass energy of the gas which is accreted on to the supermassive black holes is used for the feedback. This results in a satisfactory match to the normalization of the black hole scaling relations (@Booth2009; see also ) which is independent of the exact value of $\Delta T_{heat}$. The two [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} models used here only differ by their value of $\Delta T_{heat}$, which is the most crucial parameter of the AGN feedback model in terms of the hot gas properties of the resulting simulated population of groups and clusters (@McCarthy2011; ). It is set to $\Delta T_{heat}=10^{8}$ K for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 and $\Delta T_{heat}=3\times10^{8}$ K for [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5. Note that since the same quantity of gas is being heated in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5 model as in the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 model, more time is needed for the black holes to accrete enough gas to heat the surrounding gas to a higher temperature. Increasing the heating temperature hence results into more bursty and more energetic feedback episodes.
Table \[table:owls\] provides a list of the runs used here and the sub-grid physics that they include.
These models have been compared to a wide range of observational data by both and @McCarthy2014. In , we focused on the comparison to the resolved hot gas (e.g. X-ray luminosities and temperatures, gas fraction, entropy and density profiles, integrated tSZ flux) and stellar properties (e.g. $I$-band total-mass-to-light ratio, dominance of the brightest cluster galaxies) of local galaxy groups and clusters, as well as the properties of the central black hole and concluded that the fiducial AGN model ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0) produces a realistic population of galaxy groups and clusters, broadly reproducing both the median trend and, for the first time, the scatter in physical properties over approximately two decades in mass ($10^{13}~\textrm{M}_{\odot} \la M_{500} \la 10^{15}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$) and 1.5 decades in radius ($0.05 \la r/r_{500} \la 1.5$). In @McCarthy2014, we explored the sensitivity of the thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich power spectrum to important non-gravitational physics and also showed that the fiducial AGN model adequately matches the observed pressure profiles of local groups and clusters (see their fig. 2).
Theoretical thermal Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (tSZ) maps {#sec:ttSZmaps}
-------------------------------------------------
The thermal tSZ signal is characterized by the dimensionless Compton $y$ parameter, defined as: $$y\equiv\frac{\sigma_T}{m_e c^2}\int P_edl$$ where $\sigma_T$ is the Thomson cross-section, $c$ the speed of light, $m_e$ the electron rest-mass and $P_e=n_ek_BT_e$ is the electron pressure with $k_B$ being the Boltzmann constant. The integration is done along the observer’s line of sight.
Compton $y$ maps are generated by stacking randomly transformed (by a combination of translations, rotations and axis inversions) snapshots along the observer’s line of sight (e.g. @daSilva2000). The light cones extend back to $z=3$. Ten (sixteen) quasi-independent realisations are generated for the large lower resolution (smaller higher resolution) simulations by randomly varying the light cone transformations. As the methods used for the production of the Compton $y$ maps are described in some detail in @McCarthy2014, we will only present a brief summary below.
We follow the method of @Roncarelli2006 [@Roncarelli2007] and compute $$\Upsilon_i\equiv\frac{\sigma_T}{m_e c^2}\frac{k_BT_im_i}{\mu_{e,i}m_H}$$ for the $i^{th}$ gas particle, where $T_i$, $m_i$ and $\mu_{e,i}$ are respectively the temperature, mass and mean molecular weight per free electron of the gas particle and $m_H$ is the atomic mass of hydrogen. The contribution to the Compton $y$ parameter by the $i^{th}$ particle is given by $$y_{i}\equiv\Upsilon_i/L^2_{pix,i},$$ where $L^2_{pix,i}$ is the physical area of the pixel in which the $i^{th}$ particle falls at the angular diameter distance from the observer to the particle. Finally, $y_i$ is SPH-smoothed onto the map using the SPH smoothing kernel which was used by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">gadget</span>3 for the computation of the hydrodynamical forces and the three-dimensional smoothing length of the particle expressed in angular units (i.e. the smoothing length divided by the distance to the particle from the observer).
We produce maps that are five degrees (1.25 degrees) on a side for the large lower resolution (smaller higher resolution) simulations. This roughly corresponds to the angular size of the $400~h^{-1}$ comoving Mpc ($100~h^{-1}$ comoving Mpc) box at $z=3.0$. The maps have an angular pixel size of 2.5 arcseconds.
As discussed in @McCarthy2014, because the realisations are produced using the same simulations, they are only quasi-independent. At high redshift, the light cone samples most of the volume of simulation and thus the different realisations contain many of the same structures (though at randomised locations). At lower redshift, however, the cones sample only a small fraction of the simulated volume and the different realisations are therefore effectively independent. This is relevant for the present study, which is focused on the recovery of the tSZ flux of relatively local ($z \le 0.4$) dark matter haloes. The rationale behind using several quasi-independent realisations is to mitigate the impact of cosmic variance by significantly increasing the sample size.
Halo selection and tSZ flux recovery {#sec:mockLBG}
------------------------------------
The tSZ signal of [*individual*]{} galaxies, groups, and low-mass clusters cannot normally be detected with [*Planck*]{}. Large numbers of systems must therefore be binned (‘stacked’) to measure the mean relation between haloes and tSZ flux down to low masses. undertook such a binning analysis of some $\sim260~000$ locally brightest galaxies selected from the SDSS. They defined their locally brightest galaxy (hereafter LBG) sample as all the galaxies with $z>0.03$ and $r < 17.7$ which are brighter than any other galaxy within a projected distance of 1.0 Mpc and with a redshift difference smaller than $1,000~\textrm{km s}^{-1}$. The sample was derived from the spectroscopic New York University Value Added Galaxy Catalogue (NYU-VAGC)[^4], which is based on the seventh data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [SDSS/DR7; @Abazajian2009] and covers 7966 square degrees. The NYU-VAGC also provides, among other properties, stellar masses which were computed by @Blanton2007 by fitting stellar populations to the five-band SDSS photometry assuming a @Chabrier2003 initial mass function.
derived the mean tSZ flux in bins of stellar mass. To deduce the more fundamental relation between tSZ flux and halo mass, they used the semi-analytic galaxy formation model of @Guo2011, which was tuned to closely match the observed luminosity and stellar mass functions of SDSS galaxies in a [*WMAP*]{}7 cosmology [@Guo2013]. When deriving the relation between tSZ flux and halo mass, the effects of scatter in the stellar mass–halo mass relation, as well as (minor) contamination of the LBG sample by satellite systems, are accounted for using the semi-analytic model.
Our aim is to test the accuracy of the recovered tSZ flux–halo mass relation by analysing synthetic maps in a way that is faithful to that done for the real data. We place our emphasis on the recovery of the tSZ flux, rather than testing the conversion of the tSZ flux–stellar mass relation into an tSZ flux–halo mass relation. The latter will depend on the models correctly capturing the intrinsic scatter in the stellar mass–halo mass relation (i.e. in any given stellar mass bin, there will be a range of halo masses and since the SZ flux has a steeper than linear scaling with halo mass, the mean signal will be driven by the higher halo mass systems in the bin). The scatter can be constrained to some degree by requiring the models to match, for example, the galaxy stellar mass function and/or the clustering of galaxies in bins of stellar mass (as is the case for the model of @Guo2011, used in the [*Planck*]{} LBG study), but it is probably fair to say that the intrinsic scatter issue is still under consideration. This uncertainty in the stellar mass–halo mass relation could therefore potentially further complicate the physical interpretation of the results presented in .
We first construct halo catalogues corresponding to the maps described in Section \[sec:ttSZmaps\] using a standard friends-of-friends (FoF) algorithm run on the snapshot data. The catalogues contain the positions on the map, the angular size $\theta_{500}$ ($\equiv r_{500}/d_A$, where $d_A$ is the angular diameter distance to the halo) and the halo mass $M_{500}$ of all the haloes with $z<0.4$ and $M_{500}>2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_\odot$ ($M_{500}>10^{12}~\textrm{M}_\odot$) for the large lower resolution (smaller higher resolution) simulations. The redshift and mass thresholds have been chosen to roughly reproduce the bounds of the LBG sample. To produce ‘dirty’ maps with similar characteristics to the real data, the raw maps are downgraded from their original 2.5 arcseconds resolution to a 0.83 arcminute resolution and the effects of primary CMB, of the [*Planck*]{} beams and their associated noise are added to obtain six synthetic observations at the frequencies of the [*Planck*]{} HFI instrument (100, 143, 217, 353, 545 and 857 GHz). Note that in producing the dirty maps, we have neglected dust and radio point source contamination, which can be significant for real observations. However, this omission is at least partially compensated for by the fact that the overlapping SDSS-[*Planck*]{} survey area (7966 square degrees) greatly exceeds the survey area that can be simulated with current self-consistent cosmological hydro simulations — the cosmo-OWLS maps, which are some of the largest ever produced, are still only 25 square degrees each. In practice, we produce as many (primary CMB+instrumental) noise realisations of the simulation maps as are needed to obtain statistical error bars on the derived tSZ flux–halo mass relation that are comparable to the ones reported in , namely two (twenty-five) for the large lower resolution (smaller higher resolution) simulations.
Following the production of the dirty maps, we then apply the same multi-frequency matched filter [@Herranz2002; @Melin2006 MMF] that was used by the [*Planck*]{} collaboration. The MMF yields an estimate of the tSZ flux within $5r_{500}$, which is then converted using a constant conversion factor into the tSZ flux within $r_{500}$ (see discussion below), as characterized by the value of its spherically integrated Compton parameter within $r_{500}$: $$d_{A}(z)^{2}Y_{500}=\frac{\sigma_T}{m_ec^2}\int P_edV$$ where $d_A(z)$ is the angular diameter distance and the integration is done over a sphere of radius $r_{500}$. Throughout the paper, unless otherwise stated, we use the quantity $$\tilde{Y}_{500}\equiv Y_{500}E^{-2/3}(z)\left(\frac{d_A(z)}{500~\textrm{Mpc}}\right)^{2}$$ where $E(z)\equiv H(z)/H_0=\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_\Lambda}$ gives the redshift evolution of the Hubble parameter $H(z)$ in a flat $\Lambda$CDM Universe. $\tilde{Y}_{500}$ corresponds to the intrinsic tSZ flux self-similarly scaled to $z=0$ and scaled to a fixed angular diameter distance.
The MMF is optimised in both frequency and angular space[^5] by assuming the known frequency dependence of the thermal tSZ effect and the ‘universal pressure profile’ [@Arnaud2010 hereafter ], derived from a combination of X-ray observations of the [*XMM-Newton*]{} REXCESS cluster sample [@Bohringer2007] at radii of $r \la r_{500}$ and hydrodynamical simulations at radii of $r_{500} \la r \la 5 r_{500}$. Consistent with , the MMF is run in a non-blind mode using the positions and sizes, $\theta_{500}$, from the halo catalogue. The MMF then gives a measure of the strength of the tSZ signal $\tilde Y_{500}(i)$ and its associated measurement uncertainty $\tilde\sigma_{\theta_{500}}(i)$ for the halo surrounding the $i^{th}$ galaxy. The measurement uncertainty takes into account the statistical uncertainties due to astrophysical (e.g. primary CMB) and instrumental noise, but not the uncertainties due to halo modelling (e.g. shape of the pressure profile, size). Note that the tSZ spectral function was not integrated over the [*Planck*]{} bandpasses for each frequency for both constructing the ‘dirty’ maps and creating the matched filter for each of the [*Planck*]{} frequencies. This should have no impact upon the results as it was done at both stages.
It is important to note here that the LBGs are at best only marginally resolved by [*Planck*]{}. Therefore, in practice, the tSZ flux is actually measured within the larger aperture of $5\theta_{500}$; $$Y_{5 r_{500}} = \int_0^{5\theta_{500}} 2\pi \theta y(\theta) d\theta$$ The flux within the spherical aperture $r_{500}$ is then computed assuming the spatial template used in the MMF (the universal pressure profile), leading to a conversion factor $Y_{500}=Y_{5r_{500}}/1.796$. (It is assumed that there is no flux originating from beyond $5r_{500}$ and therefore $Y_{5\theta_{500}} = Y_{5 r_{500}}$.) It is perhaps an obvious statement that if in reality the adopted spatial template poorly describes the pressure distribution of the hot gas, this will lead to a systematic error in the recovered flux within $r_{500}$. We will return to this point below.
Finally, for both simulations and observations, the tSZ flux is binned by mass with the bin-average flux and the corresponding uncertainty given by (@Planck2011a [@Planck2011c]; ) $$\langle \tilde Y_{500}\rangle_b=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N_b} \tilde Y_{500}(i)/\tilde\sigma^2_{\theta_{500}}(i)}{\sum_{i=1}^{N_b} 1/\tilde\sigma^2_{\theta_{500}}(i)}
\label{eq:Yweighted}$$ and $$\sigma_b^{-2}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_b} 1/\tilde\sigma^2_{\theta_{500}}(i),$$ where $N_b$ is the number of galaxies in bin $b$. The integrated tSZ flux is often normalized by the self-similar integrated tSZ flux–mass relation, as given in appendix B of : $$\tilde Y_{500,A10}=9.07\times10^{-4}\left[\frac{M_{500}}{3\times10^{14}h_{70}^{-1}\textrm{M}_\odot}\right]^{5/3}h_{70}^{-1}~\textrm{arcmin}^2
\label{eq:Y500A10}$$
The need for synthetic tSZ observations {#sec:synthetic}
=======================================
![Comparison of the $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation inferred by with the intrinsic (true) $z=0$ relation from the cosmo-OWLS runs. The filled cyan circles with error bars represent the observational data of . The solid and dashed curves (red, orange, blue and green) represent the mean and median integrated tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relations in bins of $M_{500}$ for the different simulations, respectively. Taken at face value, the results favour a close to self-similar $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation. However, $Y_{500}$ is not directly measured and synthetic observations are therefore required for proper comparison to the inferred trend (see Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\]).[]{data-label="fig:Y500_M500"}](./figs/f1.eps){width="1.0\hsize"}
{width="0.4898\hsize"} {width="0.4898\hsize"} {width="0.4898\hsize"} {width="0.4898\hsize"}
We begin by comparing, in Fig. \[fig:Y500\_M500\], the results to the [*true*]{} spherically integrated tSZ flux–mass ($Y_{500}-M_{500}$) relation of the simulated galaxy, group and cluster populations for the four physical models at $z=0$. The solid and dashed curves respectively represent the mean and median relations in bins of $M_{500}$ for the different simulations. The high-resolution simulations are used below $M_{500}=2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ and the production runs above that threshold (see Appendix A). The filled cyan circles with error bars represent the observational data of .
Focusing first on the simulations, there is a visible steepening of the $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation in the galaxy and group regime ($M_{500} \la 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$) with the inclusion of AGN feedback. This is due to the fact that the AGN lower the gas fractions, and hence the integrated Compton y values, of low-mass haloes (e.g. @Puchwein2008 [@McCarthy2010]; L14) by ejecting gas from their high-redshift progenitors [@McCarthy2011].
Interestingly, it is apparent that, taken at face value, the results appear to favour an approximately self-similar $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation, as obtained in non-radiative simulations (such as [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{}; red lines). This is consistent with the conclusions of . As already discussed in Section 1, this is a surprising result, given that numerous previous studies have demonstrated that the self-similar model is strongly ruled out by X-ray observations. In L14 (see also @McCarthy2010), for example, we showed that the fiducial AGN model ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0) reproduces a wide variety of X-ray and optical measurements of local groups and clusters (including their gas fractions) while the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} model is strongly disfavoured.
As discussed in Section \[sec:mockLBG\], however, the quantity $Y_{500}$ is not directly measured with [*Planck*]{}. Instead, what is measured is an estimate of the integrated flux within a 2D aperture $5 \theta_{500}$, and a scaling factor which depends on the assumed distribution of the hot gas must be applied to estimate the tSZ flux within the spherical radius $r_{500}$. Furthermore, hot gas along the line-of-sight can potentially bias the 2D flux. The magnitude of these effects can be quantified using synthetic observations of the type described in Section 2.3.
With this in mind, in Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\], we compare the recovered tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relation from our synthetic (‘dirty’) maps (empty black diamonds) with the mean true tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relation, both unweighted (solid lines) and weighted (dotted lines; as given by equation \[eq:Yweighted\]), as well as with the observational data from (filled cyan circles with error bars). To more clearly emphasize the level of agreement (or lack thereof) between the recovered and true relations and the observational data, we normalize the tSZ flux using the best-fitting scaling relation of (see equation \[eq:Y500A10\]). The different panels correspond to the different physical models: from [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} (top left) to [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5 (bottom right) through [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} (top right) and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 (bottom left).
Focusing first on the top two panels of Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\], corresponding to the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} simulations, we find that the MMF recovers the true relations relatively well, as deduced by comparing the empty black diamonds with the black curves. (The only exception to this is the lowest-mass bin, where the recovered flux is significantly higher than the intrinsic one, which we discuss below in more detail.) It is interesting to note that the recovery is best for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} model, which has a nearly self-similar behaviour, in the sense that the shape of the pressure distribution of the hot gas is nearly independent of halo mass. It is worth re-iterating that the (empirical) universal pressure profile of A10 was derived from a sample of very massive clusters, where the high mass basically ensures that non-gravitational physics (e.g. AGN) has a relatively minor effect on the tSZ flux. Thus, the fact that the MMF recovers the true relation well for a simulation where the gas approximately follows the universal pressure profile on all mass scales may not be that surprising. In fact, it is reassuring.
Moving on to the bottom two panels of Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\], corresponding to the two AGN models, we find a significant offset between the recovered and true $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relations. The amplitude of the bias increases strongly with decreasing halo mass and with increasing AGN heating temperature. Notably, [*the bias reaches nearly an order of magnitude at the lowest halo masses*]{}. The fact that the models with AGN much more closely reproduce the X-ray and optical properties of real groups and clusters than the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} simulations provides a strong impetus to understand the origin of the bias and to offer a means for correcting for it.
Role of Deviations from the universal pressure profile {#sec:nonUPP}
======================================================
Simulation Median or mass-weighted $P_{0,0}$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ $\gamma$ $c_{500,0}$ $\delta$ $\epsilon$
----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------- ---------- --------- ---------- ------------- ---------- ------------ --
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} Mass-weighted 0.528 2.208 3.632 1.486 1.192 0.051 0.210
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} Median 0.694 1.489 4.512 1.174 0.986 0.072 0.245
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 Mass-weighted 0.581 2.017 3.835 1.076 1.035 0.273 0.819
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 Median 0.791 1.517 4.625 0.814 0.892 0.263 0.805
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5 Mass-weighted 0.214 1.868 4.117 1.063 0.682 0.245 0.839
[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5 Median 0.235 1.572 4.850 0.920 0.597 0.246 0.864
As the magnitude of the bias between the recovered and true $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relations in Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\] evidently depends strongly the nature of non-gravitational (sub-grid) physics included in the simulations, this suggests its origin is tied to deviations of the hot gas distribution in the simulations from that adopted in the matched filter. We therefore explore this possibility in detail below. An alternative source of bias at the low-mass end is from source confusion (i.e. hot gas along the line of sight). We explore the role of source confusion in Appendix B, demonstrating that, while it is expected to significantly increase the scatter in the recovered fluxes of individual haloes, source confusion does not significantly bias the recovered [*mean*]{} tSZ flux–halo mass relation.
The ‘universal pressure profile’ of A10 is described well by a so-called generalized NFW (GNFW) model and was first applied by @Nagai2007 to describe the pressure distribution of the hot gas in clusters. It was subsequently shown to provide a relatively good description to large samples of (high-mass) X-ray groups and clusters (e.g. @Mroczkowski2009 [@Arnaud2010; @Plagge2010; @Sun2011]; @Planck_prof; @Sayers2013 [@McDonald2014]). The model has five free parameters: $$\frac{P(r)}{P_{500}}=\frac{P_0}{(c_{500}r/r_{500})^\gamma[1+(c_{500}r/r_{500})^\alpha]^{(\beta-\gamma)/\alpha}},
\label{eq:GNFW}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P_{500} & \equiv & n_{e,500}k_BT_{500} \\
& = & \frac{500 f_b \rho_{crit}(z) \mu m_p GM_{500}}{\mu_e m_H 2r_{500}}, \end{aligned}$$ $f_b\equiv\Omega_b/\Omega_m$ is the universal baryon fraction, $\mu$ and $\mu_e$ are the mean molecular weight and the mean molecular weight per free electron, respectively.
A10 fitted the generalised NFW profile to the REXCESS sample of X-ray clusters to constrain four of the five parameters ($P_0$, $c_{500}$, $\gamma$, and $\alpha$). Following @Nagai2007, A10 fixed the value of $\beta$ (the external slope) to $5.49$, the value which best describes the large-radii behaviour of the simulations of @Nagai2007. We note here that the pressure distribution of the gas as inferred by X-ray observations is only constrained out to $r \sim r_{500}$. Hydrodynamical simulations have therefore been relied on by previous studies to constrain the outer slope. However, recently resolved tSZ observations of local clusters with [*Planck*]{} have now allowed for direct measurements of the pressure profile out to several $r_{500}$ and indicate that the external slope may be somewhat flatter ($\beta \approx 4$) than predicted by some previous simulations (@Planck_prof). Interestingly, our cosmo-OWLS models predict outer pressure distributions that are in very good agreement with @Planck_prof (see Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\] below, comparing the simulated profiles with the universal pressure profile assuming $\beta = 5.49$). One possible reason for the difference in pressure profiles between cosmo-OWLS and the simulations used by A10 is that the previous simulations lacked feedback from AGN, which is crucial for preventing overcooling, which should lead to reduced pressures. @Battaglia2012, who use the AGN simulations of @Battaglia2010, have come to similar conclusions.
We note that @Nagai2007 justified the choice of this particular functional form by the fact that the gas pressure distribution is primarily determined by the gravitationally dominant dark matter, in which the gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium, and whose density has been shown to approximately follow the NFW profile [e.g. @Navarro1997]. While gas tracing dark matter may be an acceptable approximation for relatively massive systems where the effects of feedback from AGN and supernovae are more minor, X-ray observations show the gas is significantly more extended (less cuspy) in low-mass groups (e.g. @Vikhlinin2006). This behaviour is evident in our simulations with AGN feedback as well. At the very least, therefore, we anticipate that some of the parameters of the GNFW profile will need to be functions of halo mass, rather than fixed constants (as assumed in A10), in order to describe the pressure distribution of the hot gas over the full range of masses in the cosmo-OWLS AGN models.
With the above in mind, we show, in Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\], the dimensionless mass-weighted pressure profiles for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 model in eight different mass bins (increasing from top left to bottom right; the same bins were used for binning the tSZ flux in Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\]). We normalize the radii by $r_{500}$ and the pressures by $P_{500}$. Note that in order to further reduce the dynamic range of the $y$-axis, we plot $P/P_{500}(r/r_{500})^2$. Note also that the X-ray pressure profiles of the simulated groups and clusters from cosmo-OWLS have already been compared to the X-ray observations of @Sun2011 (groups) and @Arnaud2010 (clusters) by @McCarthy2014, who found that the fiducial AGN model ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0) under consideration here reproduces the pressure profiles of both groups and clusters well.
In Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\], the black filled circles with error bars correspond to the median profile in the corresponding mass bin and the error bars encompass 68 per cent of the systems. The solid blue, cyan, orange, magenta and red lines correspond to the universal pressure profile of the appendix B of , the best-fitting GNFW functional form with all five parameters left free to vary, the best-fitting GNFW form but with the concentration now a power-law of mass of the form $c_{500}=c_{500,0}(M_{500}/10^{14}~\textrm{M}_\odot)^\delta$, the best-fitting GNFW form but with the normalization now a power-law of mass of the form $P_{0}=P_{0,0}(M_{500}/10^{14}~\textrm{M}_\odot)^\epsilon$, and the best-fitting GNFW form but with the concentration and normalization now power-laws of mass, respectively. The bottom part of each panel shows the residuals of the best-fitting profiles. The functional forms are fitted simultaneously to the eight median profiles with their error bars (i.e. to the filled black circles with error bars). The best-fitting parameters for the final model which has both the concentration and normalization varying as power-laws of mass for the four cosmo-OWLS models used here and for both mass-weighted and median pressure profiles are listed in Table \[table:Pfit\]. We note that some of the parameters are strongly degenerate with each other, but this is unimportant for our purposes since all that we require is a parametric model that reproduces simulated pressure profiles well.
![Comparison of the $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relations when a new mass-dependent spatial template based on the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 model is used in the matched filter. The blue dashed and cyan dot-dashed lines correspond to the best-fitting scaling relations of and , respectively. The solid and dotted black curves correspond to the unweighted and weighted mean [*true*]{} tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relations for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 model, respectively. The filled cyan circles and empty black diamonds with error bars correspond to the observational data of and the results of the synthetic observations (using the new template) of the simulated maps, respectively. The integrated tSZ fluxes have been normalized using the best-fitting scaling relation of . The recovered and true $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ approximately agree, implying the majority of the bias present in Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\] is due to the use of an inappropriate (fixed) spatial template.[]{data-label="fig:Pmwtest"}](./figs/f4.eps){width="1.0\hsize"}
From Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\], it is clear that the shape of the pressure profiles is indeed quite strongly mass-dependent (compare the black filled circles to the solid blue curves, which represent the fixed-shape universal pressure profile) and it is necessary to make two of the GNFW coefficients, the normalization and the concentration, mass-dependent in order to obtain a reasonable fit (solid red curve) over the whole radial and halo mass range when AGN feedback is included. Note that @Battaglia2012 similarly found that the normalization and concentration as well as the outer slope $\beta$ needed to be not only mass-dependent but also redshift-dependent in order to provide a decent fit to the simulations of @Battaglia2010 which include AGN feedback.
{width="0.4898\hsize"} {width="0.4898\hsize"}
We now proceed to alter the template adopted in the MMF, replacing the universal pressure profile with the template derived above (the solid red curve in Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\]) and we repeat the recovery of tSZ fluxes from the synthetic maps. In Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest\], we compare the results of the synthetic observations of the simulated maps for $z\le0.4$ based on the new template (empty black diamonds) with the mean spherically integrated (true) tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relation (black curves), as well as the observational data (filled cyan circles with error bars). Note that when using the best-fitting pressure profile taken from the simulation as a spatial template in the matched filter, we numerically compute the conversion factor from $Y_{5r_{500}}$ into $Y_{500}$ using the new template profile for consistency. In Appendix C, we show the derived conversion factor as a function of halo mass using the new template and compare it with the true conversion factor derived directly from the simulations.
Quite remarkably, the bias between the recovered and true values of $Y_{500}$ for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 model in Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\] is largely removed. *Hence, the majority of the bias between the recovered and true tSZ flux within $r_{500}$ is due to the use of an inappropriate spatial template in the matched filter.*
Note that even with the new template, some residual bias remains, implying the template does not fully capture the detailed structure of the hot gas (e.g. halo-to-halo scatter may be significant, gas clumping, asphericity, etc.). Indeed, as we show in Appendix C, the conversion factor (from $Y_{5r500}$ to $Y_{500}$) trend derived from the best-fitting mass-dependent spatial template does not perfectly match the true conversion factor relation from the simulations. One may be able to derive a spatial template that better reproduces the true conversion factor from the simulations, but this would likely come at the expense of the template providing a poorer fit to the spherically-symmetric pressure profile. Furthermore, even perfect knowledge of the conversion factor does not guarantee a bias-free estimate of $Y_{500}$, as the estimate of ‘total’ flux ($Y_{5r500}$) may also be biased at some level, as we discuss immediately below.
It is of interest to determine whether the removal of the bias (in Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest\]) with the use of the new template is due entirely to the improved conversion in the flux measured within $5 r_{500}$ to that within $r_{500}$, or if the ‘total’ flux within $5 r_{500}$ itself has also been affected. That is, is the flux measured within the larger radius $5 r_{500}$ unbiased? In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest5r500\], we show the unweighted mean [*true*]{} $Y_{5r_{500}}$–$M_{500}$ relation for the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 simulation (solid lines), the observational data (filled cyan circles with error bars), the recovered relation from synthetic observations of the simulated maps for $z\le0.4$ when using the new halo mass-dependent spatial template (empty black diamonds), and the recovered relation when using universal pressure profile of (standard MMF; filled blue circles), respectively. Even when measured within $5 r_{500}$, the recovered fluxes are still biased at a relatively low level ($\sim10-20$ per cent) with respect to the true $Y_{5r_{500}}-M_{500}$ (solid line) for the AGN models. Using our new mass-dependent template improves the situation somewhat, but does not eliminate the bias altogether.
For the sake of consistency and completeness, in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest5r500\], we compare the mean $Y_{5r_{500}}-M_{500}$ relation for the synthetic observations using the standard MMF on the simulated maps for the different physical models (coloured solid curves) with the observational data of (filled cyan circles). This represents a like-with-like comparison between all the models and the observational data, in the sense that we are directly comparing what has actually been measured and the measurements for both the observations and the simulations have been made in a consistent manner (even if the standard MMF template has been shown to poorly reproduce the hot gas in some of these models). We conclude from this comparison that there is very good agreement between the trend measured by and that predicted by the fiducial AGN ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0) model which reproduces the X-ray properties of local groups and clusters well (see and @McCarthy2014). In contrast, the self-similar ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{}) model *is excluded* on the basis that it overpredicts the observed tSZ flux at low to intermediate halo masses.
Summary and Discussion {#sec:sum}
======================
We have used synthetic observations produced from the cosmo-OWLS suite of cosmological hydrodynamical simulations to: (i) perform a consistent (like-with-like) comparison with recent observations; and (ii) to test the reliability of the observationally-inferred integrated tSZ flux–halo mass relation. While our methodology and tests have been geared towards a comparison with the trends recently reported in @Planck2013 (hereafter ), the results and conclusions should be broadly applicable to tSZ flux measurements based on matched filter techniques.
From the analysis presented here, we reach the following conclusions:
1. Taken at face value, the results of PIntXI favour a close to self-similar $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation (Fig. \[fig:Y500\_M500\]). Assuming that the gas has a temperature that is close to the halo virial temperature, such a trend would imply that the haloes of galaxies, groups and clusters all have a gas fraction within $r_{500}$ that is close to the universal baryon fraction and independent of mass. However, X-ray observations of local X-ray-bright galaxy groups (e.g. @Sun2009) show that they are missing a large fraction of their baryons, indicating some inconsistency between the tSZ- and X-ray-derived results, as noted by .
2. We find that the multi-frequency matched filter (MMF) used by the [*Planck*]{} collaboration recovers a nearly unbiased $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation for models which neglect efficient feedback ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{} ; see top panels of Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\]). This is perhaps not too surprising (it is reassuring), since for these models the hot gas distribution has a shape similar to the universal pressure profile that is nearly independent of halo mass.
3. However, we find a significant bias in the recovered $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation (see bottom panels of Fig. \[fig:mmfcomparison\]) for models which invoke AGN feedback, which is necessary to reproduce the X-ray and optical properties of local groups and clusters (see @McCarthy2010 [@LeBrun2014]). The amplitude of the bias increases strongly with decreasing halo mass, reaching nearly an order of magnitude overestimate in $Y_{500}$ at halo masses below $\sim10^{13}$ M$_\odot$.
4. We have shown that the vast majority of the bias originates from the assumption of a fixed spatial template (the universal pressure profile), which becomes an increasingly poor description of the hot gas at low masses in our models with AGN feedback (Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\]).
5. When a mass-dependent spatial template that describes the pressure profiles in the AGN models well is used (Fig. \[fig:Pmwfit\] and Table \[table:Pfit\]), the fluxes recovered for that simulation are nearly unbiased with respect to the true $Y_{500}-M_{500}$ relation of that simulation (Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest\]).
6. Encouragingly, fluxes measured within the larger aperture $5 r_{500}$ (i.e. $Y_{5r_{500}}$) only show modest levels of bias ($\sim10$ per cent), independent of the detailed shape of spatial template (left panel of Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest5r500\]) or the nature of the feedback implemented in the simulations (i.e. whether or not AGN feedback is included). Thus, the reported detection of a large fraction of the ‘missing baryons’ in the form of hot halo gas by the appears to be quite robust, even if the gas is more extended than previously thought (see also @Greco2014).
7. A consistent like-with-like comparison between the tSZ fluxes measured within the larger aperture $5 r_{500}$ demonstrates that the fiducial AGN model is in excellent agreement with the trends measured in , whereas the self-similar ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{}) model actually overpredicts the tSZ flux at low to intermediate halo masses (right panel of Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest5r500\]).
{width="0.33\hsize"} {width="0.33\hsize"} {width="0.33\hsize"}
The analysis of our AGN models indicate that the estimated tSZ fluxes within $r_{500}$ may be significantly biased (high) at low to intermediate masses. However, it should be borne in mind that the estimate of the bias is quite sensitive to the nature of the feedback implemented in the simulations. We have used our current ‘best guess’, as judged by previous comparisons of these models with resolved X-ray, tSZ, and optical observations (L14). Independent tests, however, are certainly well worthwhile. In particular, an obvious prediction of our results is that future high-resolution tSZ observations (e.g. SPTpol, ACTpol, SPT-3G, AdvACT, NIKA), which are capable of directly measuring the tSZ flux within $\theta_{500}$, ought to see a steepening in the $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation below $M_{500} \sim 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$ due to gas ejection by AGN.
An alternative test is to stack X-ray observations of a large optically-selected sample (such as the SDSS LBG sample in ) and to directly measure the hot gas properties within $r_{500}$ in bins of mass for comparison to the tSZ-derived results. @Anderson2015 have recently undertaken such an exercise using the [*ROSAT*]{} All-Sky Survey (RASS). They derive the stacked X-ray luminosity in bins of stellar mass and use the semi-analytic model of @Guo2011 to infer the underlying $L_X$–$M_{500}$ relation. Note that LBGs are well resolved with [*ROSAT*]{} (i.e. $\theta_{\rm PSF} \ll \theta_{500}$) and, in any case, the X-ray luminosity is centrally-concentrated due to the $\rho^2$ scaling of the X-ray emission. @Anderson2015 find a significantly steeper than self-similar relation and conclude that in order to reconcile their results with those of the study, the hot gas distribution must become increasingly extended (less concentrated) with decreasing halo mass. This is qualitatively consistent with the behaviour predicted by our simulations with AGN feedback.
To be more quantitative, we plot in Fig. \[fig:Xray\_M500\] the predicted mean soft X-ray (rest-frame $0.5-2.0$ keV) luminosity–, spectroscopic temperature–, and hot gas mass–halo mass relations at $z=0$ for the various cosmo-OWLS models. Large differences are present in the predicted luminosities and hot gas masses at low to intermediate masses between the models which do and do not include AGN feedback.
In the left-hand panel of Fig. \[fig:Xray\_M500\], we compare to the observed stacked X-ray luminosity–mass relation of @Anderson2015. For this comparison, we have scaled the observed relation to $z=0$ assuming self-similar evolution, using the mean redshift of each of the stellar mass bins. Consistent with the comparisons made in @LeBrun2014, we find that the observed $L_X$–$M_{500}$ related is well reproduced, both in terms of slope and zero point, by our AGN feedback models, with the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5 models effectively bracketing the data.
In any case, regardless of whether the simulations match the observations or not, [*our findings highlight an important general conclusion: fluxes measured within large radii cannot reliably constrain the pressure profiles or integrated Y values within smaller radii when using matched filter-like techniques, because the obtained values depend directly on the assumed template profile*]{}. On the other hand, aperture photometry methods with aperture sizes approximately matched to the experiment under consideration should still work for these purposes (though likely at decreased signal-to-noise), so long as one does not try to extrapolate to smaller apertures. [*Planck*]{} has proven to be exceptionally good at detecting large amounts of hot gas around massive galaxies (and has pushed much further down the halo mass scale than previous SZ experiments), thus confirming a fundamental prediction of cosmological structure formation. The next step, however, is to map the distribution of the hot gas in detail and for this higher resolution experiments are required.
Finally, in terms of cosmological analyses with current [*Planck*]{} data, given that the flux measured within the larger radius $5 r_{500}$ can be reliably inferred independent of the details of the assumed spatial template, and that the simulations all predict very similar $Y_{5 r_{500}}$–$M_{500}$ relations nearly (although not completely) independent of the sub-grid details, it raises the question of whether the focus should shift to larger aperture measurements. If the goal is to lose sensitivity to the effects of uncertain baryonic physics in order to minimize systematic errors in cosmological analyses, this would indeed seem to be a sensible route to take in the future. One option would be to measure the tSZ flux within a large fixed physical aperture (to avoid covariances between the flux and mass) and to use simulations and/or a subset of the observations with very high quality data to calibrate the tSZ flux–mass relation needed for cosmological studies.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank the members of the OWLS team for their contributions to the development of the simulation code used here and the referee, Colin Hill, for a constructive report. AMCLB and IGM thank Simon White and Toby Marriage for helpful discussions. AMCLB is also grateful to Monique Arnaud and Gabriel Pratt for useful suggestions. AMCLB acknowledges support from an internally funded PhD studentship at the Astrophysics Research Institute of Liverpool John Moores University and from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche under grant ANR-11-BD56-015. IGM is supported by an STFC Advanced Fellowship at Liverpool John Moores University. This work used the DiRAC Data Centric system at Durham University, operated by the Institute for Computational Cosmology on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). This equipment was funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant ST/K00042X/1, STFC capital grant ST/H008519/1, and STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K003267/1 and Durham University. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
Resolution study {#sec:res}
================
We examine the sensitivity of our results to numerical resolution. As currently available hardware prevents us from running higher resolution simulations in $400~h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side boxes, we use smaller simulations for testing numerical convergence and extending the mass range of the presented study (see Section \[sec:owls\]). They are $100~h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side and use $2\times256^3$ particles (which is the same resolution as our $2\times1024^{3}$ particles in $400~h^{-1}$ Mpc box runs) and $2\times512^3$ particles (i.e. eight times higher mass resolution and two times higher spatial resolution). They assume the [*WMAP*]{}7 cosmology. Note that the convergence tests are made using the true physical properties of the simulated systems (i.e. no synthetic observations were used).
In Fig. \[fig:reso\], we compare the median integrated tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relations at $z=0$ at the resolution of the production runs (dashed lines) and at eight times higher mass resolution (solid lines) for the four models used here ([<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ref</span>]{}, [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 and [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.5). We find that the integrated tSZ flux is adequately converged down to $M_{500}\sim2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_\odot$ at the resolution of the cosmo-OWLS production runs, justifying the transition between the high-resolution simulations and the production runs at $M_{500}=2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_\odot$ adopted in the present study.
![Effect of numerical resolution on the median integrated tSZ flux–$M_{500}$ relation at $z=0$. The median integrated tSZ flux is adequately converged down to $M_{500}\sim2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_\odot$, thus justifying the transition between the high-resolution simulations and the production runs at $M_{500}=2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_\odot$.[]{data-label="fig:reso"}](./figs/fa1.eps){width="1.0\hsize"}
Source Confusion {#sec:confusion}
================
![The mean separation of bright background/foreground sources from the central halo (i.e. the object of interest) as a function of the central object’s halo mass $M_{500}$. The angular separation is normalized by the angular size $\theta_{500}$ of the central object. The central objects are located at $z\le0.4$. The solid, dashed and dot-dashed curves correspond to the distance to objects with , and , respectively. If the fluxes are estimated within $5 r_{500}$, confusion is expected to become important for individual haloes with $M_{500} \la 10^{14}$ M$_\odot$.[]{data-label="fig:confusion"}](./figs/fb1.eps){width="1.0\hsize"}
![Testing the effects of source confusion on the recovered mean $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation. The blue dashed and cyan dot-dashed lines correspond to the empirical best-fitting (see their equation 22) scaling relations of and , respectively. The filled cyan circles with error bars represent the observational data of . The filled orange circles correspond to the unweighted mean input $Y_{500}$ (computed using the empirical best-fitting $Y_{500}$–$M_{500}$ relation of ). The empty green squares and magenta triangles with error bars correspond to the weighted mean and errors for the maps generated by injecting the GNFW haloes corresponding to the input $Y_{500}$ at random positions with and without using the original tSZ maps from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} simulation as background. The mean recovered flux is relatively insensitive to the presence of a tSZ background when a large number of haloes are stacked.[]{data-label="fig:confusiontest"}](./figs/fb2.eps){width="1.0\hsize"}
The issue of source confusion in cluster surveys, and more specifically in tSZ surveys (for which source confusion is expected to be more problematic since the strength of the tSZ effect is redshift independent), especially those using instruments with rather large beams (the [*Planck*]{} survey falls into that category with angular resolutions ranging from 5’ to 31’ depending upon the channel frequency) has already been explored using simulations of various degrees of realism over the past fifteen years (e.g. @Voit2001 [@White2002]; @Hallman2007; @Holder2007). In brief, they all concluded that confusion will be an issue for tSZ surveys of galaxies, groups and low-mass clusters ($M_{500}\lesssim10^{14}~\textrm{M}_\odot$). For instance, @Voit2001 found using a back of the envelope calculation (using the Press–Schechter formalism) that the probability that any given line of sight will encounter a virialised structure with $k_BT\gtrsim0.5~\textrm{keV}$ is of order unity and that the virialised regions of groups and clusters cover over a third of the sky. Their use of the Hubble volume simulations [e.g. @Jenkins2001], which has the advantage over the analytic calculation of taking into account the clustering of virialised objects, corroborated their estimate of the group and cluster covering factor.
In Fig. \[fig:confusion\], we show the mean angular separation $\theta$ normalized by the angular size $\theta_{500}$ of the central object as a function of the central object’s $M_{500}$. The central objects are located at $z\le0.4$ in order to mimic the LBG sample. The solid, dashed and dot-dashed curves correspond to the distance to objects with , and , respectively. The integrated tSZ flux $Y_{500}$ was computed approximately using the self-similar prediction: $Y_{500}\propto E(z)^{2/3}M_{500}^{5/3}/d_{A}^{2}$ where $d_{A}$ is the angular diameter distance. Both panels use the high-resolution version of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">agn</span>]{} 8.0 simulation below $M_{500}=2\times10^{13}~\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ and the production run above that threshold. Confusion is hence expected to be a source of large scatter (it could be more than a 100 per cent) at the low-mass end for estimates of the tSZ flux of individual haloes, as most of them have an object with a similar tSZ brightness (either in the foreground or the background) which overlaps with them in projection (i.e. $\theta/\theta_{500}<2$). Note that this can lead to both flux overestimation and underestimation as haloes with an overlapping neighbour with a comparable tSZ flux will have their flux boosted (could be up to doubled), whereas haloes with no overlapping neighbour with a comparable tSZ flux could have their flux underestimated (or even become undetectable) due to background overestimation.
While confusion is expected to result into sizeable errors in the recovered tSZ fluxes of individual low-mass haloes, the recovered mean Sunyaev–Zel’dovich flux (from stacking a large number of systems in mass bins) can still be unbiased. To test this hypothesis, haloes that were generated using a template based on the universal pressure profile of were injected into the original Compton $y$ maps. The results of this test are presented in Fig. \[fig:confusiontest\]. For each of the haloes in the synthetic LBG catalogue of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} simulation, the normalization of the profile (or equivalently $Y_{500}$) was set using the empirical $Y_{500}-M_{500}$ relation of (see their equation 22; dashed blue line). A new position was then drawn at random and the flux distributions from all the haloes in the catalogue were combined in order to generate a new Compton $y$ map on which the MMF was run both with and without using the original Compton $y$ maps of the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} simulations as background. The filled orange circles correspond to the unweighted mean input $Y_{500}$ in bins of $M_{500}$. The empty green squares and magenta triangles with error bars correspond to the weighted mean and errors for the maps generated by injecting the generalized NFW (@Nagai2007; see Section \[sec:nonUPP\]) haloes corresponding to the input $Y_{500}$ at random positions with and without using the original thermal tSZ maps from the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nocool</span>]{} simulation as background. In order to limit the impact of the added noise (see Section \[sec:mockLBG\]), a 100 realisations of the small higher realisation simulation had to be used (instead of the usual 25) and 25 realisations (instead of the usual 2) were used for the large lower resolution simulation. The obtained results are consistent with there being no effects of uncorrelated confusion over the whole mass range (as the magenta and green symbols are consistent within their error bars with their input values) when a large number of haloes are stacked. The mean recovered flux is thus relatively insensitive to the presence of a tSZ background. This insensitivity to uncorrelated structures could be due to the fact that the MMF does not use the $k=0$ mode (which corresponds to the constant mean $y$ value of the map).
$Y_{5r500}$ to $Y_{500}$ conversion factor {#sec:conversion}
==========================================
![Comparison of the conversion factor between $Y_{5r500}$ and $Y_{500}$ derived from the new mass-dependent spatial template (solid curve) with the true mean relation derived directly from the simulations (dashed curve). The horizontal dotted line shows the conversion factor for the ‘universal pressure profile’ of @Arnaud2010. Overall the template reproduces the true trend well, but tends to slightly overestimate (underestimate) the conversion factor at the highest (lowest) masses. The universal pressure profile significantly underestimates the magnitude of the conversion factor for galaxies and groups.[]{data-label="fig:conversiontest"}](./figs/fc1.eps){width="1.0\hsize"}
In Fig. \[fig:conversiontest\], we compare the conversion factor between $Y_{5r500}$ and $Y_{500}$ derived (numerically) from the new mass-dependent spatial template with the true mean relation derived directly from the simulations (i.e. using the full 3D particle distribution). Overall the template reproduces the true trend well, but tends to slightly overestimate (underestimate) the conversion factor at the highest (lowest) masses. Note that these small differences are apparent when one compares Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest\] and Fig. \[fig:Pmwtest5r500\] (left panel) in detail; compare the recovered fluxes (empty black diamonds) to the true relation (solid black curve) in the two plots and it is apparent that the inferred level of bias in the recovered flux differs slightly between the two plots.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: $r_{500}$ is defined as the radius which encloses a mean density that is 500 times the critical density of the Universe at the object’s redshift.
[^4]: http://sdss.physics.nyu.edu/vagc/
[^5]: It maximises the signal-to-noise ratio of objects which follow the assumed spectral and spatial templates.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The size-Ramsey number ${\hat{R}({F,r})}$ of a graph $F$ is the smallest integer $m$ such that there exists a graph $G$ on $m$ edges with the property that any colouring of the edges of $G$ with $r$ colours yields a monochromatic copy of $F$. In this short note, we give an alternative proof of the recent result of Krivelevich that ${\hat{R}({P_n,r})} = O((\log r)r^2 n)$. This upper bound is nearly optimal, since it is also known that ${\hat{R}({P_n,r})} = \Omega(r^2 n)$.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada'
author:
- Andrzej Dudek
- Paweł Prałat
title: 'Note on the multicolour size-Ramsey number for paths'
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Claim]{} \[theorem\][Algorithm]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Observation]{} \[theorem\][Open Problem]{} \[theorem\][Question]{}
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Following standard notation, we write $G\to (F)_r$ if any $r$-edge colouring of $G$ (that is, any colouring of the edges of $G$ with $r$ colours) yields a monochromatic copy of $F$. We define the *size-Ramsey number* of $F$ as ${\hat{R}({F,r})} = \min \{ |E(G)| : G \to (F)_r \}$; that is, ${\hat{R}({F,r})}$ is the smallest integer $m$ such that there exists a graph $G$ on $m$ edges such that $G \to (F)_r$. For two colours (that is, for $r=2$) the size-Ramsey number was first studied by Erdős, Faudree, Rousseau and Schelp [@EFRS1978].
In this note, we are concerned with the size-Ramsey number of the path $P_n$ on $n$ vertices. It is obvious that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} = \Omega(n)$ and it is easy to see that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} = O(n^2)$; for example, $K_{2n}\to (P_n)_2$. The exact behaviour of ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})}$ was not known for a long time. In fact, Erdős [@E81] offered \$100 for a proof or disproof that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} / n \to \infty$ and ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} / n^2 \to 0$. This problem was solved by Beck [@B83] in 1983 who, quite surprisingly, showed that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} < 900 n$. (Each time we refer to inequality such as this one, we mean that the inequality holds for sufficiently large $n$.) A variant of his proof, provided by Bollobás [@B01], gives ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} < 720 n$. Recently, the authors of this paper [@DP15] used a different and more elementary argument that shows that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} < 137 n$. The argument was subsequently tuned by Letzter [@L15] who showed that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} < 91 n$, and then further refined by the authors of this paper [@DP2017] who showed that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} \le 74n$. On the other hand, the first nontrivial lower bound was provided by Beck [@B90] and his result was subsequently improved by Bollobás [@B86] who showed that ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} \ge (1+\sqrt{2}) n - O(1)$. The strongest lower bound, ${\hat{R}({P_n,2})} \ge 5n/2 - O(1)$, was proved in [@DP2017].
Let us now move to the multicolour version of this graph parameter. It was proved in [@DP2017] that $\frac{(r+3)r}{4}n-O(r^2) \le {\hat{R}({P_n,r})} \le 33 r 4^r n$. It follows that ${\hat{R}({P_n,r})}$ is linear for any fixed value of $r$ but the two bounds are quite apart from each other in terms of their dependence on $r$. Subsequently, Krivelevich [@K2016] showed that in fact the dependence on $r$ is (nearly) quadratic; that is, ${\hat{R}({P_n,r})} = r^{2+o_r(1)}n$. Here is the precise statement of his result:
For any $C>5$, $r\ge 2$, and all sufficiently large $n$ we have $${\hat{R}({P_n,r})} < 400^5 C r^{2+\frac{1}{C-4}}n.$$
It is straightforward to see that $C=C(r)$ that minimizes the upper bound in this theorem is of order $\log r$. As a result we get that ${\hat{R}({P_n,r})} = O((\log r)r^2 n)$. In this note, we give an alternative proof of this fact.
\[thm:main\] For any integer $r\ge 2$ and all sufficiently large $n$ we have $${\hat{R}({P_n,r})} < 600 (\log r) r^2 n.$$
It will follow from the proof that the constant 600 is not optimal. Since we believe that the factor $\log r$ is not necessary, we do not attempt to optimize it.
Proof {#sec:proof}
=====
Before we move to the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\], we need one, straightforward, auxiliary result.
\[prop:G\] For any integer $r\ge 2$ there exists an integer $N=N(r)$ such that the following holds. For any integer $n \ge N$, there exists a graph $G=(V,E)$ such that
- $|V| = 7rn$,
- $500 (\log r) r^2 n < |E| < 600 (\log r) r^2 n$, and
- for every two disjoint sets $S,T \subseteq V$, $|S|=|T|=n$, the number of edges induced by $S\cup T$ with at least one endpoint in $S$ is at most $70(\log r)n$.
The proof is an easy application of random graphs. Recall that the *binomial random graph* ${{\mathcal{G}}}(n,p)$ is a distribution over the class of graphs with vertex set $[n]$ in which every pair $\{i,j\} \in \binom{[n]}{2}$ appears independently as an edge in $G$ with probability $p$, which may (and usually does) tend to zero as $n$ tends to infinity. Furthermore, we say that events $A_n$ in a probability space hold *asymptotically almost surely* (or *a.a.s.*), if the probability that $A_n$ holds tends to $1$ as $n$ goes to infinity.
Fix any integer $r\ge 2$. It suffices to show that the random graph $G\in {{\mathcal{G}}}(7rn, p)$ with $p = 22(\log r)/n$ a.a.s. satisfies properties (ii) and (iii). (Property (i) trivially holds.) Indeed, if this is the case, then there exists an integer $N=N(r)$ such that the desired properties hold with probability at least $1/2$ for $G\in {{\mathcal{G}}}(7rn, p)$ for all $n \ge N$. This implies that for each $n \ge N$, there exists at least one graph with these properties.
*Property (iii)*: Fix any two disjoint subsets $S, T \subseteq V$, both of cardinality $n$. Let $X_{S,T}$ be the random variable counting the number of edges induced by $S\cup T$ with at least one endpoint in $S$. Clearly, $X_{S,T}$ has the binomial distribution ${{\mathrm{Bin}}}\big{(} |S|\cdot |T| + \binom{|S|}{2}, p \big{)}$ with ${\mathbb E}(X_{S,T}) = (3/2+o(1)) n^2p = (33+o(1)) (\log r)n$. It follows from Chernoff’s bound (see, for example, Corollary 21.7 in [@FK16]) that $$\Pr(X_{S,T} \ge 70(\log r)n) \le \Pr(X_{S,T} \ge 2 {\mathbb E}(X_{S,T})) \le \exp(-{\mathbb E}(X_{S,T})/3) \le \exp(-10.9(\log r)n).$$ Thus, the probability that there exist $S$ and $T$ such that $X_{S,T} \ge 70(\log r)n$ is, by the union bound, at most $$\begin{aligned}
\binom{7rn}{n}^2 \exp(-10.9(\log r) n) &\le& (7er)^{2n} \exp(-10.9(\log r) n) \\
&\le& \exp \left( n \Big( 2\log(7e r) - 10.9 \log r \Big) \right) = o(1),\end{aligned}$$ since $(7e r)^2 < r^{10.9}$ for any $r\ge 2$. Property (iii) holds a.a.s.
*Property (ii)*: This property is straightforward to prove. Note that $|E|$ is distributed as ${{\mathrm{Bin}}}\big{(} \binom{7rn}{2}, p \big{)}$ with ${\mathbb E}(|E|) = (539+o(1)) (\log r) r^2 n$. It follows immediately from Chernoff’s bound that property (ii) holds a.a.s. The proof of the proposition is finished.
The proof is based on the depth first search algorithm (DFS), applied several times, and it is a variant of the previous approach taken in [@DP2017] where it was proved that $ {\hat{R}({P_n,r})} \le 33 r 4^r n$. Using the DFS algorithms in a Ramsey-type problem was first successfully applied by Ben-Eliezer, Krivelevich and Sudakov [@BKS2012].
Fix $r\ge 2$ and suppose that $n$ is sufficiently large so that Proposition \[prop:G\] can be applied. Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph satisfying properties (i)–(iii) from Proposition \[prop:G\]. We will show that $G\to (P_n)_r$ that implies the desired upper bound as $|E| < 600 (\log r) r^2 n$ by property (ii). Consider any $r$-colouring of the edges of $G$. By averaging argument, there is a colour (say blue) such that the number of blue edges is at least $|E(G)|/r$. For a contradiction, suppose that there is no monochromatic copy of $P_n$; in particular, there is no blue copy of $P_n$.
From now on, we restrict ourselves to the graph $G_1 = (V_1=V, E_1 \subseteq E)$, the subgraph of $G$ induced by blue edges. We perform the following algorithm on $G_1$ to construct a path $P$. Let $v_1$ be an arbitrary vertex of $G_1$, let $P=(v_1)$, $U = V \setminus \{v_1\}$, and $W = \emptyset$. If there exists an edge from $v_1$ to some vertex in $U$ (say from $v_1$ to $v_2$), we extend the path as $P=(v_1,v_2)$ and remove $v_2$ from $U$. We continue extending the path $P$ this way for as long as possible. Since there is no $P_n$ in the blue graph, we must reach a point of the process in which $P$ cannot be extended, that is, there is a path from $v_1$ to $v_k$ ($k < n$) and there is no edge from $v_k$ to $U$ (including the case when $U$ is empty). This time, $v_k$ is moved to $W$ and we try to continue extending the path from $v_{k-1}$, reaching another critical point in which another vertex will be moved to $W$, etc. If $P$ is reduced to a single vertex $v_1$ and no edge to $U$ is found, we move $v_1$ to $W$ and simply re-start the process from another vertex from $U$, again arbitrarily chosen.
Observe that during this algorithm there is never an edge between $U$ and $W$. Moreover, in each step of the process, the size of $U$ decreases by 1 or the size of $W$ increases by 1. The algorithm ends when $U$ becomes empty and all vertices from $P$ are moved to $W$. However, we will finish it prematurely, distinguishing $7r$ phases; phase $i$ starts with graph $G_i=(V_i,E_i)$ and ends when for the first time $|W| = n$. Before we move to the next phase, we set $S_i = W$, $T_i = V(P)$, and $F_i$ to be all edges incident to $W$. Then, we set $V_{i+1} = V_i \setminus W$ and $G_{i+1} = G_i [V_{i+1}]$, the graph induced by $V_{i+1}$ (in other words, $G_{i+1}$ is formed from $G_i$ by removing vertices from $W$ together with $F_i$, all edges incident to them). Phase $i$ ends now and we move to phase $i+1$ where we run the algorithm on $G_{i+1}$.
There are a few important observations. Note that, by property (i), $|V|=|V_1|=7rn$ so the last phase, phase $7r$, finishes with $U=\emptyset$ and $T_{7r}=\emptyset$. As a result, family $(F_i : 1 \le i \le 7r)$ is a partition of $E_1$. By construction, $|S_i| = n$ for all $i$ and, since there is no path on $n$ vertices in $G_1$ (and so also in any $G_i$), $|T_i| < n$ for all $i$. Hence, $|F_i| < 70(\log r)n$ by property (iii). Putting these things together and using property (ii) in the very last inequality, we get the desired contradiction: $$\begin{aligned}
|E|/r \le |E_1| = |F_1| + |F_2| + \dots + |F_{7r}| \le 7r \cdot 70(\log r)n < 500 (\log r) r n < |E|/r.\end{aligned}$$ The proof is finished.
[10]{}
J. Beck, *On size [R]{}amsey number of paths, trees, and circuits. [I]{}*, J. Graph Theory **7** (1983), no. 1, 115–129.
[to3em]{}, *On size [R]{}amsey number of paths, trees and circuits. [II]{}*, Mathematics of [R]{}amsey theory, Algorithms Combin., vol. 5, Springer, Berlin, 1990, pp. 34–45.
I. Ben-Eliezer, M. Krivelevich, and B. Sudakov, *The size [R]{}amsey number of a directed path*, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B **102** (2012), no. 3, 743–755.
B. Bollob[á]{}s, *Extremal graph theory with emphasis on probabilistic methods*, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, vol. 62, Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1986.
[to3em]{}, *Random graphs*, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 73, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001.
A. Dudek and P. Pra[ł]{}at, *An alternative proof of the linearity of the size-[R]{}amsey number of paths*, Combin. Probab. Comput. **24** (2015), no. 3, 551–555.
[to3em]{}, *On some multicolor [R]{}amsey properties of random graphs*, SIAM J. Discrete Math. **31** (2017), no. 3, 2079–2092.
P. Erd[ő]{}s, *On the combinatorial problems which [I]{} would most like to see solved*, Combinatorica **1** (1981), no. 1, 25–42.
P. Erd[ő]{}s, R. J. Faudree, C. C. Rousseau, and R. H. Schelp, *The size [R]{}amsey number*, Period. Math. Hungar. **9** (1978), no. 1-2, 145–161.
A. Frieze and M. Karoński, *Introduction to random graphs*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016.
M. Krivelevich, *Long cycles in locally expanding graphs, with applications*, to appear in Combinatorica.
S. Letzter, *Path [R]{}amsey number for random graphs*, Combin. Probab. Comput. **25** (2016), no. 4, 612–622.
[^1]: The first author was supported in part by Simons Foundation Grant \#522400.
[^2]: The second author was supported in part by NSERC
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This article is devoted to necessary and sufficient conditions for a rational number to be representable by a Cantor series. Necessary and sufficient conditions are formulated for the case of an arbitrary sequence $(q_k)$.'
address: |
45 Shchukina St.\
Vinnytsia\
21012\
Ukraine
author:
- Symon Serbenyuk
title: Cantor series expansions of rational numbers
---
Introduction
============
Let $Q\equiv (q_k)$ be a fixed sequence of positive integers, $q_k>1$, $\Theta_k$ be a sequence of the sets $\Theta_k\equiv\{0,1,\dots ,q_k-1\}$, and $\varepsilon_k\in\Theta_k$.
The Cantor series expansion $$\label{eq: Cantor series}
\frac{\varepsilon_1}{q_1}+\frac{\varepsilon_2}{q_1q_2}+\dots +\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\dots q_k}+\dots$$ of $x\in [0,1]$, first studied by G. Cantor in [@Cantor1], is a natural generalization of the b-ary expansion $$\frac{\alpha_1}{b}+\frac{\alpha_2}{b^2}+\dots+\frac{\alpha_n}{b^n}+\dots$$ of numbers from the closed interval $[0,1]$. Here $b$ is a fixed positive integer, $b>1$, and $\alpha_n\in\{0,1,\dots , b-1\}$.
By $x=\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_k\ldots}$ denote a number $x\in [0,1]$ represented by series . This notation is called *the representation of $x$ by Cantor series .*
We note that certain numbers from $[0,1]$ have two different representations by Cantor series , i.e., $$\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_{m-1}\varepsilon_m000\ldots}=\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_{m-1}[\varepsilon_m-1][q_{m+1}-1][q_{m+2}-1]\ldots}=\sum^{m} _{i=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_i}{q_1q_2\dots q_i}}.$$ Such numbers are called *$Q$-rational*. The other numbers in $[0,1]$ are called *$Q$-irrational*.
Cantor series expansions have been intensively studied from different points of view during the last century. The metric, probability, and fractal theories of number representations by positive Cantor series were studied by a number of researchers. Also, functions and fractal sets defined in terms of Cantor series expansions were investigated. These problems were considered by the following researchers: P. Erdös, J. Galambos, G. Iommi, P. Kirschenhofer, T. Komatsu, V. Laohakosol, B. Li, B. Mance, M. Paštéka, S. Prugsapitak, J. Rattanamoong, A. Rényi, B. Skorulski, R. F. Tichy, P. Turán, Yi Wang, M. S. Waterman, H. Wegmann, Liu Wen, Zhixiong Wen, Lifeng Xi, etc.
Such investigations can be divided into two groups. The first is the investigation of the fractional parts of real numbers represented by Cantor series , and the other is the investigation of representations of non-negative integers represented by positive Cantor series of the form $$n=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\varepsilon_kq_1q_2\dots q_k},$$ where $\varepsilon_k\in \Theta_{k}$.
We give a brief description of these investigations.
A number of researches are devoted to studying of various types of the normality of numbers represented by Cantor series. In these papers, the notions of Q-distribution normality, Q-normality, and Q-ratio normality, are studied. For example, in the papers , the notion of Q-distribution normality is investigated. Indeed, one can note the following investigations: relations between various types of the normality (e.g., see ); the average value of the function of the sum of digits in the Cantor series representation of a number (see [@Kirschenhofer_Tichy84] and references in the last-mentioned article); a behavior of the frequency of the most frequently used digit among the first digits in the representation of a number (e.g., see ); necessary, sufficient, necessary and sufficient conditions for a number to be the number having the property of a certain type normality (see ); the completeness of the Lebesgue measure, the density, topological properties, the Hausdorff measure of a set whose elements are numbers having the property of the normality of a certain type (e.g., see ); the rationality and irrationality of a number, that has the property of the normality of a certain type (see [@Bill10]), etc. Note that, in the papers , Hungarian mathematicians P. Erdös, A. Rényi, and P. Turán introduced and studied the problem on normal numbers and other statistical properties of real numbers with respect to large classes of Cantor series expansions. Some investigations of Cantor series expansions were published by J. Galambos in .
In some papers, certain generalizations of real numbers representations by Cantor series are studied. For example, properties of digits (sequences of digits) of the polyadic number $\alpha$ as functions (sequences of functions) of $ \alpha $ are studied in ; in , the notion of a complex Cantor series is introduced, and the $\mathbb Q$-algebraic and $\mathbb Q$-linearly independence of numbers represented by Cantor series are investigated; matrix expansions are studied in ; the papers [@Serbenyuk2016; @Serbenyuk2018] are devoted to certain generalizations of alternating Cantor series.
In certain papers, fractal properties of representations of real numbers by positive Cantor series and fractal properties of certain type sets whose elements represented by a positive Cantor series, are studied (e.g., see ). For example, in [@Iommi_Skorulski_2009], the Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimensions of sets whose elements defined in terms of the frequencies of digits, are investigated. The paper [@Wegmann1968] is devoted to studying the conditions under which the family of all possible rank cylinders $\Delta^Q _{c_1c_2...c_n}$ is faithful for the Hausdorff-Besicovitch dimension calculation. Sets whose elements have a restriction on using digits in own representations are studied in [@Mance_2015]. In the last-mentioned article, the formula for a calculation of the Hausdorff dimension of the following set is proved, and conditions for the equality of the Hausdorff, packing, and box dimensions of this set, are discovered: $$R_I(Q)=\left\{x: x=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\dots q_k}}, \varepsilon_k\in I_k\subseteq \Theta_k\right\}.$$ Here the condition $$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\frac{\log{q_k}}{\log{q_1q_2\dots q_k}}}=0$$ holds.
Also, we can note several investigations of functions. The arguments or values of these functions are defined by positive [@Cantor1] or alternating [@Serbenyuk2017] Cantor series. In [@Liu; @Wen2001], properties of the following function were investigated: $$u=f(x)=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{u_k}{k(k+1)}},$$ where $u_1=1$ and for $k=1,2,\dots$ $$u_{k+1}=\begin{cases}
-\frac{u_k}{k},&\text{if $\varepsilon_{k+1}=0$ but $\varepsilon_k\ne 0$,}\\
&\text{or if $\varepsilon_{k+1}=q_{k+1}-1$ but $\varepsilon_k\ne q_k-1$;}\\
u_k,&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Here $x$ represented by series . This function is well-defined and continuous. Also, $u=f(x)$ is nowhere differentiable when $q_k\ge 3$ for all $k=1,2,\dots ,$ and the condition $$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\frac{q_1q_2\dots q_k}{k!}}=\infty$$ holds. The last-mentioned function is a function with a complicated local structure. Certain examples of functions with a complicated local structure are described in [@S.; @Serbenyuk; @preprint2; @Symon2015; @Symon2017]. In the paper , the following function are studied: $$\psi_{P,Q}(x)=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\min(E_k,q_k-1)}{q_1q_2\dots q_k}},$$ where $$x=E_0+\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{E_k}{p_1p_2\dots p_k}},~
\varepsilon_0+\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\dots q_k}}.$$ Here $E_0, \varepsilon_0\in\mathbb Z$, $Q\equiv(q_k)$ and $P\equiv(p_k)$ are sequences of positive integers, that greater than $1$. Also, $E_k\ne p_k-1$ and $\varepsilon_k\ne q_k-1$ infinitely often, $E_k\in \{0,1,\dots, p_k-1\}$ and $\varepsilon_k\in \Theta_k$.
In the present article, the main attention is given to necessary and sufficient conditions for $x$ (represented by Cantor series with an arbitrary basic sequence $(q_k)$) to be rational.
In the present article, we use the following notations: $\mathbb N$, $\mathbb Z_0$, $\mathbb Z$, $\mathbb Q$, and $\mathbb I$. Here by $\mathbb N$ denote the set of all positive integers and by $\mathbb Z_0$ denote the set $\mathbb N\cup \{0\}$, $\mathbb Z$ is the set of all integers, and $\mathbb Q$ is the set of all rational numbers, and $\mathbb I$ is the set of all irrational numbers.
Representations of rational numbers
===================================
The problem on expansions of rational or irrational numbers by Cantor series have been studied by a number of researchers. For example, G. Cantor, P. A. Diananda, A. Oppenheim, P. Erdös, J. Hančl, E. G. Straus, P. Rucki, R. Tijdeman, P. Kuhapatanakul, V. Laohakosol, B. Mance, D. Marques, Pingzhi Yuan studied this problem.
In the paper [@Cantor1], necessary and sufficient conditions for a rational number to be representable by series are formulated by G. Cantor for the case when $(q_k)$ is a periodic sequence.
Much research has been devoted to necessary or/and sufficient conditions for a rational number to be representable by Cantor series such that sequences $(q_k)$ and $(\varepsilon_k)$ are sequences of integers. In some papers (see ), the case of Cantor series for which sequences $(q_k)$ and $(\varepsilon_k)$ are sequences of integers and the condition $\mathbb Z \ni q_k>1$ holds for all $k\in \mathbb N$, is investigated. However the main problem of the present article is studied for the case of series (e.g., see ) and still for the case of Cantor series of special type (e.g., see ). For example, in the papers , Ahmes series are considered. The last series is Cantor series for which $\varepsilon_k=const=1$ holds for all $k\in \mathbb N$.
In the papers , necessary and sufficient conditions for a rational (irrational) number to be representable by a Cantor series are studied, and sufficient conditions are investigated in the papers . Although much research has been devoted to the problem on representations of rational (irrational) numbers by Cantor series for which sequences $(q_k)$ and $(\varepsilon_k)$ are sequences of special types (see ), little is known about necessary and sufficient conditions of the rationality (irrationality) for the case of an arbitrary sequence $(q_k)$ (see ).
In [@Diananda_Oppenheim1955], the following statement was formulated by P. H. Diananda and A. Oppenheim.
\[th: Diananda Oppenheim\] A necessary and sufficient condition that $x$ given by shall be rational is this: coprime integers $h, k$, $0\le h\le k$, an integer $N$ and a condensation shall exist such that $$A_i=\frac{h}{k}(B_i-1)$$ for all $i\ge N$.
Here $$x=X=A_0+\frac{A_1}{B_1}+\frac{A_2}{B_1B_2}+\dots+\frac{A_n}{B_1B_2\cdots B_n}+\dots,$$ where $A_0=\varepsilon_0$ is the integer part of $x$, $$B_1=q_1q_2\cdots q_{i_1}, B_2=q_{i_1+1}q_{i_2+1}\cdots q_{i_1+i_2},\dots ,$$ and $B_i\ge 2$, $0\le A_i \le B_i-1$, $$\frac{\varepsilon_1}{q_1}+\frac{\varepsilon_2}{q_1q_2}+\dots+\frac{\varepsilon_{i_1}}{q_1q_2\cdots q_{i_1}}=\frac{A_1}{B_1}.$$
In [@Diananda_Oppenheim1955], the interest of Theorem \[th: Diananda Oppenheim\] is indicated since this statement includes conditions of the rationality given by Cantor for the following two cases in [@Cantor1]:
- when a sequence $(q_k)$ is a sequence such that for any $r\in \mathbb Z$ the condition $q_1q_2\cdots q_k ~\vdots ~r$ holds for all large $k$;
- when a sequence $(q_k)$ is periodic.
In the second case, $x$ is a rational number if and only if $(q_k)$ is ultimately periodic. The last statement was completely proved by Cantor in [@Cantor1].
In 2006, J. Sondow gave a geometric proof of the irrationality of the number $e$ [@Sondow2006]. In [@Marques2009], the following statement was proved by a generalization to Sondow’s construction.
Let $x=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_n}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}$. Suppose that each prime divides infinitely many of the $q_k$. Then $x\in\mathbb I$ if and only if both $0<\varepsilon_k<q_k-1$ hold infinitely often.
It is easy to see that there exist sequences $(q_k)$ and $(\varepsilon_k)$ such that a finite expansion is a necessary or/and sufficient condition of the rationality of any number represented by a Cantor series. Several papers were devoted to these investigations. For example, see .
The main results of the paper [@Hancl2002] are the following statements.
Let $(q_k)$ be a sequence of positive integers greater than one. Suppose that $(\varepsilon_k)$ is a sequence of integers such that $$\lim\inf_{k\to\infty}{\frac{|\varepsilon_k|+1}{q_k}}=0$$ and for every sufficiently large positive integer $k$ $$|\varepsilon_{k+1}|\le \frac{1}{2}\max{(|\varepsilon_k|,1)}q_{k+1}.$$ Then $\sum^{\infty} _{n=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in\mathbb Q$ if and only if $\varepsilon_k=0$ for every sufficiently large positive integer $k$.
Let $(q_k)$ be a sequence of positive integers greater than one, and $K\in(0,1)$. Suppose that $(\varepsilon_k)$ is a sequence of non-negative integers such that $$\lim\inf_{n\to\infty}{\frac{\varepsilon_k+1}{q_k}}=0$$ and for every sufficiently large positive integer $k$ $$\varepsilon_{k+1}\le K\max{(\varepsilon_k,1)}q_{k+1}.$$ Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in\mathbb Q$ if and only if $\varepsilon_k=0$ for every sufficiently large positive integer $k$.
Let us consider several results on the cases when the condition $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ (the last equality holds for all $k$ greater than some fixed $k_0$) is a necessary and/or sufficient condition for a rational number to be representable by a Cantor series. See .
In [@Hancl_Tijdeman2004], J. Hančl and R. Tijdeman formulated conditions of the irrationality of a number represented by Cantor series when sequences $(q_k)$ and $(\varepsilon_k)$ are sequences of positive integers and $q_k>1$ for all $k\in \mathbb N$. They used a notion of the following sum in the last-mentioned article: $$S_N=\sum^{\infty} _{k=N}{\frac{\varepsilon_n}{q_N\cdots q_k}}.$$ Note that, in [@Hancl_Tijdeman2004], the authors noted that sum is equal to a rational number if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ holds for all $k$ greater than some number $n_0$. This article is partially devoted to conditions under which the condition $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ is a necessary and sufficient condition of the rationality of a number represented by expansion . In particular, the following cases are considered: $\lim\inf_{k\to\infty}\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}-\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k}\right)=0$, $\varepsilon_k=o(q_{k-1}q_k)$, $\varepsilon_{k+1}-\varepsilon_k=o(q_{k-1}q_k)$. We note the following results.
If $S=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\ldots q_k}}=\frac{r}{p}$ holds for a certain $r\in \mathbb Z$ and $p\in\mathbb N$, then $pS_N\in\mathbb Z$ for all $N\in\mathbb N$.
If $(S_k)$ is bounded from below and for every $\varepsilon>0$ we have $S_{k+1}-S_k<\varepsilon$ for $k\ge k_0(\varepsilon)$, then $S=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for $N>N_0$.
If $(\varepsilon_k)$ is a sequence of positive integers such that $\varepsilon_{k+1}-\varepsilon_k=o(k)$, then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{k!}}\in\mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{k-1}=const$ for $k$ greater than some $k_1$.
Let $(q_k)$ be a monotonic sequence of positive integers satisfying $\varepsilon_k=o(q^2 _k)$. Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for $k\ge k_0$.
Let $(q_k)$ and $(\varepsilon_k)$ be sequences of integers such that $q_k>1$ for all $k\in \mathbb N$.
If $\left(\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k}\right)$ is bounded from below, $\lim_{k\to \infty}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_{k-1}q_k}}=0$, and for each $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $k_0(\varepsilon)$ such that the condition $\frac{\varepsilon_{k+1}}{q_{k+1}}<\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k}+\varepsilon$ holds for $k>k_0(\varepsilon)$, then тоді $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for $k\ge N_0$.
Let $(q_k)$ be a monotonic sequence of positive integers satisfying $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\frac{q_k}{\log k}}=\infty$. Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for $k\ge k_0$.
Let $(q_k)$ be an unbounded monotonic sequence of positive integers. Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{k}{q_k-1}=const$ for $k\ge k_0$.
Results obtained in [@Hancl_Tijdeman2004] were generalized and corrected by Robert Tijdeman and Pingzhi Yuan in the paper [@Tijdeman_Pingzhi2002]. In particular, results is generalized for the cases when $\varepsilon_k=k$ and $q_k\to\infty$, $q_k=k$ and $\varepsilon_{k+1}-\varepsilon_k=O(k)$. In the last-mentioned article, it is shown that, in order that the condition $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for all $k\ge k_0$ be a necessary and sufficient condition of the rationality, one can neglect the condition $\varepsilon_k=o(q^2 _k)$ in the system of conditions: $\varepsilon_k=o(q^2 _k)$ , $\varepsilon_k \ge 0$, $\varepsilon_{k+1}-\varepsilon_k<\varepsilon q_k$ for $k\ge k_1(\varepsilon)$. We note the following statements.
Let $(q_n)$ be a monotonic integer sequence with $q_n>1$ for all $n$ and $(\varepsilon_n)$ be an integer sequence such that $\varepsilon_{n+1}-\varepsilon_n=o(q_{n+1})$. Then $\sum^{\infty} _{n=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_n}{q_1q_2\cdots q_n}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_n}{q_n-1}=const$ for all $n$ greater than some $ n_0$.
Let $(q_k)$ be a monotonic sequence of positive integers, $q_k>1$. Let $(\varepsilon_k)$ be a sequence of positive integers satisfying $$\lim\sup_{k\to\infty}{\frac{\varepsilon_{k+1}-\varepsilon_k}{q_k}}\le 0.$$ Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\ldots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for all $k$ greater than some $k_0$.
In this paper, other statements about conditions under which $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in \mathbb Q$ if and only if $\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k-1}=const$ for all $k$ greater than some $k_0$ are formulated. In addition, the following sufficient condition of the irrationality is proved.
Suppose that $q_k>1$ for all $k$, that $\varepsilon_k=O(q_k)$ and that $\lim_{k\to\infty}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_k}}=\alpha \in\mathbb I$. Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in\mathbb I$.
The last statement with the condition $0\le \varepsilon_k<q_k$ without $\varepsilon_k=O(q_k)$ was proved in [@Oppenheim1954].
In [@Tijdeman_Pingzhi2002], the following denotations are used in proofs: $$S=\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon^{*} _{k}}{q^{*} _1q^{*} _2\cdots q^{*} _k}},~ S_{n_k}=\sum^{k} _{j=1}{\frac{\varepsilon^{*} _j}{q^{*} _1q^{*} _2\cdots q^{*} _j}}, ~ R_{n_k}=\sum^{\infty} _{j=k+1}{\frac{\varepsilon^{*} _j}{q^{*} _{k+1}q^{*} _{k+2}\cdots q^{*} _j}}.$$ Here $(n_k)$ is a subsequence of positive integers, $n_0=1$, $$\varepsilon^{*} _k=\varepsilon_{n_k-1}+\varepsilon_{n_k-2}q_{n_k-1}+\dots+\varepsilon_{n_{k-1}}q_{n_k-1}q_{n_k-2}\cdots q_{n_{k-1}+1},$$ and $q^{*} _k=q_{n_k-1}q_{n_k-2}\cdots q_{n_{k-1}}$, $k=1,2,3,\dots$.
For series , where $(d_n)$ and $(\varepsilon_n)$ are sequences of integers such that $q_n>0$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$ and series converges, the following statements are true.
If there exists a subsequence $(n_k)$ of positive integers such that $R_{n_k}=R_{n_{k+1}}$ for $k=1,2,\dots$, then $S\in\mathbb Q$.
If $(R_n)$ is bounded from below and there exists a subsequence $(n_k)$ of positive integers with $R_{n_{k+1}}-R_{n_k}<\varepsilon$ for $k\ge k_0(\varepsilon)$, then $S\in\mathbb Q$ if and only if $R_{n_k}=R_{n_{k+1}}$ for all large $k$.
In [@Oppenheim1954], A. Oppenheim studied sufficient conditions of the irrationality of numbers represented by Cantor series and, also, alternating series such that $|\varepsilon_i|<q_i-1$ for $i=1,2,3,\dots$, and $\varepsilon_m\varepsilon_n<0$ for some $m>i$ and $n>i$ when $i$ is any fixed integer.
Let us note that an expansion of numbers by the following alternating Cantor series $$\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{(-1)^k\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}, ~\varepsilon_k\in\{0,1,\dots, q_k-1\}, ~1<q_k\in \mathbb N,$$ was investigated as a numeral system in the paper [@Serbenyuk2017]. Necessary and sufficient conditions of the rationality of numbers represented by the last series are formulated in the last-mentioned article. These results will be considered in the present article article.
The technique of proving conditions of the rationality of numbers, considered in can be used for investigation of the general case when the last series is a sign-variable series. These investigations will be discussed by the author of the present article in a further paper.
Also, in [@Oppenheim1954], the main results obtained by using some results from [@Cantor1] and sums of the form $$x_{i_k}=\frac{\varepsilon_{i_k}}{q_{i_k}}+\frac{\varepsilon_{i_k+1}}{q_{i_k}q_{i_k+1}}+\frac{\varepsilon_{i_k+2}}{q_{i_k}q_{i_k+1}q_{i_k+2}}+\dots ,$$ where $(i_k)$ is some subsequence of positive integers, and by investigation of the limit of $c_{i_k}=\frac{\varepsilon_{i_k}}{q_{i_k}}$ as $k\to\infty$.
[ [@Oppenheim1954]]{} A necessary and sufficient condition that $x$ given by convergent series , where $q_k$ and $\varepsilon_k$ are integers, shall be irrational is that for every integer $p\in\mathbb N$ we can find an integer $r\in\mathbb Z$ and a subsequence $(i_k)$ such that $$\frac{r}{p}<x_{i_k}<\frac{r+1}{p},~k=1,2,3,\dots .$$
Necessary and sufficient conditions for a rational number to be representable by a Cantor series of a special form are investigated by P. Erdös and E. G. Straus in [@Erdos_Straus1974].
Let $(\varepsilon_n)$ be a sequence of integers and $(q_k)$ be a sequence of positive integers with $q_k>1$ for all large $k$ and $$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\frac{|\varepsilon_k|}{q_{k-1}q_k}}=0.$$ Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in\mathbb Q$ if and only if there exist a positive integer $B$ and a sequence of integers $(c_k)$ such that for all large $k$ we have $$B\varepsilon_k=c_kq_k-c_{k+1}, ~|c_{k+1}|<\frac{q_k}{2}.$$
Let $p_k$ be the $k$th prime and let $(q_k)$ be a monotonic sequence of positive integers satisfying $$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\frac{p_k}{q^2 _k}}=0, ~\lim\inf_{k\to\infty}{\frac{q_k}{p_k}}=0.$$ Then $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{p_k}{q_1q_2\cdots q_k}}\in\mathbb I$.
Note also that, in , Bill Mance considered conditions of the irrationality of numbers, that have a property of a certain type of the normality and represented by Cantor series for which $\varepsilon_k\ne q_k-1$ infinitely often. For example, the following result is interesting.
A number $x\in [0,1)$ is called *Q-distribution normal* if the sequence $$X=(x \pmod{1}, q_1x \pmod{1}, q_1q_2x \pmod{1}, q_1q_2\cdots q_kx \pmod{1}, \dots )$$ is uniformly distributed in $[0,1)$.
A number $x\in[0,1)$ is irrational if and only if there exists a basic sequence $Q=(q_k)$ such that $x$ is Q-distribution normal.
Now we show certain general results (for the case of an arbitrary sequence $(q_k)$, where $1<q_k\in\mathbb N$) on representation of rational numbers by alternating and positive Cantor series.
Let us consider an alternationg Cantor series of the form $$\label{eq: alternating Cantor series}
-\frac{\varepsilon_1}{q_1}+\frac{\varepsilon_2}{q_1q_2}-\frac{\varepsilon_3}{q_1q_2q_3}+\dots+\frac{(-1)^n\varepsilon_n}{q_1q_2q_3\cdots q_n}+\dots ,$$ where $\varepsilon_n\in\Theta_n$ and $Q=(q_n)$ is a fixed sequence of positive integers, $q_n\ge 1$.
By $\Delta^{-Q} _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_n\ldots}$ denote any number $x$ having expansion .
A rational number $x=\frac{p}{r}$ from $[-1+a_0,a_0]$ has a finite expansion by series if and only if there exists a number $n_0$ such that $q_1q_2\cdots q_{n_0} \equiv 0 \pmod{r}$.
There exist sequences $(q_n)$ such that every rational number has the finite expansion by series . Consider the following examples: $$\sum^{\infty} _{n=1} {\frac{(-1)^n\varepsilon_n}{2\cdot 3\cdot \ldots \cdot (n+1)}}, ~\sum^{\infty} _{n=1} {\frac{(-1)^n\varepsilon_n}{2\cdot 4\cdot \ldots \cdot 2n}}.$$
Let $\mathcal F^{-Q} _{[-1+a_0,a_0]}$ be the set of all expansions of real numbers from $[-1+~a_0,a_0]$ by series .
Define [*the shift operator $\hat \varphi$ of expansion* ]{} on $\mathcal F^{-Q} _{[-1+a_0,a_0]}$ by the rule $$\hat \varphi \left(\sum^{\infty} _{n=1} {\frac{(-1)^n \varepsilon_n}{q_1q_2\cdots q_n}}\right)= \sum^{\infty} _{n=2} {\frac{(-1)^{n-1}\varepsilon_{n}}{q_2q_3\cdots q_{n}}}.$$ In other words, $$\hat \varphi(\Delta^{-Q} _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_n\ldots})=\Delta^{-Q_1} _{\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3\ldots\varepsilon_n\ldots}=-q_1\Delta^{-Q} _{0\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_n\ldots}.$$ This operator generates some function $\hat \varphi$ such that $$\hat \varphi: [-1+a_0,a_0]\to [-a_0q_1,1-a_0q_1].$$
By definition, put $$\hat \varphi^k \left(\sum^{\infty} _{n=1} {\frac{(-1)^n \varepsilon_n}{q_1q_2\cdots q_n}}\right)= \sum^{\infty} _{n=k+1} {\frac{(-1)^{n-k}\varepsilon_{n}}{q_{k+1}\cdots q_{n}}},$$ $$\hat \varphi^k(\Delta^{-Q} _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\varepsilon_3\ldots \varepsilon_n\ldots})=\Delta^{-Q_k} _{\varepsilon_{k+1}\varepsilon_{k+2}\ldots}=(-1)^kq_1q_2\cdots q_k\Delta^{-Q} _{\underbrace{0\ldots 0}_{k}\varepsilon_{k+1}\varepsilon_{k+2}\ldots}.$$ The following statements are equivalent.
A number $x_0 \in [-1+a_0,a_0]$ is a rational number if and only if there exist $k \in \mathbb Z_0$ and $t \in \mathbb N$ such that $$\hat \varphi^{k}(x)=\hat \varphi^{t}(x).$$
A number $x_0 \in [-1+a_0,a_0]$ is a rational number if and only if there exist $k \in \mathbb Z_0$ and $t \in \mathbb N$ $(k<t)$ such that $$\Delta^{-Q} _{\underbrace{0\ldots 0}_{k}\varepsilon_{k+1}\varepsilon_{k+2}\varepsilon_{k+3}\ldots}={(-1)^{t-k}q_{k+1}q_{k+2}\cdots q_t}\Delta^{-Q} _{\underbrace{0\ldots 0}_{t}\varepsilon_{t+1}\varepsilon_{t+2}\varepsilon_{t+3}\ldots}.$$
A number $x$ is a rational number if and only if the sequence $(\hat \varphi^{k}(x))$, where $k=0,1,2, \dots$, contains at least two identical terms.
Let us consider some results that are described in the papers (the paper published into Ukrainian but the main results of the last-mentioned paper were published into English as the preprint [@S13]).
We begin with definitions.
Define *the shift operator $\sigma$ of expansion* by the rule $$\sigma(x)=\sigma\left(\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_k\ldots}\right)=\sum^{\infty} _{k=2}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_2q_3\dots q_k}}=q_1\Delta^{Q} _{0\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_k\ldots}.$$
It is easy to see that $$\label{eq: Cantor series 2}
\begin{split}
\sigma^n(x) &=\sigma^n\left(\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots\varepsilon_k\ldots}\right)\\
& =\sum^{\infty} _{k=n+1}{\frac{\varepsilon_k}{q_{n+1}q_{n+2}\dots q_k}}=q_1\dots q_n\Delta^{Q} _{\underbrace{0\ldots 0}_{n}\varepsilon_{n+1}\varepsilon_{n+2}\ldots}.
\end{split}$$
Therefore, $$\label{eq: Cantor series 3}
x=\sum^{n} _{i=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_i}{q_1q_2\dots q_i}}+\frac{1}{q_1q_2\dots q_n}\sigma^n(x).$$
Note that, in the paper [@Serbenyuk2017], the notion of the shift operator of an alternating Cantor series is studied in detail.
Now we describe simple necessary and sufficient conditions for any rational number to be representable by a positive Cantor series.
\[th: the main theorem\]\[\] A number $x$ represented by series is rational if and only if there exist numbers $n\in\mathbb Z_0$ and $m\in\mathbb N$ such that the condition $$\sigma^n(x)=\sigma^{n+m}(x)$$ holds.
\[th: the main theorem 2\] A number $x=\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2\ldots \varepsilon_k\ldots }$ is rational if and only if there exist numbers $n\in\mathbb Z_0$ and $m\in\mathbb N$ such that $$\Delta^{Q} _{\underbrace{0\ldots 0}_{n}\varepsilon_{n+1}\varepsilon_{n+2}\ldots }=q_{n+1}\dots q_{n+m}\Delta^{Q} _{\underbrace{0\ldots 0}_{n+m}\varepsilon_{n+m+1}\varepsilon_{n+m+2}\ldots }.$$
For example, the sum $$\frac{1}{3}+\frac{2}{3\cdot 5}+\frac{3}{3\cdot 5\cdot 7}+\dots +\frac{n}{3\cdot 5\cdot \ldots \cdot (2n+1)}+\dots =x$$ is a rational number. In addition, here $x=\sigma^n(x)=\frac{1}{2}$, where $n=~0,1,2, \dots$.
If a number $x$ represented by Cantor series is a rational number $(x=\frac{u}{v})$, then there exist $n\in\mathbb Z_0$ and $m\in\mathbb N$ such that $$q_1q_2\dots q_n(q_{n+1}q_{n+2}\dots q_{n+m}-1)\equiv 0\pmod{v}.$$
Note that there exist a certain relation between digits in the representation of a rational number by Cantor series. This relation is described in the next statement.
A number $x=\Delta^Q _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2...\varepsilon_n...} \in (0,1)$ is a rational number $\frac{p}{r}$, where $p,r\in\mathbb N, (p,r)=1$, and $p<r$, if and only if the condition $$\varepsilon_n=\left[\frac{q_n(\Delta_{n-1}-r\varepsilon_{n-1})}{r}\right]$$ holds for all $1<n\in\mathbb N$, where $\Delta_1=pq_1$, $\varepsilon_1=\left[\frac{\Delta_1}{r}\right]$, and $[a]$ is the integer part of $a$.
In [@Rational; @numbers; @2018], the following examples are considered: $$\frac{1}{4}=\Delta^{(2n+1)} _{035229[11]4...},~~~
\frac{3}{8}=\Delta^{(2n+1)} _{104341967...},$$ where $$x=\Delta^{(2n+1)} _{\varepsilon_1\varepsilon_2...\varepsilon_n...}=\sum^{\infty} _{n=1}{\frac{\varepsilon_n}{3\cdot 5\cdot 7 \cdot \ldots \cdot (2n+1)}}.$$
Finally, several papers (see ) were devoted to investigations of conditions of the rationality or irrationality of numbers represented by series of the form $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{a_k}{b_k}}$. Furthermore, in [@Kuhapatanakul_Laohakosol2001], a necessary and sufficient condition of the rationality of the sum $\sum^{\infty} _{k=1}{\frac{a_k(-1)^{k+1}}{b_k}}$ is proved for the case of certain properties, that sequences $(a_k)$ and $(b_k)$ satisfy.
[9]{}
Achilles A. Beros and Kostantinos A. Beros, Normal numbers and limit computable Cantor series, available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2178v1.pdf
G. Cantor, Ueber die einfachen Zahlensysteme, *Z. Math. Phys.* [**14**]{} (1869), 121–128.
P. H. Diananda and A. Oppenheim, Criteria for irrationality of certain classes of numbers II, *Amer. Math. Monthly* **62** (1955), no. 4, 222–225.
P. Erdös and A. Rényi, Some further statistical properties of the digits in Cantor’s series, *Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.* **10** (1959), 21–29.
P. Erdös and A. Rényi, On Cantor’s series with convergent $\sum{\frac{1}{q_n}}$, *Ann. Univ. Sci. Budapest Eötvös Sect. Math.* **2** (1959), 93–109.
P. Erdös and Straus E. G., On the irrationality of certain Ahmes series, *J. Indian. Math. Soc.* **27** (1968), 129–133.
P. Erdös and Straus E. G., On the irrationality of certain series, *Pacific J. Math.* **55** (1974), no. 1, 85–92.
J. Galambos, *Representations of real numbers by infinite series*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics. 502, Springer, 1976.
J. Galambos, Uniformly distributed sequences $\mod 1$ and Cantor’s series representation, *Czehoslovak Math. J.* **26** (1976), no. 4, 636–641.
J. Hančl, A note to the rationality of infinite series I, *Acta Math. Inf. Univ. Ostr.* **5** (1997), no. 1, 5–11.
J. Hančl, A note on a paper of Oppenheim and Šalát concerning series of Cantor type, *Acta Math. Inf. Univ. Ostr.* **10** (2002), no. 1, 35–41.
J. Hančl and P. Rucki, A note to the transcendence of special infinite series, *Mathematica Slovaka* **56** (2006), no. 4, 409–414.
J. Hančl and R. Tijdeman, On the irrationality of Cantor series, *J. Reine Angew. Math.* **571** (2004), 145–158.
J. Hančl and R. Tijdeman, On the irrationality of Cantor and Ahmes series, *Publ. Math. Debrecen* **65** (2004), no. 3–4, . 371–380.
J. Hančl and R. Tijdeman, On the irrationality of factorial series, *Acta Arith.* **118** (2005), 383–401.
J. Hančl and R. Tijdeman, On the irrationality of factorial series III, *Indag. Mathem., N. S.* **20** (2009), no. 4, 537–549.
J. Hančl and R. Tijdeman, On the irrationality of factorial series II, *J. Number Theory* **130** (2010), no. 3, 595–607.
R. Hofer, F. Pillichshammer, and G. Pirsic, Distribution properties of sequences generated by Q-additive functions with respect to Cantor representations of integers, *Acta Arith.* **138** (2009), no. 2, 179–200.
G. Iommi and B. Skorulski, Hausdorff dimension of Cantor series, available at http://www.mat.uc.cl/$\sim$giommi/newcantorseries091118-3.pdf
P. Kirschenhofer and R. F. Tichy, On the distribution of digits in Cantor representations of integers, *J. Number Theory* **18** (1984), 121–134.
T. Komatsu, V. Laohakosol, S. Prugsapitak, and J. Rattanamoong, Independence of complex Cantor series and Cantor products, available at http://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/$\sim$kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1898-05.pdf
P. Kuhapatanakul and V. Laohakosol, Irrationality of some series with rational terms, *Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.)* **35** (2001), 205–209.
B. Mance and B. Li, Number theoretic applications of a class of Cantor series fractal functions, II, *Int. J. Number Theory* **11** (2015), no. 2, 407–435.
B. Mance, *Normal numbers with respect to the Cantor series expansion*, Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2010.
B. Mance, Cantor series constructions of sets of normal numbers, available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.2782v2.pdf
B. Mance, On the Hausdorff dimension of countable intersections of certain sets of normal numbers, available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.7064v2.pdf
B. Mance, Number theoretic applications of a class of Cantor series fractal functions, I, available at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2377v2.pdf
D. Marques, A geometric proof to Cantor’s theorem and an irrationality measure for some Cantor’s series, *Annales Mathematicae et Informaticae* **36** (2009), 117–121.
A. Oppenheim, Criteria for irrationality of certain classes of numbers, *Amer. Math. Monthly* **61** (1954), no. 4, 235–241.
M. Paštéka, The Cantor series of polyadic numbers, *Acta Math Inf. Univ. Ostr.* **4** (1996), no. 1, 75–82.
A. Rényi, On a new axiomatic theory of probability, *Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.* **6** (1955), 285–335.
A. Rényi, On the distribution of the digits in Cantor’s series, *(Hungarian) Mat. Lapok* **7** (1956), 77–100.
A. Rényi, Representations for real numbers and their ergodic properties, *Acta. Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar.* **8** (1957), 477–493.
A. Rényi, Probabilistic methods in number theory, *Shuxue Jinzhan*, **4** (1958), 465–510.
S. O. Serbenyuk, Functions, that defined by functional equations systems in terms of Cantor series representation of numbers, [*Naukovi Zapysky NaUKMA*]{} [**165**]{} (2015), 34–40, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292606546 (in Ukrainian)
S. Serbenyuk. Nega-$\tilde Q$-representation as a generalization of certain alternating representations of real numbers, *Bull. Taras Shevchenko Natl. Univ. Kyiv Math. Mech.* 1 (35) (2016), 32-39, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308273000 (in Ukrainian)
Symon Serbenyuk. Representation of real numbers by the alternating Cantor series, *Integers* [**17**]{}(2017), Paper No. A15, 27 pp.
S. O. Serbenyuk, Continuous Functions with Complicated Local Structure Defined in Terms of Alternating Cantor Series Representation of Numbers, [*Zh. Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom.*]{} [**13**]{} (2017), no. 1, 57–81.
S. Serbenyuk. Rational numbers in terms of positive Cantor series, *Bull. Taras Shevchenko Natl. Univ. Kyiv Math. Mech.* (38) (2017), no. 2, 11-15 (in Ukrainian)
Non-differentiable functions defined in terms of classical representations of real numbers, [*Zh. Mat. Fiz. Anal. Geom.*]{} [**14**]{} (2018), no. 2, 197–213.
S. Serbenyuk. Cantor series and rational numbers, available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1702.00471.pdf
S. Serbenyuk. Generalizations of certain representations of real numbers, available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.10540.pdf
S. Serbenyuk. Modeling rational numbers by Cantor series, arXiv:1904.07264.
J. Sondow, A geometric proof that $e$ is irrational and a new measure of its irrationality, *Amer. Math. Monthly* **113** (2006), 637–641.
Robert Tijdeman and Pingzhi Yuan, On the rationality of Cantor and Ahmes series, *Indag. Math. (N.S.)* **13** (2002), no. 3, 407–418.
P. Turán, On the distribution of “digits" in Cantor systems, *Mat. Lapok* **7** (1956), 71–76.
Yi Wang, Zhixiong Wen, and Lifeng Xi, Some fractals associated with Cantor expansions, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **354** (2009), 445–450.
M. S. Waterman, Cantor’s series for vectors, *Amer. Math. Monthly* **82** (1975), no. 6, 622–625.
H. Wegmann, Die Hausdorffsche Dimension von Mengen reeller Zahlen, die durch Zifferneigenschaften einer Cantorentwicklung charakterisiert sind, *Czechoslovak Math. J.* **18** (1968), no. 4, 622–632.
Liu Wen, A nowhere differentiable continuous function constructed using Cantor series, *Math. Magazine* **74** (2001), December, no. 5, 400–402.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper proposes a representational model for image pair such as consecutive video frames that are related by local pixel displacements, in the hope that the model may shed light on motion perception in primary visual cortex (V1). The model couples the following two components. (1) The vector representations of local contents of images. (2) The matrix representations of local pixel displacements caused by the relative motions between the agent and the objects in the 3D scene. When the image frame undergoes changes due to local pixel displacements, the vectors are multiplied by the matrices that represent the local displacements. Our experiments show that our model can learn to infer local motions. Moreover, the model can learn Gabor-like filter pairs of quadrature phases.'
author:
- |
Ruiqi Gao\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
Jianwen Xie\
Hikvision Research Institute\
`[email protected]`\
Siyuan Huang\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
Yufan Ren\
Zhejiang University\
`[email protected]`\
Song-Chun Zhu\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
Ying Nian Wu\
UCLA\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'v1.bib'
title: 'Learning vector representation of local content and matrix representation of local motion, with implications for V1'
---
Introduction {#sect:1}
============
Our understanding of the primary visual cortex or V1 [@hubel1959receptive] is still very limited [@olshausen2005close]. In particular, the mathematical and representational models for V1 are still in short supply. Two prominent examples of such models are sparse coding [@olshausen1997sparse] and independent component analysis (ICA) [@bell1997independent]. Although such models do not provide detailed explanations of V1 at the level of neuronal dynamics, they help us understand the computational problems being solved by V1.
[R]{}[0.22]{} {height="\linewidth"}
In this article, we propose a model of this sort. It is a representational model of natural image pair that are related by local pixel displacements. The image pair can be consecutive frames of a video sequence, where the local pixel displacements are caused by the relative motions between the agent and the objects in the 3D environment. Perceiving such local motions can be crucial for inferring ego-motion, object motions, and 3D depth information.
As is the case with existing models, we expect our model to explain only limited aspects of V1, some of which are: (1) The receptive fields of V1 simple cells resemble Gabor filters [@daugman1985uncertainty]. (2) Adjacent simple cells have quadrature phase relationship [@pollen1981phase]. (3) The V1 cells are capable of perceiving local motions. While existing models can all explain (1), our model can also account for (2) and (3) naturally. Compared to models such as sparse coding and ICA, our model serves a more direct purpose of perceiving local motions.
Our model consists of the following two components. See Figure \[fig:diag\] for an illustration, where the image is illustrated by the big rectangle. A pixel is illustrated by a dot. The local image content is illustrated by a small square around it. The displacement of the pixel is illustrated by a short arrow, which is within the small square. The vector representation of the local image content is represented by a long vector, which rotates as the image undergoes deformation due to the pixel displacements. Section \[sect:3\] explains the notation.
\(1) Vector representation of local image content. The local content around each pixel is represented by a high dimensional vector. Each unit in the vector is obtained by a linear filter. These local filters or wavelets are assumed to form a normalized tight frame, i.e., the image can be reconstructed from the vectors using the linear filters as the basis functions.
\(2) Matrix representation of local displacement. The change of the image from the current time frame to the next time frame is caused by the displacements of the pixels. Each possible displacement is represented by a matrix that acts on the vector. When the image changes according to the displacements, the vector at each pixel is multiplied by the matrix that represents the local displacement, in other words, the vector at each pixel is rotated by the matrix representation of the displacement of this pixel.
One motivation of our work comes from Fourier analysis. An image patch $\I$ can be expressed by the Fourier decomposition $\I = \sum_k c_k e^{i\langle \omega_k, x\rangle}$. Assuming the image patch undergoes a smooth motion so that all the pixels are shifted by a constant displacement $dx$, the shifted image patch $\J(x) = \I(x - dx) = \sum_k c_k e^{-i\langle \omega_k, dx\rangle} e^{i\langle \omega_k, x\rangle}$. The change from the complex number $c_k$ to $c_k e^{-i\langle \omega_k, dx\rangle}$ corresponds to rotating a 2D vector by a $2 \times 2$ matrix. However, we emphasize that our model does not assume Fourier basis or its localized version such as Gabor filters. The model figures it out with generic vector and matrix representations.
We train this representational model on image pairs where in each pair, the second image is a deformed version of the first image, and the deformation is known. We learn the encoding matrices for vector representation and the matrices that represent the pixel displacements from the training data.
Our experiments show that our method can learn V1-like units that can be well approximated by Gabor filters with quadrature phase relationship. After learning the encoding matrices for vector representation and the matrix representations of the displacements, we can infer the displacement field using the learned model. Compared to current optical flow estimation methods [@DFIB15; @IMKDB17], which use complex deep neural networks to predict the optical flow, our model is much simpler and is based on explicit vector and matrix representations. We also demonstrate comparable results to these methods, in terms of the inference of displacement field.
In terms of biological interpretation, the vectors can be interpreted as activities of groups of neurons, and the matrices can be interpreted as synaptic connections. See subsections \[sect:b\] and \[sect:s\] for details.
Contributions and related work
==============================
This paper proposes a simple representational model that couples the vector representations of local image contents and matrix representations of local pixel displacements. The model is new and different from existing models for V1. It explains some aspects of V1 simple cells such as Gabor-like receptive fields and quadrature phase relationship. It adds to our understanding of V1 motion perception in terms of a representational and relational model. The following are two themes of related work.
\(1) V1 models. Most well known models for V1 are concerned with statistical properties of natural images or video sequences. Examples include sparse coding model [@olshausen1997sparse; @lewicki1999probabilistic; @olshausen2003learning], independent component analysis (ICA) [@hyvarinen2004independent; @bell1997independent; @van1998independent], slowness criterion [@hyvarinen2003bubbles; @wiskott2002slow], and prediction [@singer2018sensory]. While these models are very compelling, they do not serve a direct purpose of perceptual inference. Our model is learned for the direct purpose of perceiving local motions caused by relative motion between the agent and the surrounding 3D environment.
We want to emphasize that our model is complementary to the existing models for V1. Similar to existing models, our work assumes a linear generative model for image frames, but our model adds a relational component with matrix representation that relates the consecutive image frames. Our model is also complementary to slowness criterion in that when the vectors are rotated by matrices, the norms of the vectors may remain constant.
\(2) Matrix representation. In representation learning, it is a common practice to encode the signals or states as vectors. However, it is a much less explored theme to represent the motions, actions or relations by matrices that act on the vectors. An early work in this theme is [@paccanaro2001learning], which learns matrices to represent relations. More recently, [@jayaraman2015learning] learns matrix representation for ego-motion. [@gao2018learning] learns vector representation for self-position and matrix representation for self-motion in a representational model for grid cells. Our work constitutes a new development along this theme.
The matrix representation of local displacements in our work is partially inspired by the group representation theory, where the group elements are represented by matrices acting on the vectors [@fulton2013representation]. In our work, local displacements belong to 2D Euclidean group. Our modeling of local motion dx is similar to the treatment of Lie group via Lie algebra by analyzing infinitesimal changes. The objects in the image may undergo more complex motions which form more complex Lie groups (e.g., rotations and translations). We can again represent the objects (e.g., their poses) in the scene by vectors, and represent the motions of the objects by matrices. The representation theory underlies much of modern mathematics and holds the key to the quantum theory [@zee2016group]. Perhaps it also underlies the visual and motor cortex, where the neuron activities encode vectors, and the synaptic connections encode the matrices that rotate them, with the matrices representing motions, actions, and relations.
Representational model {#sect:3}
======================
Vector representation
---------------------
Let $\{\I(x), x \in D\}$ be an image observed at a certain instant, where $x = (x_1, x_2) \in D$ is the 2D coordinates of pixel. $D$ is the image domain (e.g., $128 \times 128$). We represent the image $\I$ by vectors $\{v(x), x \in D_{-}\}$, where each $v(x)$ is a vector defined at pixel $x$, and $D_{-}$ may consist of a sub-sampled set of pixels in $D$ (e.g., sub-sampled every 8 pixels). ${V} = \{v(x), x \in D_{-}\}$ forms a vector representation of the whole image.
We assume the vector encoding is linear and convolutional. Specifically, let $\I[x]$ be a squared patch (e.g., $16 \times 16$) of $\I$ centered at $x$. We can make $\I[x]$ into a vector (e.g., 256 dimensional). Let $$\begin{aligned}
v(x) = W \I[x], \; x \in D_{-}, \end{aligned}$$ be the linear encoder, where $W$ is the encoding matrix that encodes $\I[x]$ into a vector $v(x)$, and $W$ is the same for all $x$, i.e., convolutional. The rows of $W$ are the linear filters and can be displayed as local image patches of the same size as the image patch $\I[x]$. We can write ${V} = {\bf W} {\bf I}$, if we treat ${\bf I}$ as a vector, and the rows of ${\bf W}$ are the shifted or translated versions of $W$.
Normalized tight frame and isometry
-----------------------------------
We assume that ${\bf W}$ is an auto-encoding normalized tight frame, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\I = {\bf W}^{\top} {V},\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the linear filters for bottom-up encoding also serve as basis functions for top-down decoding. Both the encoder and decoder can be implemented by convolutional linear neural networks.
The normalized tight frame assumption can be justified by the fact that for two images ${\bf I}$ and ${\bf J}$, we have $
\langle {\bf W} {\bf I}, {\bf W} {\bf J} \rangle = {\bf I}^\top {\bf W}^{\top} {\bf W} {\bf J} = \langle {\bf I}, {\bf J}\rangle,
$ that is, the vector representation preserves the inner product. As a result, $\|{\bf W}\I\| = \|\I\|$, $\|{\bf W} \J\| = \|\J\|$, thus the vector representation also preserves the angle and has the isometry property.
When the image $\I$ changes from $\I_t$ to $\I_{t+1}$, its vector representation $V$ changes from $V_t$ to $V_{t+1}$, and the angle between $\I_t$ and $\I_{t+1}$ is the same as the angle between $V_t$ and $V_{t+1}$.
Sub-vectors
-----------
The vector $v(x)$ can be high-dimensional. We further divide $v(x)$ into $K$ sub-vectors, $v(x) = (v^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$. Each sub-vector is obtained by an encoding sub-matrix $W^{(k)}$, i.e., $
v^{(k)}(x) = W^{(k)} \I[x], \; k = 1, ..., K,
$ where $W^{(k)}$ consists of the rows of $W$ that correspond to $v^{(k)}$. According to the normalized tight frame assumption, we have $
\I = \sum_{x \in D_{-}} \sum_{k=1}^{K} W^{(k)\top} v^{(k)}(x).
$ In practice, we find that this assumption is necessary for the emergence of V1-like receptive field.
Matrix representation
---------------------
Let $\I_t$ be the image at time frame $t$. Suppose the pixels of $\I_t$ undergo local displacements, where the displacement at pixel $x$ is $\delta(x)$. We assume that $\delta(x)$ is within a squared range $\Delta$ (e.g., $[-6, 6] \times [-6, 6]$ pixels) that is inside the range of $\I_t[x]$ (e.g., $16 \times 16$ pixels). Let $\I_{t+1}$ be the resulting image. Let $v_t(x)$ be the vector representation of $\I_t[x]$, and let $v_{t+1}(x)$ be the vector representation of $\I_{t+1}[x]$. Then $v_{t}(x) = (v_{t}^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$, and $v_{t+1}(x) = (v_{t+1}^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$.
The transition from $\I_t$ to $\I_{t+1}$ is illustrated by the following diagram: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}[c]{ccc}
{v}^{(k)}_t(x) & \stackrel{ M^{(k)}(\delta(x)) \times }{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}}& {v}_{t +1}^{(k)}(x) \\
& & \\
W^{(k)} \uparrow& \uparrow &\uparrow W^{(k)}\\
\I_t &\stackrel{ \delta(x) }{\xrightarrow{\hspace*{1cm}}} & \I_{t+1}
\end{array} \label{eq:diagram}\end{aligned}$$ Specifically, we assume that $$\begin{aligned}
{v}_{t+1}^{(k)}(x) = M^{(k)}(\delta(x)) {v}_{t}^{(k)}(x), \; \forall x \in D_{-}, k = 1, ..., K.
\label{eqn: motion}\end{aligned}$$ That is, when $\I$ changes from $\I_t$ to $\I_{t+1}$, ${v}^{(k)}(x)$ undergoes a linear transformation, driven by a matrix $M^{(k)}(\delta(x))$, which depends on the local displacement $\delta(x)$. In terms of the whole vector $v(x) = (v^{(k)}(x), k = 1, ..., K)$, we have $v_{t+1}(x) = M(\delta(x)) v_t(x)$, where $M(\delta(x)) = {\rm diag}(M^{(k)}(\delta(x)), k = 1, ..., K)$ is the matrix representation of the local displacement $\delta(x)$.
Disentangled rotations
----------------------
The linear transformations of the sub-vectors $v^{(k)}(x)$ can be considered as rotations. Here we use the word “rotation” in the loose sense without strictly enforcing $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ to be orthogonal. $v(x)$ is like a multi-arm clock, with each arm $v^{(k)}(x)$ rotated by $M^{(k)}(\delta(x))$. The rotations of $v^{(k)}(x)$ for different $k$ and $x$ are disentangled. Here disentanglement means that the rotation of a sub-vector does not depend on other sub-vectors.
The disentanglement between different positions $x$ is the key feature of our model. Recall the change of image $\I$ is caused by the displacement of pixels, yet the rotations of sub-vectors ${v}^{(k)}(x)$ at different pixels $x$ are disentangled. This enables the agent to sense the displacement of a pixel only by sensing the rotations of the sub-vectors at this pixel without having to establish the correspondences between the pixels of consecutive frames.
Parametrization {#sect:p}
---------------
We can discretize the displacement $\delta(x)$ into a finite set of possible values $\{\delta\}$, and we learn a separate $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ for each $\delta$. We can also learn a parametric version of $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ as the second order Taylor expansion of a matrix-valued function of $\delta= (\delta_1, \delta_2)$, $
M^{(k)}(\delta) = I + B_1^{(k)} \delta_1 + B_2^{(k)} \delta_2 + B_{11}^{(k)} \delta_1^2 + B_{22}^{(k)} \delta_2^2 + B_{12}^{(k)} \delta_1 \delta_2, \label{eq:taylor}
$ where $I$ is the identity matrix, and $B^{(k)} = (B_1^{(k)}, B_2^{(k)}, B_{11}^{(k)}, B_{22}^{(k)}, B_{12}^{(k)})$ are matrices of coefficients of the same dimensionality as $M^{(k)}(\delta)$.
Local mixing
------------
If $\delta(x)$ is large, $v_{t+1}^{(k)}(x)$ may contain information from adjacent image patches of $\I_{t}$ in addition to $\I_t[x]$. We can generalize the motion model in Equation (\[eqn: motion\]) to allow local mixing of encoded vectors. Let $\mathcal{S}$ be a local support centered at $0$. We assume that $$\begin{aligned}
{v}_{t+1}^{(k)}(x) = \sum_{\text{d} x \in \mathcal{S}} M^{(k)}(\delta(x), \text{d} x) {v}_{t}^{(k)}(x + \text{d} x)
\label{eqn: local_mixing}\end{aligned}$$ In the learning algorithm, we discretize $\text{d} x$ and learn a separate $M^{(k)}(\delta, \text{d} x)$ for each $\text{d} x$.
Learning and inference
======================
The input data consist of the triplets $(\I_t, (\delta(x), x \in D_{-}), \I_{t+1})$, where $(\delta(x))$ is the given displacement field. The learned model consists of matrices $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta), k = 1, ..., K, \delta \in \Delta)$, where $\Delta$ is the range of $\delta$. In the case of parametric $M^{(k)}$, we learn the $B$ matrices in the second order Taylor expansion in subsection \[sect:p\].
Loss functions for learning
---------------------------
We use the following loss functions:
\(1) Rotation loss $$\begin{aligned}
L_{1, x, k} &=& \left\| W^{(k)}\I_{t+1}[x] - M^{(k)}(\delta(x)) W^{(k)} \I_{t}[x] \right\|^2.
\label{eqn: vector_loss}\end{aligned}$$ For local mixing generalization, $L_{1, x, k} = \left\| W^{(k)}\I_{t+1}[x] - \sum_{\text{d} x \in \mathcal{S}} M^{(k)}(\delta(x), \text{d} x) W^{(k)} \I_t (x + \text{d} x) \right\|^2$.
\(2) Reconstruction loss $$\begin{aligned}
L_{2} &=& \left\| \I_{t} - \sum_{x \in D_{-}} W^\top W\I_t[x] \right\|^2 + \left\| \I_{t+1} - \sum_{x \in D_{-}} W^\top W\I_{t+1}[x] \right\|^2.
\label{eqn: tight_frame_loss}
\end{aligned}$$
In the learning algorithm, we learn the model by a weighted sum of the expectations of $\sum_{k=1}^{K} \sum_{x \in D_{-}} L_{1, x, k}$ and $L_2$, where the expectations are taken over the training pairs of images and the corresponding displacement fields.
Inference of motion
-------------------
After learning $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta), \forall k, \forall \delta)$, for a testing pair $(\I_t, \I_{t+1})$, we can infer the pixel displacement field $(\delta(x), x \in D_{-})$ by minimizing the rotation loss: $\delta(x) = \arg\max_{\delta \in \Delta} L_{1, x}(\delta)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
L_{1, x}(\delta) = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \left\| W^{(k)}\I_{t+1}[x] - M^{(k)}(\delta) W^{(k)} \I_{t}[x] \right\|^2 = \|W \I_{t+1}[x] - M(\delta) W \I_{t}[x]\|^2. \label{eq:infer}\end{aligned}$$ This algorithm is efficient because it can be parallelized for all $x \in D_{-}$ and for all $\delta \in \Delta$.
If we learn a parametric model for $M^{(k)}(\delta)$, we can infer the displacement field $(\delta(x), \forall x)$ by minimizing $\sum_x L_{1, x}(\delta(x))$ using gradient descent with an initialization of $(\delta(x))$ from random small values. To encourage the smoothness of the displacement field, we can add the penalty term $\|\triangledown \delta(x)\|^2$.
Biological interpretations of cells and synaptic connections {#sect:b}
------------------------------------------------------------
The learned $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta)), \forall k, \delta)$ can be interpreted as synaptic connections. For each $k$, $W^{(k)}$ corresponds to one set of connection weights. Suppose $\delta \in \Delta$ is discretized, then for each $\delta$, $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ corresponds to one set of connection weights, and $(M^{(k)}(\delta), \delta \in \Delta)$ corresponds to multiple sets of connection weights. After computing $v_{t, x}^{(k)} = W^{(k)} \I_{t}[x]$, $M^{(k)}(\delta) v_{t, x}^{(k)}$ is computed simultaneously for every $\delta \in \Delta$. Then $\delta(x)$ is inferred by max pooling according to Equation (\[eq:infer\]).
$v_{t, x}^{(k)}$ can be interpreted as activities of simple cells, and $\|v_{t, x}^{(k)}\|^2$ can be interpreted as activity of a complex cell. If we enforce norm stability so that $\|v_{t, x}^{(k)}\| \approx \|v_{t+1, x}^{(k)}\|$, then the complex cell response is invariant to the local motion and is related to the slowness property [@hyvarinen2003bubbles; @wiskott2002slow], which is a by-product of our model if $M^{(k)}(\delta)$ is a rotation matrix, which is covariant with the local motion.
Spatiotemporal filters and recurrent implementation {#sect:s}
---------------------------------------------------
If we enforce norm stability or the orthogonality of $M^{(k)}(\delta)$, then minimizing $\|v_{t+1, x} - M(\delta) v_{t, x}\|^2$ over $\delta \in \Delta$ is equivalent to maximizing $\langle v_{t+1, x}, M(\delta) v_{t, x}\rangle$, which in turn is equivalent to maximizing $\|v_{t+1, x} + M(\delta) v_{t, x}\|^2$ so that $v_{t+1, x}$ and $M(\delta) v_{t, x}$ are aligned. This alignment criterion can be conveniently generalized to multiple consecutive frames, so that we can estimate the velocity at $x$ by maximizing the $m$-step alignment score $\|u\|^2$, where $$\begin{aligned}
u = \sum_{i = 0}^{m} M(\delta)^{m-i} v_{t+i, x} = \sum_{i=0}^{m} M(\delta)^{m-i} W \I_{t+i}[x]\end{aligned}$$ consists of responses of spatiotemporal filters, and $\|u\|^2$ corresponds to the energy of motion $\delta$ in the motion energy model [@adelson1985spatiotemporal] for direction selective cells. Thus our model is connected with the motion energy model. Moreover, our model enables a recurrent network for computing $u$ by $u_{i} = v_{t+i, x} + M(\delta) u_{i-1}$ for $i = 0, ..., m$, with $u_{-1} = 0$, and $u = u_m$. This recurrent implementation is much more efficient and biologically plausible than the plain implementation of spatiotemporal filtering which requires memorizing all the $\I_{t+i}$ for $i = 0, ..., m$. See [@pachitariu2017visual] for a discussion of biological plausibility of recurrent implementation of spatiotemporal filtering in general.
Experiments
===========
First, in section \[sect: dataset\] we introduce the datasets used to learn the models. Then in section \[sect: unit\] we show the learned Gabor-like units, and make connection with the spatial profile of simple cells in cat and Macaque monkey in terms of neuroscience metrics, indicating the biological plausibility of the learned units. Then in sections \[sect: infer\] and \[sect: unsupervised\] we show the learned representations can be applied to infer displacement field reasonably well, and the representations can be trained either in a supervised or unsupervised manner. Please refer to supplementary \[sect: details\] for the implementation details. In supplementary \[supp: frame\_animation\] and \[supp: interpolation\] we illustrate that the learned representations are capable of two extra tasks, frame animation and frame interpolation.
Synthetic and public datasets {#sect: dataset}
-----------------------------
[**V1Deform.**]{} Usually it is difficult to get ground truth motions from natural video frames. Thus we consider learning from image pairs with synthetic motions. First we consider random smooth deformations for natural images. Specifically, We can obtain the training data by collecting static images for $(\I_t)$ and simulate the displacement field $(\delta(x))$. The simulated displacement field is then used to transform $\I_t$ to obtain $\I_{t+1}$. We retrieve natural images as $\I_t$ from MIT places365 dataset [@zhou2016places]. The images are scaled to 128 $\times$ 128. We sub-sample the pixels of images into a $m \times m$ grid ($m = 4$ in the experiments), and randomly generate displacements on the grid points, which serve as the control points for deformation. Then $\delta(x)$ for $x \in D$ can be obtained by spline interpolation of the displacements on the control points. We get $\I_{t+1}$ by warping $\I_t$ using $\delta(x)$ [@jaderberg2015spatial]. When generating a displacement $\delta = (\delta_1, \delta_2)$, both $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are randomly sampled from a range of $[-6, +6]$. We generate $20,000$ pairs for training and $3,000$ pairs for testing. We name this dataset V1Deform.
[**V1FlyingObjects.**]{} Next we consider separating the displacement field into motions of the background and foreground, to jointly simulate the self-motion of the agent and the motion of the objects in the natural 3D scenes. To this end, we create a synthetic dataset, by applying affine transformations to background images collected from MIT places365 [@zhou2016places] and foreground objects from a public 2D object dataset COIL-100 [@nene1996columbia]. The background images are scaled to $128 \times 128$, and the foreground images are randomly rescaled. To generate motion, we randomly sample affine parameters of translation, rotation, and scaling for both the foreground and background images. The motion of the foreground objects are relative to the background images, which can be explained as the relative motion between the moving object and agent. We tune the distribution of the affine parameters to keep the range of the displacement fields within $[-6, +6]$, which is consistent with the V1Deform dataset. Together with the mask of the foreground object and the sampled transformation parameters, we render the image pair $(\I_t, \I_{t+1})$ and its displacement field $(\delta(x))$ for each pair of background image and foreground image.
Specifically, we obtain the estimated masks from [@tev] for the 2D foreground objects and remove some textureless objects, resulting in 96 objects with $72$ views per object available. We generate $14,411$ synthetic image pairs with their corresponding displacement fields and further split $12,411$ pairs for training and $2,000$ pairs for testing. We name this dataset V1FlyingObjects. Compared with previous optical flow dataset like Flying Chairs [@DFIB15] and scene flow dataset like FlyingThings3D [@mayer2016large], the proposed V1FlyingObjects dataset has various foreground objects with more realistic texture and smoother displacement fields, which simulates more realistic environments. We shall release this dataset.
[**MPI-Sintel.**]{} MPI-Sintel [@Butler:ECCV:2012; @Wulff:ECCVws:2012] is a public dataset designed for the evaluation of optical flow derived from rendered aritificial scenes, with special attention to realistic image properties. Since MPI-Sintel is relatively small which contains around a thousand image pairs, we use it only for testing the learned models in the inference of displacement field, as described in details in sections \[sect: infer\]. We use the final version of MPI-Sintel and resize each frame into size $128 \times 128$. We select frame pairs whose motions are within the range of $[-6, +6]$, resulting in $384$ frame pairs in total.
[**MUG Facial Expression.**]{} MUG Facial Expression dataset [@aifanti2010mug] records natural facial expression videos of $86$ subjects sitting in front of one camera. This dataset has no ground truth of displacement field, which we use for unsupervised learning as stated in details in section \[sect: unsupervised\]. $200$ videos with $30$ frames are randomly selected for training, and anther $100$ videos are sampled for testing. The frame images are resized to $64 \times 64$.
Learned Gabor-like units with quadrature phase relationship {#sect: unit}
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this section we show and analyze the learned units. Figure \[fig: filters\](a) displays the learned units, i.e., rows of $W^{(k)}$, on V1Deform. The units are learned with non-parametric $M(\delta)$, i.e., we learn a separate $M(\delta)$ for each displacement. $\delta(x)$ is discretized with an interval of $0.5$. Similar patterns can be obtained by using parametric version of $M(\delta)$. Please refer to the supplementary \[supp: animation\] and \[supp: filters\] for more results, including animation of filters, filters learned with local mixing motion model (eqn. (\[eqn: local\_mixing\])), with different block sizes, and learned on V1FlyingObjects. V1-like patterns emerge from the learned units. Moreover, within each sub-vector, the orientations and frequencies of learned units are similar, while the phases are different.
To further analyze the spatial profile of the learned units, we fit every unit by a two dimensional Gabor function [@jones1987evaluation]: $h(x', y') = A \exp(-(x'/\sqrt{2}\sigma_{x'})^2-(y'/\sqrt{2}\sigma_{y'}))\cos(2\pi fx' + \phi)$, where $(x', y')$ is obtained by translating and rotating the original coordinate system $(x_0, y_0)$: $x' = (x - x_0)\cos\theta+(y-y_0)\sin\theta, y' = -(x - x_0)\sin\theta+(y-y_0)\cos\theta$. The fitted Gabor patterns are shown in figure \[fig: filters\](b), with the average fitting $r^2$ equal to 0.96 ($\text{std} = 0.04$). The average spatial-frequency bandwidth is 1.13 octaves, with range of $0.12$ to $4.67$. Figure \[fig: filters\](c) shows the distribution of the spatial-frequency bandwidth, where the majority falls within range of $0.5$ to $2.5$. The characteristics are reasonably similar to those of simple-cell receptive fields in the cat [@issa2000spatial] (weighted mean $1.32$ octaves, range of $0.5$ to $2.5$) and the macaque monkey [@foster1985spatial] (median $1.4$ octaves, range of $0.4$ to $2.6$). To analyze the distribution of the spatial phase $\phi$, we follow the method in [@ringach2002spatial] to transform the parameter $\phi$ into an effective range of $0$ to $\pi/2$, and plot the histogram of the transformed $\phi$ in figure \[fig: filters\](c). The strong bimodal with phases clustering near $0$ and $\pi/2$ is consistent withsupplementary those of the macaque monkey [@ringach2002spatial].
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/filters_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
(a) Learned units
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/fitted_gabor_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
(b) Fitted Gabor patterns
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/scale_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
![Learned results on V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Fitted Gabor patterns. (c) Distributions of spatial-frequency bandwidth (in octaves) and spatial phase $\phi$. []{data-label="fig: filters"}](./FIG/phase_noLasso.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
(c) Frequency and phase
In the above experiment, we fix the size of the convolutional filters ($16 \times 16$ pixels). A more reasonable model is to have different sizes of convolutional filters, with small size filters capturing high frequency content and big size filters capturing low frequency content. For fixed size filters, they should only account for the image content within a frequency band. To this end, we smooth every image by two Gaussian smoothing kenels (kernel size $8$, $\sigma = 1, 4$), and take the difference between the two smoothed images as the input image of the model. The effect of the two smoothing kernels is similar to a bandpass filter, so that the input images are constrained within a certain range of frequencies. The learned filters on V1Deform are shown in \[fig: filters2\](a). Again for every unit, we fit it by a two dimensional Gabor function, resulting in an average fitting $r^2 = 0.83$ ($\text{std}=0.12$). Following the analysis of [@ringach2002spatial; @rehn2007network], a scatter plot of $n_x = \sigma_xf$ versus $n_y = \sigma_yf$ is constructed in Figure \[fig: filters2\](b) based on the fitted parameters, where $n_x$ and $n_y$ represent the width and length of the Gabor envelopes measured in periods of the cosine waves. Compared to Sparsenet [@olshausen1996emergence; @olshausen1997sparse], the learned units by our model have more similar structure to the receptive fields of macaque monkey.
We also show profile of the learned units within each sub-vector in Figure \[fig: filters2\](c). Within each sub-vector, the frequency $f$ and orientation $\theta$ of the paired units tends to be the same. More importantly, most of the paired units differ in phase $\phi$ by approximately $\pi/2$, consistent with the quadratic phase relationship between adjacent simple cells [@pollen1981phase; @emerson1997quadrature].
![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/filters2 "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}\
(a) Learned units
![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/comparison.png "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/comparison_sparsenet.png "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}\
(b) Gabor envelope shapes of the learned units
\
![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/freq_diff.png "fig:"){width=".28\textwidth"} ![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/orien_diff.png "fig:"){width=".28\textwidth"} ![Learned results on band-pass image pairs from V1Deform. (a) Learned units. Each block shows two learned units within the same sub-vector. (b) Distribution of the Gabor envelope shapes in the width and length plane. (c) Difference of frequency $f$, orientation $\theta$ and phase $\phi$ of paired units within each sub-vector.[]{data-label="fig: filters2"}](./FIG/phase_diff.png "fig:"){width=".28\textwidth"}\
(c) Profile of paired units within each sub-vector
Inference of displacement field {#sect: infer}
-------------------------------
We then test the learned representations in terms of inferring the displacement field $(\delta(x))$ between pairs of frames $(\I_t, \I_{t+1})$. To get valid image patches for the inference, we leave out those displacements at image border ($8$ pixels at each side).
We infer the displacement field $(\delta(x))$ using the learned vector and matrix representation. On top of that, we also train a CNN model with ResNet blocks [@he2016identity] to refine the inferred displacement field. In training this CNN, the input is the inferred displacement field, and the output is the ground truth displacement field, with least squares regression loss. The detailed model structure is in supplementary \[sect: cnn model\]. For V1Deform, we train the representational model without refinement and test on the testing set of V1Deform. For V1FlyingObjects, we train both the representational model and the refinement CNN on the training set, and test on the testing set of V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel datasets. The refinement CNN is to approximate the processing in visual areas V2-V6 that integrates and refines the motion perception in V1 [@gazzaniga2002cognitive; @lyon2002evidence; @moran1985selective; @born2005structure; @allman1975dorsomedial].
Figure \[fig: infer\_non\_para1\] displays several examples of the inferred displacement field, learned with non-parametric $M(\delta)$, using the local mixing motion model (eqn. (\[eqn: local\_mixing\])), where the local support $\mathcal{S}$ is in a range of $[-4, +4]$, and $\text{d}x$ is taken with a sub-sampling rate of $2$. We also show the inferred results from pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 [@IMKDB17] model as a comparison. In Table \[table: infer\], we report the average endpoint error (EPE) of the inferred results. We compare with some baseline methods, such as the FlowNet and its variants [@DFIB15; @IMKDB17], by obtaining the pre-trained models and testing on the corresponding datasets. Note that those methods train deep and complicated neural networks with large scale datasets to predict optical flows in supervised manners, while our model can be treated as a simple one-layer auto-encoder network, accompanied by weight matrices representing motions. We achieve competitive results to these methods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/78_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_77/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/63_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_62/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours$^\dagger$
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/26.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-04.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/4.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/res/143.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/infer/17.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/85_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_84/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/img_1.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/img_2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/flow_gt.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/FN2/73_flow.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_new_crop/infer_72/flow_predict.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
$\I_t$ $\I_{t+1}$ Gt FN2 Ours$^\dagger$
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-02.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/2.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img1/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/img2/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/gt/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/2/flow-13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/test1/res/13.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/res/272.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img1/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/img2/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/gt/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/2/flow-65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"} ![Examples of inference of displacement field on V1Deform, V1FlyingObjects and MPI-Sintel. For each block, from left to right are $\I_t$, $\I_{t+1}$, ground truth displacement field and inferred displacement field by pre-trained FlowNet 2.0 model and our learned model respectively. $^\dagger$ indicates that the results are refined by the refinement CNN. The displacement fields are color coded. See supplementary \[sect: color map\] for the color code [@liu2010sift].[]{data-label="fig: infer_non_para1"}](./FIG/inference_v1flow/sintel_result/res/65.png "fig:"){width=".2\linewidth"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FN-C FN-S FN-CS FN-CSS FN2 Ours Ours + Refine
----------------- ------- ------- ------- -------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
V1Deform 1.324 1.316 0.713 0.629 0.686 [**0.444**]{} -
V1FlyingObjects 0.852 0.865 0.362 0.299 0.285 0.442 [**0.202**]{}
MPI-Sintel 0.363 0.410 0.266 0.234 [**0.146**]{} 0.337 0.212
: Average endpoint error of the inferred displacement. (FN stands for FlowNet)[]{data-label="tab: infer_comp"}
\[table: infer\]
Unsupervised learning {#sect: unsupervised}
---------------------
Assume there is a dataset of frame sequences, where the ground truth displacement fields are unknown. We can learn the model by the following steps: (1) first we take the frames as static images, deform the images like what we did for V1Deform to get image pairs, and learn the model as an initialization; (2) then we infer the displacement fields between adjacent pair of frames using the initialized model; (3) using adjacent pair of frames as training data, we alternatively update the model parameters and re-infer displacement fields. In this task, we use the parametric $M$ and infer the displacement field by gradient descent on a weighted sum of $\sum_x L_{1, x}(\delta(x))$ and $\|\triangledown \delta(x)\|^2$. At each iteration, we start the inference from the inferred displacement field from the last iteration.
We test the unsupervised learning on MUG Facial Expression dataset [@aifanti2010mug]. Figure \[fig: infer\_unsupervised\] shows some examples of inferred displacement fields by the unsupervised learning. The inference results are reasonable, which capture the motions around eyes, eyebrows, chin or mouth. See supplementary \[supp: filters\] and \[supp: face\] for the learned filters and more inferred examples.
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/2_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/11_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/2_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/11_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/1_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/29_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/1_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field [@liu2010sift]. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/29_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
We perform ablation studies to analyze the effect of two components of the proposed model: (1) dimensionality of sub-vectors; (2) sub-sampling rate. Please refer to supplementary \[supp: ablation\] for the details.
Conclusion
==========
This paper proposes a simple representational model that couples vector representations of local image contents and matrix representations of local motions. Unlike existing models for V1 that focus on statistical properties of natural images or videos, our model serves a direct purpose of perception of local motions caused by the relative motions between the agent and the 3D environment. Our model learns Gabor-like units with quadrature phases. We also give biological interpretations of the learned model and connect it to the spatiotemporal energy model. Our model is novel, and it is our hope that it adds to our understanding of motion perception in V1 in terms of modeling and inference.
In our future work, we shall study the inference of ego-motion, object motions and 3D depth information based on local pixel displacements by expanding our model. We shall also extend our model to stereo in binocular vision by allowing separate encoding matrices for the pair of input images to the two eyes related by pixel displacements caused by depths.
### Project page {#project-page .unnumbered}
<http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~ruiqigao/v1/main.html>
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
The work is supported by DARPA XAI project N66001-17-2-4029; ARO project W911NF1810296; ONR MURI project N00014-16- 1-2007; and a Hikvision gift to UCLA. We thank Prof. Terrence Sejnowski for helpful discussion. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NVIDIA Corporation with the donation of the Titan Xp GPU used for this research.
Implementation details {#sect: details}
======================
We learn our model $(W^{(k)}, M^{(k)}(\delta), k = 1, ..., K)$ from image pairs $(\I_t, (\delta(x)), \I_{t+1})$. The number of sub-vectors $K = 40$, and the number of units in each sub-vector $v^{(k)}(x)$ is 2. We also try other dimensionalities of sub-vector, e.g., 4 and 6. See supplementary \[supp: ablation\]. Each row of the encoding matrix $W^{(k)}$ is a filter. The size of the filter is 16 $\times$ 16, with a sub-sampling rate of 8 pixels in order to get $D_{-}$. We learn the model using stochastic gradient descent implemented by Adam [@kingma2014adam], with learning rate $0.0008$.
For unsupervised learning in section \[sect: unsupervised\], since the image size reduces to $64$, we use kernel size $8$ with a sub-sampling rate of $4$ pixels. In stage (1) for model initialization, we set the range of displacement to $[-3, +3]$. Displacements at image border are left out.
Color code of displacement field {#sect: color map}
================================
Figure \[fig: color map\] shows the color map for the color coded displacement fields used in this paper [@liu2010sift].
![Color map for the color coded displacement fields. The displacement of every pixel in this map is the vector from the center of the square to this pixel. The center pixel does not move. The range of color is taken according to the maximum length of flows in each displacement field.[]{data-label="fig: color map"}](./FIG/flow_code.png "fig:"){height=".2\linewidth"} ![Color map for the color coded displacement fields. The displacement of every pixel in this map is the vector from the center of the square to this pixel. The center pixel does not move. The range of color is taken according to the maximum length of flows in each displacement field.[]{data-label="fig: color map"}](./FIG/flow_code_arrow.png "fig:"){height=".2\linewidth"}
Animation of learned units: moving V1-like units {#supp: animation}
================================================
We have $M^{(k)}(\delta) v^{(k)}_t(x) = M^{(k)}(\delta) W^{(k)} \I[x]$, where each row of the encoding matrix $W^{(k)}$ serves as a filter. Let $W^{(k)}(\delta) = M^{(k)}(\delta)W^{(k)}$. By changing values of $\delta$, we can animate $W^{(k)}$ to make it move. Figure \[fig: animation\] shows several examples of the animation. Each block shows a certain $W^{(k)}$ animated by a fixed $\delta$. Each column shows the units in the same $W^{(k)}(\delta)$. As $\delta$ changes, the orientations of learned units remain the same, while the phases change, and the units belonging to the same sub-vector tend to have similar movements.
Learned filters {#supp: filters}
===============
Figure \[fig: filters\_sup\] shows the learned filters under different settings, including learned on V1FlyingObjects, learned with parametric $M$, learned with local mixing model (eqn \[eqn: local\_mixing\]) and learned unsupervisedly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filter_v1flow.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"} ![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filters_parametric.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"} ![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filters_local_mixing.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"} ![Filters learned from under different settings: (a) filters learned on V1FlyingObjects with non-parametric $M$; (b) filters learned with parametric $M$; (c) filters learned with non-parametric $M$ and local mixing motion model (model used in section 5.3); (d) filters learned on MUG Facial expression dataset with unsupervised learning (model used in section 5.4). []{data-label="fig: filters_sup"}](./FIG/filters_unsupervised.png "fig:"){height=".33\linewidth"}
\(a) V1FlyingObjects \(b) Parametric $M$ \(c) Local mixing \(d) Unsupervised learning
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-step frame animation {#supp: frame_animation}
==========================
Given the starting frame $\I_0(x)$ and a sequence of displacement fields $\{\delta_1(x), ..., \delta_T(x), \forall x \}$, we can animate the subsequent multiple frames $\{\I_1(x), ..., \I_T(x)\}$ using the learned model. We use the model with local mixing with the same setting as in section \[sect: infer\]. We introduce a re-encoding process when performing multi-step animation. At time $t$, after we get the next animated frame $\I_{t+1}$, we take it as the observed frame at time $t+1$, and re-encode it to obtain the latent vector $v_{t+1}$ at time $t+1$.
Figure \[fig: predict\] displays several examples of a $6$-step animation, learned with non-parametric version of $M$ on V1Deform and V1FlyingObjects. The animated frames match the ground truth frames well. As a quantitative evaluation, we compute the per pixel distance between the predicted frames and observed frames, which is $9.032$ in the testing dataset for V1Deform and $12.076$ for V1FlyingObjects.
![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/0_observed_local.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/integral_v1flow/batch35_2_observed.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/0_predict_local.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![Examples of multi-step animation. For each block, the first row shows the ground truth frame sequences, while the second row shows the animated frame sequences.[]{data-label="fig: predict"}](./FIG/integral_v1flow/batch35_2_predict.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}
Frame interpolation {#supp: interpolation}
===================
Inspired by the animation and inference results, we show that our model can also perform frame interpolation, by combining the animation and inference together. Specifically, given a pair of starting frame $\I_0$ and end frame $\I_T$, we want to derive a sequence of frames $(\I_0, \I_1, ..., \I_{T-1}, \I_{T})$ that changes smoothly. Let $v_0(x) = W\I_0[x]$ and $v_T(x) = W\I_T[x]$ for each $x \in D$. At time step $t+1$, like the inference, we can infer displacement field $\delta_{t+1}(x)$ by
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v}^{(k)}_{t+1}(x, \delta) &=& \sum_{\text{d} x \in \mathcal{S}} \nolimits M^{(k)}(\delta, \text{d} x) {v}_{t}^{(k)}(x + \text{d} x), \forall x\in D, \forall \delta \in \Delta, \forall k \\
\delta_{t+1}(x) &=& \arg\min_{\delta \in \Delta}\sum_{k=1}^K \left\|v_T^{(k)} - \hat{v}^{(k)}_{t+1}(x, \delta)\right\|^2, \forall x\in D\end{aligned}$$
Like the animation, we get the animated frame $\I_{t+1}$ by decoding $\hat{v}_{t+1}(x, \delta_{t+1}(x))$, and then re-encode it to obtain the latent vector $v_{t+1}(x)$.
The algorithm stops when $\I_t$ is close enough to $\I_T$ (mean pixel error $<10$). Figure \[fig: interpolation\] shows several examples, learned with non-parametric $M$ on V1Deform and V1FlyingObjects. For $96.0\%$ of the testing pairs, the algorithm can accomplish the frame interpolation within $10$ steps. With this algorithm, we are also able to infer displacements larger than the acceptable range of $\delta$.
![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation/Batch57_0.png "fig:"){width=".37\linewidth"} ![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation/Batch15_0.png "fig:"){width=".464\linewidth"}\
![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation_v1flow/Batch30_0.png "fig:"){width=".37\linewidth"} ![Examples of frame interpolation, learned with non-parametric $M$. For each block, the first frame and last frame are given, while the frames between them are interpolated frames.[]{data-label="fig: interpolation"}](./FIG/interpolation_v1flow/Batch3_0.png "fig:"){width=".464\linewidth"}\
Ablation study {#supp: ablation}
==============
We perform an ablation study to analyze the effect of several components of the proposed model. All the models in the ablation study are trained with non-parametric $M(\delta)$ on V1Deform.
[**Dimensionality of sub-vectors.**]{} In the experiments, we assume that the number of units in each sub-vector $v^{(k)}(x)$ is $2$, so that within each sub-vector, a pair of V1-like patterns are learned. However, we show that the dimensionality of sub-vectors does not have to be $2$. In figure \[fig: ablation\](a) we show the learned filters with dimension of sub-vectors equal to $4$ and $6$. For fair comparison, we fix the total number of units in the whole vector to $96$, and change the number of units in each sub-vector. Table \[tab: ablation\] summarizes the quantitative analysis of the models learned with different dimensionalities of sub-vectors, in terms of the performances of multi-step animation and inference of displacement field. As the dimensionality of sub-vectors increases, the error rates of the two tasks decrease first and then increase. Besides, in figure \[fig: ablation\](b) we show the learned filters without the assumption of sub-vectors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a) Filters learned with higher dimension of sub-vectors. The total number of units in the whole vector is fixed to $96$. Each block shows the learned units within the same sub-vectors. (b) Filters learned without sub-vector assumption.[]{data-label="fig: ablation"}](./FIG/filters_bk4 "fig:"){height=".4\linewidth"} ![(a) Filters learned with higher dimension of sub-vectors. The total number of units in the whole vector is fixed to $96$. Each block shows the learned units within the same sub-vectors. (b) Filters learned without sub-vector assumption.[]{data-label="fig: ablation"}](./FIG/filters_bk6 "fig:"){height=".4\linewidth"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
![(a) Filters learned with higher dimension of sub-vectors. The total number of units in the whole vector is fixed to $96$. Each block shows the learned units within the same sub-vectors. (b) Filters learned without sub-vector assumption.[]{data-label="fig: ablation"}](./FIG/filters_gp1_1 "fig:"){height=".78\linewidth"}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
\
(b)
Sub-vector dim 2 4 6 8 12
---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
animation MSE 8.684 8.387 7.486 7.926 8.412
inference EPE 0.554 0.520 0.496 0.500 0.528
: Quantitative analysis of the models learned with different dimensionalities of sub-vectors.[]{data-label="tab: ablation"}
Sub-sampling rate 4 8 16
------------------- ------- ------- --------
animation MSE 7.492 8.094 10.808
inference EPE 0.658 0.505 0.565
: Quantitative analysis of the models learned with different sub-sampling rates.[]{data-label="tab: ablation2"}
[**Sub-sampling rate.**]{} Another factor that may affect the learned model is the sub-sampling rate in order to get $D_{-}$. In the experiments, we use sub-sampling rate $8$, which is half of the filter size. We can also increase or decrease the sub-sampling rate to make the adjacent image patches connected with each other more loosely or tightly. Table \[tab: ablation2\] summarizes the performance of learned models with different sub-sampling rates, in terms of multi-step animation and inference of displacement field.
Unsupervised learning: more results
===================================
See figure \[fig: infer\_unsupervised\_sup\] for more inference results by unsupervised learning. \[supp: face\]
![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/37_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/34_img.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/37_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"} ![More examples of inferred displacement fields by unsupervised learning. The top row shows the observed image sequences, while the bottom row shows the inferred color coded displacement field. []{data-label="fig: infer_unsupervised_sup"}](./FIG/infer_unsupervised_crop/34_motion.png "fig:"){width=".47\linewidth"}\
Refinement CNN model structure {#sect: cnn model}
==============================
Table \[tab: arch\] summarizes the model architecture of the refinement CNN used in the inference of displacement field.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$3\times3$ conv. $8$ ReLU, stride $1$
$3\times3$ conv. $16$ ReLU, stride $1$
Residual blocks
$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
3 \times 3 \; \text{conv.} \; 16 \; \text{ BN \; ReLU}, \; \text{stride} \; 1 \\
3 \times 3 \; \text{conv.} \; 16 \; \text{ BN}, \; \text{stride} \; 1
\end{array}
\right\} \times 4$
$3\times3$ conv. $8$ ReLU, stride $1$
$3\times3$ conv. $2$ ReLU, stride $1$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Refinement CNN model structure[]{data-label="tab: arch"}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We perform a multi-wavelength polarimetric study of the quasar CTA 102 during an extraordinarily bright $\gamma$-ray outburst detected by the [*Fermi*]{} Large Area Telescope in September-October 2012 when the source reached a flux of F$_{>100~\mathrm{MeV}} =5.2\pm0.4\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. At the same time the source displayed an unprecedented optical and NIR outburst. We study the evolution of the parsec-scale jet with ultra-high angular resolution through a sequence of 80 total and polarized intensity Very Long Baseline Array images at 43 GHz, covering the observing period from June 2007 to June 2014. We find that the $\gamma$-ray outburst is coincident with flares at all the other frequencies and is related to the passage of a new superluminal knot through the radio core. The powerful $\gamma$-ray emission is associated with a change in direction of the jet, which became oriented more closely to our line of sight ($\theta\sim$1.2$^{\circ}$) during the ejection of the knot and the $\gamma$-ray outburst. During the flare, the optical polarized emission displays intra-day variability and a clear clockwise rotation of EVPAs, which we associate with the path followed by the knot as it moves along helical magnetic field lines, although a random walk of the EVPA caused by a turbulent magnetic field cannot be ruled out. We locate the $\gamma$-ray outburst a short distance downstream of the radio core, parsecs from the black hole. This suggests that synchrotron self-Compton scattering of near-infrared to ultraviolet photons is the probable mechanism for the $\gamma$-ray production.'
author:
- 'Carolina Casadio, José L. Gómez, Svetlana G. Jorstad, Alan P. Marscher, Valeri M. Larionov, Paul S. Smith, Mark A. Gurwell, Anne Lähteenmäki, Iván Agudo, Sol N. Molina, Vishal Bala, Manasvita Joshi, Brian Taylor, Karen E. Williamson, Arkady A. Arkharov, Dmitry A. Blinov, George A. Borman, Andrea Di Paola, Tatiana S. Grishina, Vladimir A. Hagen-Thorn, Ryosuke Itoh, Evgenia N. Kopatskaya, Elena G. Larionova, Liudmila V. Larionova, Daria A. Morozova, Elizaveta Rastorgueva-Foi, Sergey G. Sergeev, Merja Tornikoski, Ivan S. Troitsky, Clemens Thum, Helmut Wiesemeyer'
title: 'A multi-wavelength polarimetric study of the blazar CTA102 during a gamma-ray flare in 2012'
---
Introduction
============
The Blazar CTA 102 (B2230+114) is classified as a highly polarized quasar (HPQ), characterized by optical polarization exceeding 3% [@Moore:1981fk]. Its high variability at optical wavelengths [@Pica:1988kx; @Osterman-Meyer:2009uq] and its spectral properties identify it also as an optically violent variable (OVV) quasar [@Maraschi:1986kx]. Microvariability of CTA 102 at optical wavelengths has been investigated by [@Osterman-Meyer:2009uq], who found that faster variability is associated with higher flux states.
The variability in this source occurs at other frequencies as well: flares at cm and mm wavelengths have been registered in the past, as well as an X-ray flare detected by the [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer*]{} in late 2005 [@Osterman-Meyer:2009uq]. A radio flare in 1997 was related to the ejection of a new knot from the core [@Savolainen:2002ys; @Rantakyro:2003fk; @Jorstad:2005fk], and another, in 2006, was connected with both the ejection of a new superluminal feature and the interaction between this component and a recollimation shock at 0.1 mas [@Fromm:2011zr].
The radio morphology on arcsecond scales (from images with the Very Large Array at 6 and 2 cm) reveals a central core with two weak components located at opposite sides [@Spencer:1989vn; @Stanghellini:1998ys]. At higher angular resolution, CTA 102 has been regularly observed since 1995 within the VLBA 2cm-Survey [e.g. @Zensus:2002uq] and its successor, the MOJAVE program [e.g., @Lister:2009kx]. MOJAVE images show that the jet in CTA 102 extends toward the southeast up to $\sim$15 mas from the core, which corresponds to a de-projected distance of $\sim$ 2.7 kpc using the estimated viewing angle of 2.6$^{\circ}$ obtained by [@Jorstad:2005fk].
Kinematic studies of the MOJAVE data report apparent velocities between 1.39$c$ and 8.64$c$ [@Lister:2013vn]. Higher apparent speeds, up to ${\beta_{app}}\sim$18$c$, have been reported in higher-resolution Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) observations at 43 GHz by [@Jorstad:2001fk; @Jorstad:2005fk]. Apart from superluminal features, the jet of CTA 102 also displays standing features: two sationary components, A1 and C, have been observed at a distance of $\sim$0.1 and 2 mas from the core, respectively [@Jorstad:2001fk; @Jorstad:2005fk], and interpreted as recollimation shocks [@Fromm:2013uq].
Recent MOJAVE polarimetric multifrequency observations [@Hovatta:2012fk] reveal a rotation measure gradient across the jet width at 7 mas from the core, which suggests the presence of a helical magnetic field in the jet. A similar result is reported in [@Fromm:2013uq], where the different observing frequencies reveal bends and helical structures in many parts of the jet.
CTA 102 was detected by the [*Fermi*]{} Gamma-ray Space Telescope in the first [*Large Area Telescope*]{} (LAT) catalog with a flux (E$>100~\mathrm{MeV}$) of $14.70\pm0.97\times10^{-8}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ [@Abdo:2010fk], and confirmed in the second catalog [@Ackermann:2011uq]. In late 2012 the blazar exhibited an extraordinarily bright $\gamma$-ray outburst detected by the LAT, reaching a flux of $5.17\pm0.44\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$ between 0.1 and 200 GeV. During the 2012 event, an unprecedented optical and NIR outburst was observed, as reported by [@Larionov:2012eu] and [@Carrasco:2012fp], respectively.
In this paper we perform a radio to $\gamma$-ray multi-wavelength analysis in order to study the flaring activity of CTA 102 during the 2012 event. In Section 2, we present the multi-wavelength data set collected for the analysis, and we describe the methods used to reduce the data. In Section 3 we describe the characteristics of the emission at the different frequencies during the 2012 flare event. In Section 4 we study the kinematics and the flux density variability of the parsec scale jet. In Section 5 we perform the discrete cross-correlation analysis between light-curves. In Section 6 we analyze the polarized emission of the source at mm and optical wavebands. We present our discussions and conclusions in Sections 7 and 8.
We adopt the cosmological values from the most recent [*Planck*]{} satellite results [@Planck-Collaboration:2014]: $\Omega_{m}$= 0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$= 0.7, and $H_{0}$ = 68 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. With these values, at the redshift of CTA 102 ($z$=1.037), 1 mas corresponds to a linear distance of 8.31 pc, and a proper motion of 1 mas yr$^{-1}$ corresponds to an apparent speed of 55.2$c$.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
We are interested in studying the multi-spectral behavior of CTA 102 during the $\gamma$-ray flare that occurred between 2012 September and October. For this, we have collected data from millimeter to $\gamma$-ray wavelengths, extending our study from 2004 June to 2014 June. In particular, the [*Fermi*]{} data extend from the start of the mission (2008 August) to 2013 September, X-ray and UV data cover the observing period from 2009 August to 2013 June, optical and NIR data from 2004 June to 2013 October, and the combined radio light curves cover the entire period from 2004 June to 2014 June.
In the mm-wave range, we use data at (1) 350 GHz (0.85 mm) and 230 GHz (1.3 mm), obtained with the Submillimeter Array (SMA) at Mauna Kea, Hawaii; (2) 230 GHz (1.3 mm) and 86.24 GHz (3.5 mm) with the 30 m Telescope of Institut de Radioastronomie Millimétrique (IRAM) at the Pico Veleta Observatory (Spain); (3) 43 GHz (7 mm) with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA); and (5) 37 GHz (8 mm) with the 13.7 m Telescope at Metsähovi Radio Observatory of Aalto University (Finland).
Near-infrared photometric data (JHK filters) were obtained at the Perkins Telescope at Lowell Observatory (Flagstaff, AZ) using the MIMIR instrument [@Clemens:2007fk] and at the 1.1 m Telescope of the Main Astronomical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences located at Campo Imperatore, Italy [see @Hagen-Thorn:2008uq for details].
We have collected optical photometric data in UBVRI bands from numerous telescopes: (1) the 2.2 m Telescope of Calar Alto Observatory (Almería, Spain)[^1]; (2) the 2 m Liverpool Telescope of the Observatorio del Roque de Los Muchachos (Canary Island, Spain); (3) the 1.83 m Perkins Telescope of Lowell Observatory (Flagstaff, AZ); (4) the 1.54 m and 2.3 m telescopes of Steward Observatory (Mt. Bigelow and Kitt Peak, AZ)[^2]; (5) the 40-cm LX-200 Telescope of St. Petersburg State University (St. Petersburg, Russia); (6) the 70 cm AZT-8 Telescope of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory (Nauchnij, Ukraine); (7) the 1.5 m Kanata Telescope in Higashi-Hiroshima Observatory (Japan)[^3]; and (8) the Ultraviolet and Optical Telescope (UVOT) on board the [*Swift*]{} satellite. Optical data are in part also in polarimetric mode, mostly in R band, except for items (4) and (5) listed above [see @Schmidt:1992kx; @Hagen-Thorn:2008uq respectively, for details]. In the UV range we use UVOT data from [*Swift*]{} in the three available filters: UVW2 (2030 [Å]{}), UVM2 (2231 [Å]{}) and UVW1 (2634 [Å]{}). We have also obtained X-ray data in the energy range 0.3–10 keV from the X-Ray Telescope (XRT) on board of [*Swift*]{} satellite.
At the highest photon energies considered here, we have analyzed $\gamma$-ray data from the Large Area Telescope (LAT) of the [*Fermi*]{} Gamma-ray Space Telescope.
*$\gamma$-ray Data Analysis*
----------------------------
We have analyzed the $\gamma$-ray data of the field containing CTA 102 from the [*Fermi*]{} LAT from 2008 August to 2013 September, producing a light curve between 0.1 and 200 GeV with an integration time of 1 day. We used the Fermi Science Tools version v9r33p0 and instrument response function P7REP$\_$SOURCE$\_$V15, considering data inside a region of interest (ROI) of 15$^{\circ}$ radius centered on CTA 102. We followed the unbinned likelihood procedure as described in web page http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/scitools/.
![[*Fermi*]{} LAT $\gamma$-ray light curve between 0.1 and 200 GeV, with an integration time of 1 day. Red points represent the detections (TS$>$10) and gray arrows correspond to upper limits when the source is not detected (TS$<$10).[]{data-label="fig:CTA102_gamma_lc_1day"}](CTA102_gamma_lc_1day.pdf){width="46.00000%"}
The procedure starts with the selection of good data and time intervals through the tasks [*gtselect*]{} and [*gtmktime*]{}, and follows with the creation of an exposure map for each day (tasks [*gtltcube*]{}, [*gtexpmap*]{}) and the modeling of data through a maximum-likelihood method ([*gtlike*]{}). In this last step, we used a model that includes CTA 102 and 42 other point sources inside the ROI, according to the second [*Fermi*]{} Gamma-ray Catalog, [2FGL; @Ackermann:2011uq]. The model also takes into account the diffuse emission from our Galaxy ([*gll$\_$iem$\_$v05.fit*]{}) and the extragalactic $\gamma$-ray background ([*iso$\_$source$\_$v05.txt*]{}). We searched for the flux normalization of CTA 102 by fixing the spectral index of the other point sources while varying both the flux and spectral index of our target. The $\gamma$-ray spectrum of CTA 102 was modeled with a log parabola curve corresponding to the spectral model given in the 2FGL catalog. We considered a successful detection when the test statistic $TS \geq 10$, which corresponds to a signal-to-noise ratio $\gtrsim 3$-$\sigma$ [@Nolan:2012fk].
{width="85.00000%"}
*X-ray, UV, Optical and Near Infrared*
--------------------------------------
We collected X-ray and UV data from 2009 August to 2013 June from the [*Swift*]{} archive. The X-ray data in the energy range 0.3–10 keV were calibrated following the procedure described in [@Williamson:2014kx]. The UVOT data reduction was performed via the UVOTSOURCE tool, with a sigma value of 5 adopted to compute the background limit. Optical and NIR data were reduced and calibrated following the procedures outlined in [@Jorstad:2010fk]. All of the magnitudes of the optical and NIR data have been corrected for Galactic extinction with values reported in the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED)[^4] for each filter [@Schlafly:2011kx]. For the UV data, we obtained the absolute extinction value at each wavelength A($\lambda$) from equation (1) in [@Cardelli:1989vn]. After the correction we transformed magnitudes into fluxes using the formula reported in [@Mead:1990kx] and [@Poole2008].
*Photo-Polarimetric Millimeter VLBA and Single Dish Data*
---------------------------------------------------------
Multi-epoch very long baseline interferometer (VLBI) images provides ultra-high angular resolution that can be used to determine the location in the jet where flaring activity occurs. We therefore have collected data from the VLBA-BU-BLAZAR program[^5], which consists of monthly monitoring of $\gamma$-ray bright blazars with the VLBA at 43 GHz (7 mm). The dataset consists of 80 total and polarized intensity images from 2007 June to 2014 June. We restore the images with a common convolving beam of 0.4$\times$0.2 milliarcseconds (mas). Since the resolution of the longest baselines of the VLBA is less than half of these dimensions, we employ model fitting to define and determine the parameters of the very fine-scale structure. The data reduction was performed with a combination of the Astronomical Image Processing System ([AIPS]{}) and the Differential Mapping software ([Difmap]{}), as described in [@Jorstad:2005fk]. The electric vector position angle (EVPA) calibration follows the procedure discussed in [@Jorstad:2005fk], which combines the comparison between VLA and VLBA integrated EVPA values at those epochs for which VLA data are available with the method of [@Gomez:2002kx] that utilizes the stability of the instrumental polarization (D-terms).
The IRAM 30m Telescope’s total flux and polarimetric data in this paper were acquired under the POLAMI (Polarimetric AGN Monitoring at the IRAM 30m Telescope) program (see Agudo et al. MNRAS in prep.) and reduced and calibrated following the procedures introduced in .
The Submillimiter Array data of CTA 102 came from an ongoing monitoring program at the SMA to determine the fluxes of compact extragalactic radio sources that can be used as calibrators at mm wavelengths [@Gurwell:2007ys]. Observations of available potential calibrators are from time to time observed for 3 to 5 minutes, and the measured source signal strength calibrated against known standards, typically solar system objects (Titan, Uranus, Neptune, or Callisto). Data from this program are updated regularly and are available at the SMA website.[^6]
Multi-wavelength Outburst
=========================
Figure \[fig:CTA102\_gamma\_lc\_1day\] displays the $\gamma$-ray light curve of CTA 102 in the energy range 0.1–200 GeV during the period of major activity (2011 June–2013 April) obtained with an integration time of 1 day. Following [@Jorstad:2013uq] we can define a $\gamma$-ray outburst as a period when the flux exceeds a threshold of $2\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Although this is an arbitrary limit, it conforms to a visual inspection of the $\gamma$-ray light curve of CTA 102.
The first outburst takes place in 2011 June (MJD 55719-55721), when the source displays a one-day peak flux of $3.1\pm 0.37\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The second, brightest outburst occurs at the end of 2012 September (2012.73), when the source remains above $2\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for 14 days (from MJD 56188 to 56202), reaching a peak of $5.2\pm0.4\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ on MJD 56193. During this outburst the $\gamma$-ray flux increases by a factor of ten in just 6 days. The third flare occurs in April 2013 (MJD 56387–56394) and lasts 8 days. On this occasion (MJD 56392), the blazar reaches a peak of $2.9\pm0.4\times10^{-6}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$.
We compare the daily $\gamma$-ray light-curve with the X-ray, UV, optical, NIR, and radio light-curves in Figure \[fig:CTA102\_mwl\_lc\]. Table \[tabMulti\] lists the multi-wavelength data used in our analysis. The brightest $\gamma$-ray outburst, in 2012 September, is accompanied by similarly bright flares at all of the other wave bands. This is, however, not the case for the other two orphan $\gamma$-ray flares ($\gamma$-ray outbursts with no correspondence at any of the other observing bands), with the exception of a mm-wave flare that follows the third $\gamma$-ray flare in 2013 April.
Analyzing the multi-wavelength flare in 2012, we observe that the X-ray light curve contains a double-peak structure, where the first peak is almost coincident with the $\gamma$-ray outburst and the second peak occurs $\sim$50 days later. The limited sampling of the X-rays prevents a deeper analysis of the overall X-ray behavior associated with this flare. The UV and optical bands exhibit a rapid and pronounced increase in the light curves coinciding with the $\gamma$-ray flare. In the optical light curve, we distinguish a secondary, weaker flare after $\sim$50 days, close to the second X-ray peak, as well as a third, smaller outburst that occurs $\sim$70 days after the second peak. In the UV it is also possible to distinguish a secondary flare delayed by $\sim$50 days with respect to the main flare, but the sampling of the data is insufficient to specify the behavior in more detail. In the NIR light curve, we observe a large flare coincident with the $\gamma$-ray flare, but there is no further sampling after this. A detailed analysis of the NIR flare shown in Figure \[fig:CTA102\_NIR\] reveals that the event consists of three sub-flares covering almost the entire period of high $\gamma$-ray flux from MJD 56193 to 56202.
[ccc]{} $\gamma$-ray data\
Epoch & Flux & Energy band\
(MJD) & (phot/cm$^{2}$/sec) & (GeV)\
54684.2 & 2.15e-07$\pm$1.11e-07 & 0.1-200\
54688.2 & 5.68e-07$\pm$2.30e-07 & 0.1-200\
54689.2 & 10.00e-08$\pm$8.30e-08 & 0.1-200\
.\
.\
X-ray data\
Epoch & Flux & Energy band\
(MJD) & (erg/cm$^{2}$/sec) & (KeV)\
53509.4 & 5.14e-12$\pm$4.74e-13 & 0.3-10\
54210.2 & 4.07e-12$\pm$4.13e-13 & 0.3-10\
54212.1 & 5.97e-12$\pm$7.67e-13 & 0.3-10\
\
\[tabMulti\]
![An expanded view of the NIR light-curve in the J, H, and K bands during the period of the main $\gamma$-ray outburst.[]{data-label="fig:CTA102_NIR"}](CTA102_NIR_lc.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
The radio light curve also exhibits an increase in flux density during the 2012 $\gamma$-ray outburst, but with a much longer time scale, lasting $\sim$200 days. The 1 mm light curve and 7 mm light curves of features C0 and C1 peak on $\sim$ MJD 56230, about 1 month after the $\gamma$-ray flare. The 3 mm light curve follows a similar trend, starting to increase on $\sim$ MJD 56000. Our limited time sampling between MJD 56208 and 56412 shows a peak on MJD 56207, very close to the $\gamma$-ray flare, although we cannot rule out the possibility that the actual peak is closer to that at 1 mm.
{width="160.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
The parsec-scale jet {#Sec:4}
====================
Physical Parameters of Components
---------------------------------
VLBA images of CTA 102 at some selected epochs are displayed in Figures \[fig:CTA102\_28\]-\[fig:CTA102\_pol\]. To carry out an analysis of the jet kinematics and flux density variability, we have fit with [Difmap]{} the complex visibilities with a model source consisting of components described by circular Gaussian brightness distributions. For each epoch, we obtained a model-fit that provides information about the flux density (S), distance (r) and position angle ($\Theta$) relative to the core, and FWHM size (a) of each component. The core (labeled C0), considered stationary over the entire period, is identified with the unresolved component in the north-western (upstream) end of the jet. It is the brightest feature in the jet at most of the epochs. Polarization information has been obtained with an IDL program that calculates the mean values of the degree of polarization ([*m*]{}) and electric vector position angle (EVPA, $\chi$) over the image area defined by the FWHM size of each component. The uncertainties of both [*m*]{} and $\chi$ correspond to the standard deviations of their respective distributions. Model-fit parameters for all components and epochs are reported in Table \[tabVLBA\].
The accuracy of the model-fit parameters for each component depends on its brightness temperature, so that smaller uncertainties are expected for more compact components and higher flux densities. We have therefore established a criterion for quantifying the errors in the model fit parameters that is directly related to the observed brightness temperature, $T_b =7.5\times10^8 S/a^2 $ [e.g., @Jorstad:2005fk], where $T_b$ is measured in Kelvins (K), [*S*]{} in Janskys (Jy), and [*a*]{} in milliarcseconds (mas).
First, we select a representative sample of epochs and components with a wide range of [*S*]{}, [*a*]{} and [*r*]{} values. For each one of these components, we compute the error in the fitted parameters by analyzing how the reduced $\chi^2$ of the fit and resulting residual map change when varying the fitted parameters one at a time. We set a limit on the maximum allowed variation of the reduced $\chi^2$ of 20%, corresponding to an increase by a factor of $\sim$1.5 in the peak levels of the residual map. According to this criterion, we assign a series of uncertainties in position and flux density to the components in the sample. We then relate the derived uncertainties with the measured brightness temperature, obtaining the following relations: $${\sigma}_{xy} \approx 1.3\times10^4 \, T_b^{-0.6},$$ $${\sigma}_S \approx 0.09 \, T_b^{-0.1},$$ where $\sigma_{xy}$ and $\sigma_{S}$ are the uncertainties in the position (right ascension or declination) and flux density, respectively. These relations have been used to compute the errors in the position and flux density for all of the fitted components. To account for the errors in the flux calibration, we have added in quadrature a 5% error to the uncertainty in flux density. The uncertainties in the sizes of components are also expected to depend on their brightness temperatures. Following [@Jorstad:2005fk], we have assigned a 5$\%$ error to the sizes of the majority of components (those with flux densities $\ge$ 50 mJy and sizes of 0.1-0.3 mas) and a 10$\%$ error for more diffuse components.
[c c c c c c c c]{} Epoch & Epoch & Flux & Distance from & Pos. Angle & Major & Degree of & EVPAs\
\[0.07cm\] (year) & (MJD) & (mJy) & C0 (mas) & ($^{\circ}$) & axis (mas) & polarization ($\%$) & ($^{\circ}$)\
&&&& Component C0 &&&\
2007.45 & 54264.5 & 3086 $\pm$ 313 & – & – & 0.017 $\pm$ 0.001 & – & –\
\[0.07cm\] 2007.53 & 54294.5 & 3423 $\pm$ 347 & – & – & 0.034 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.5 $\pm$ 0.2 & 71.2 $\pm$ 5.7\
\[0.07cm\] 2007.59 & 54318.5 & 2340 $\pm$ 239 & – & – & 0.038 $\pm$ 0.002 & 2.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 76.4 $\pm$ 5.4\
\[0.07cm\] 2007.66 & 54342.5 & 3163 $\pm$ 321 & – & – & 0.045 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 71.9 $\pm$ 6.6\
\[0.07cm\] 2007.74 & 54372.5 & 2743 $\pm$ 279 & – & – & 0.045 $\pm$ 0.002 & 1.4 $\pm$ 0.1 & 82.9 $\pm$ 8.4\
\[0.07cm\] .\
.\
&&&& Component C1 &&&\
2007.66 & 54342.5 & 296 $\pm$ 37 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 119.2 $\pm$ 3.2 & 0.062 $\pm$ 0.003 & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.1 & 65.5 $\pm$ 7.1\
\[0.07cm\] 2007.74 & 54372.5 & 307 $\pm$ 37 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & 104.4 $\pm$ 4.8 & 0.031 $\pm$ 0.002 & 2.2 $\pm$ 0.1 & -80.8 $\pm$ 6.3\
\[0.07cm\] 2007.83 & 54405.5 & 168 $\pm$ 25 & 0.13 $\pm$ 0.02 & 119.5 $\pm$ 3.2 & 0.116 $\pm$ 0.006 & 2.6 $\pm$ 0.2 & 79.3 $\pm$ 5.9\
\[0.07cm\] 2008.04 & 54482.5 & 575 $\pm$ 64 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01 & 146.2 $\pm$ 1.9 & 0.070 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.7 $\pm$ 0.1 & 37.8 $\pm$ 5.5\
\[0.07cm\] 2008.16 & 54524.5 & 894 $\pm$ 96 & 0.09 $\pm$ 0.01 & -166.3 $\pm$ 7.4 & 0.062 $\pm$ 0.003 & 0.5 $\pm$ 0.1 & 38.2 $\pm$ 5.6\
\[0.07cm\] .\
.\
\[tabVLBA\]
------ --------- --------------- --------------- ------------------
Name N.Epoch $\mu$ $\beta_{app}$ $T_{ej}$
(mas/yr) (c) (year)
N1 26 0.27$\pm$0.01 14.9$\pm$0.2 2009.12$\pm$0.02
N2 18 0.35$\pm$0.01 19.4$\pm$0.8 2010.65$\pm$0.07
N3 10 0.49$\pm$0.03 26.9$\pm$1.8 2011.96$\pm$0.07
N4 6 0.21$\pm$0.02 11.3$\pm$1.2 2012.49$\pm$0.11
------ --------- --------------- --------------- ------------------
: Kinematics of Moving Jet Features
\[table\_1\]
![Distance from the core vs. time for the 43 GHz model-fit components, with linear fits overlaid. Downward black arrows mark the time of ejection of each component with the respective error bar. The gray vertical stripe indicates the epoch of the $\gamma$-ray flare.[]{data-label="fig:Fit_Comp"}](Fit_Comp.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Light curves of 43 GHz model-fit components. Downward arrows and the gray vertical stripe indicate the same as in Figure \[fig:Fit\_Comp\].[]{data-label="fig:Flux_Comp"}](Flux_Comp.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Plots of separation and flux density versus time for the model-fit jet components, including the core, are presented in Figures \[fig:Fit\_Comp\] and \[fig:Flux\_Comp\]. Besides the core, we have identified seven main components that could be traced reliably across multiple epochs. Component E1, located at $\sim$2 mas from the core, is a weak and extended feature that appears to be quasi-stationary across some epochs, or to move with a significantly slower velocity than other moving components (see Figure \[fig:Fit\_Comp\]). A stronger and more compact component, C1, can be distinguished from the core at most of the observed epochs, located at a mean distance $r\sim$0.1 mas. Both quasi-stationary features have been observed previously by [@Jorstad:2005fk] and [@Fromm:2013uq; @Fromm:2013fk], and interpreted as recollimation shocks in the jet. We identify five other moving components, N1, N2, N3, N4 and S1. Component S1 seems, however, to have a different nature: it appears to form in the wake of component N1 at a distance of $\sim$0.5 mas, and it is observed over only four epochs afterwards. Its properties are similar to those expected and observed previously for trailing components (Agudo et al. 2001; Gómez et al. 2001; Jorstad et al. 2005). Linear fits of separation versus time have been obtained for the other moving components, N1, N2, N3, and N4, based on only those initial epochs at which an accurate position is obtained (see also Figure \[fig:Fit\_Comp\]). This yields the estimates for the apparent velocities and times of ejection (epoch at which the component coincides with the core) listed in Table \[table\_1\].
Since we cannot directly measure the radial velocities of the jet features, a common approach to disentangle the contributions of the component’s Lorentz factor and viewing angle in the observed proper motion is the use of the flux variability (e.g., Jorstad et al. 2005; Hovatta et al. 2009). Following Jorstad et al. (2005), we use causality arguments to infer the variability Doppler factor $$\delta_{\mathrm{var}}={sD_{L}\over c\triangle t_{\mathrm{var}}(1+z)},$$ where [*s*]{} is the disk-equivalent angular diameter (where s=1.6[*a*]{} for a Gaussian component fit with FWHM=[*a*]{} measured at the epoch of maximum flux), and $D_{L}$ is the luminosity distance. The variability timescale is defined as $\triangle t_{\mathrm{var}}$=d[*t*]{}/ln($S_{\mathrm{max}}/S_{\mathrm{min}}$), where $S_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{min}}$ are the measured maximum and minimum flux densities, respectively, and d[*t*]{} is the time in years between $S_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $S_{\mathrm{min}}$ [@Burbidge:1974ly]. This definition of $\delta_{\mathrm{var}}$ is valid under the assumption that the flux density variability timescale corresponds to the light-travel time across the component, which is valid as long as the radiative cooling time is shorter than the light crossing time and expansion time. Combining the estimated value of $\delta_{\mathrm{var}}$ with the measured apparent velocity, $\beta_{\mathrm{app}}=\beta \sin\theta/(1-\beta \cos\theta)$, where $\theta$ and $\beta$ are the viewing angle and velocity (in units of the speed of light) of the component, we can calculate the variability Lorentz factor, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{var}}$, and viewing angle, $\theta_{\mathrm{var}}$, using (Hovatta et al. 2009) $$\Gamma_{\mathrm{var}}={\beta_{\mathrm{app}}^{2}+\delta_{\mathrm{var}}^{2}+1\over 2\delta_{\mathrm{var}}}
\label{gamma}$$ and $$\theta_{\mathrm{var}}=\arctan{2\beta_{\mathrm{app}}\over \beta_{\mathrm{app}}^{2} + \delta_{\mathrm{var}}^{2}-1}.
\label{theta}$$
Physical parameters of the moving components obtained from this method are reported in Table \[table\_2\].
------ --------------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
Name $\triangle t_{var}$ $a_{max}$[^7] $\delta_{var}$ $\theta_{var}$ $\Gamma_{var}$
(yr) (mas) ($^{\circ} $)
N1 0.70 0.14 14.6 3.9 14.9
N2 1.12 0.33 22.4 2.5 19.6
N3 0.28 0.09 26.1 2.2 26.2
N4 0.20 0.08 30.3 1.2 17.3
------ --------------------- --------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------
: Physical Parameters of Moving Jet Features
\[table\_2\]
Kinematics and Flux Density Variability
---------------------------------------
By inspecting the light curves in Figure \[fig:Flux\_Comp\] we can identify two flaring periods in the core: a prolonged first event that extends from mid-2007 to the beginning of 2009, and a second one between mid-2012 and the beginning of 2013, in coincidence with the main $\gamma$-ray flare.
The peak flux of the first flare occurs between 2008 June and July, when both components C0 and C1 increase their flux densities, reaching a combined value of $\sim$ 4.2 Jy. Due to the proximity of C1 to the core, it is not always possible for the model fitting routine to clearly distinguish the two components, leading to high uncertainties in the flux ratio of the two features, as well as uncertainties in the position of C1. Because of this, Figure \[fig:Flux\_Comp\] also shows the combined flux density of the core and component C1, providing the data needed to follow the total flux density within the core region of CTA 102.
{width="38.00000%"} {width="56.00000%"}
![Z-transformed discrete correlation function between optical and $\gamma$-ray data (upper panel) and UV and $\gamma$-ray data (lower panel). In each panel we report the time lag corresponding to the correlation peak with its respective 1-$\sigma$ error [see @Alexander:2013fk for more details].[]{data-label="fig:DCF"}](dcf.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The second flare in the mm-wave core begins in mid-2012, reaching its peak flux density at the end of 2012 October, close to the $\gamma$-ray flare (see Figure \[fig:Flux\_Comp\]; section \[Sec:CC\]). After the peak, the core region (C0 plus C1) remains in a high flux state until the last observing epoch, with a combined flux density oscillating around $\sim$ 2 Jy.
Both flares in the core region are associated with the appearance of subsequent superluminal components. In the case of the first such flare, component N1 appears as a bright and well-defined feature that moves along the jet at $14.9\pm0.2\,c$ (see Figs. \[fig:Fit\_Comp\]-\[fig:Flux\_Comp\] and Table \[table\_1\]). We also note that the ejection of component N1 corresponds to a change in the innermost structure of the compact jet, after which component C1 is no longer detected for almost two years. The second core flare leads to the ejection of component N4, which is significantly weaker than component N1 and has the slowest proper motion of the analyzed components (see Figs.\[fig:Fit\_Comp\]-\[fig:Flux\_Comp\] and Table \[table\_1\]).
The values of the variability Doppler factors listed in Table \[table\_2\] correspond to a progressive increase with time, from 14.6 for component N1 to 30.3 for component N4. Previous estimations of the variability Doppler factor in CTA 102 range between 15.6 [@Hovatta:2009fk] and $22.3\pm4.5$ [@Jorstad:2005fk], making N4 the superluminal knot with the highest Doppler factor to date. According to our analysis this unusually large value is due to a progressive re-orientation in the direction of ejection of knots, from $\theta_{\mathrm{var}}=3.9^{\circ}$ for component N1 to $\theta_{\mathrm{var}}=1.2^{\circ}$ for N4, which travels almost directly along the line of sight. This change in the jet orientation is readily apparent when analyzing each component’s position angle shortly after the time of ejection, as well as their subsequent trajectories, as shown in Figure \[fig:alfa\_delta\].
This smaller viewing angle of the jet with respect to the observer during the second radio flare, which appears to last until the end of our VLBA dataset (June 2014), is also in agreement with the significant differences observed between the ejections of components N1 and N4. While component N1 is clearly identified in the jet as a bright ($\gtrsim 2$ Jy) component soon after its ejection, most of the increase in the total flux density during the second radio flare appears to be associated with the core region (C0+C1), with component N4 representing only a small fraction of the flare. The smaller viewing angle of the jet also leads to a more difficult identification of component N4, which is not clearly discerned from the core until May 2014 (2014.33). Further support for the re-orientation of the jet toward the observed is also obtained from the analysis of the polarization, discussed in section \[Sec:Pol\].
Cross-Correlation Analysis {#Sec:CC}
==========================
To quantify the relationship among the light curves at the different wave bands, we perform a discrete cross-correlation analysis. The z-transformed discrete correlation function (ZDCF) described by [@Alexander:1997fk] has been designed for unevenly sampled light curves, as in our case. We use the publicly available [*zdcf$\_$v1.2*]{} and [*plike$\_$v4.0.f90*]{} programs[^8], with a minimum number of 11 points inside each bin, as recommended for a meaningful statistical interpretation. We compute the DCF between each pair of light curves, including data from 100 days before to 100 days after the main $\gamma$-ray outburst. Time sampling of the light curves ranges from one day for the $\gamma$-ray data to tens of days in the case of some other wavebands (see Figure \[fig:CTA102\_mwl\_lc\]).
Figure \[fig:DCF\] displays the ZDCF analysis for the optical-$\gamma$ (upper panel) and UV-$\gamma$ (lower panel) data. We find that the correlation peaks between the $\gamma$-ray light curve and the optical and UV light curves give a time lag of $0.70\pm1$ and $1.23^{+5.00}_{-4.09}$ days, respectively, where a positive lag means that the $\gamma$-ray variations lead. We therefore conclude that the variations at the three wavelengths are essentially coincident within the uncertainties.
The sparser sampling of the X-ray data, as well as its double-peaked structure, precludes a reliable ZDCF analysis. However, we note that the first X-ray data peak is coincident with the $\gamma$-ray flare, and the second brighter X-ray flare occurs $\sim$50 days later (see Figure \[fig:CTA102\_mwl\_lc\]). The triple-flare structure of the NIR light curve during the $\gamma$-ray flare (see Figure \[fig:CTA102\_NIR\]) also prevents a unique interpretation of a cross-correlation analysis. Nevertheless, from inspection of the light curves, we see that the first, brightest peak in the NIR light curve (56193 MJD) is simultaneous with the $\gamma$-ray outburst within an uncertainty of 1 day, corresponding to the time sampling of both light curves.
We obtain no significant correlation between the millimeter-wave and $\gamma$-ray light curves. This can be due to the different timescales associated with the emission at these wavebands, as suggested also for other blazars [e.g., 1156+295, @Ramakrishnan:2014ys]. The rise time for the millimeter wave band is of the order of months, while for the $\gamma$-rays it is of the order of few days. We note, however, that the 1, 3, and 7 mm light curves contain a significant flare coincident with the $\gamma$-ray outburst.
Polarized Emission {#Sec:Pol}
==================
![Optical and millimeter-wave linear polarization over the period MJD 54000–56800. The first two panels display the degree of mm-wave and optical polarization, respectively. The third and fourth panels display the EVPAs at millimeter and optical wavelengths, respectively. The gray vertical stripe indicates the epoch of the main $\gamma$-ray flare.[]{data-label="fig:CTA102_mwl_pol"}](CTA102_mwl_pol.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:CTA102\_mwl\_pol\] shows the optical and millimeter-wave linear polarization between MJD 54000 and 56900, covering the period of the $\gamma$-ray flare. To solve for the $\pm$$n\pi$ ambiguity in the electric vector position angle (EVPA), we assume the slowest possible variation in time, applying a $\pm\pi$ rotation between two consecutive measurements when the magnitude of the EVPA change would otherwise exceed $\pi/2$.
No significant increase in the degree of polarization at millimeter wavelengths is observed during the $\gamma$-ray flare, but the EVPAs display a progressive rotation starting about one year prior to the $\gamma$-ray flare. Figure \[fig:CTA102\_mwl\_pol\] shows that between 2007 and mid-2011 the EVPAs at 3 and 1 mm are distributed around a mean value of $\sim$100$^{\circ}$. After this, the polarization at millimeter wavelengths starts a slow rotation by almost 80$^{\circ}$ in one year (from 2011 July to 2012 August), until the flare epoch. In coincidence with the $\gamma$-ray flare, the rate of EVPA rotation in the VLBI core and stationary component C1 increases significantly, leading to a rotation of almost 200$^{\circ}$ in one year. Subsequently, component N4 appears and the EVPAs of both C1 and N4 rotate again toward values similar to those at 1 and 3 mm, reaching $\sim -100^{\circ}$. It is possible that during the flare, while the new superluminal component N4 is crossing the core zone, the EVPAs of the innermost region at 7 mm rotate due to the passage of the component. After this, when N4 can be distinguished from C1 and C0, the EVPAs at 7 mm again follow the general behavior of the EVPAs at shorter millimeter wavelengths. A similar discrepancy between the 1-3 mm and 7 mm EVPAs occurs between mid-2009 and mid-2010, when component N1 is ejected and becomes brighter than the core until mid-2010 (see Figure \[fig:Flux\_Comp\]).
![The upper panel displays, from top to bottom, the light-curve, degree and time evolution of polarization, and EVPA at optical frequencies. Each colored mark corresponds to the period over which we plot the $U$ and $Q$ Stokes parameters in the lower panel. Blue points mark a clockwise rotation cycle that occurs in coincidence with the total intensity peak. The gray vertical stripe indicates the time range of the main gamma-ray flare.[]{data-label="fig:UvsQ"}](UvsQ.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
We can then distinguish the rapid rotation of polarization vectors observed in the VLBI components at 7 mm after the flare from the slower rotation observed at 1 and 3 mm. The latter leads to a rotation of the mm-EVPAs of $\sim$200$^{\circ}$ over 3 years (from 2011 July to 2014 August). This progressive rotation in the EVPAs can be produced by a change in the orientation of the innermost jet, which would be in agreement with the larger Doppler factor and smaller viewing angle of component N4 associated with the $\gamma$-ray event, as discussed previously (see [§]{} \[Sec:4\]).
The optical polarization executes rapid and pronounced changes in both degree of polarization and EVPA associated with the $\gamma$-ray flare. Figure \[fig:UvsQ\] displays an expanded view of the optical polarization data near the time of the $\gamma$-ray flare, with four different time ranges marked in different colors. Before the peak at optical frequencies on MJD 56194, the source undergoes a period of rapid changes in both total and polarized emission (marked in red), and the EVPAs rotate by almost $30^{\circ}$. The plot of Stokes parameters U vs. Q in Figure \[fig:UvsQ\] reveals a clear clockwise rotation of the EVPAs (marked in blue), in coincidence with the main flare in total flux and a rapid change in the degree of polarization. This clockwise rotation has been previously reported by [@Larionov:2013uq].
If we assume a model in which a relativistic shock does not cover the entire cross-section of the jet and is moving down the jet following helical magnetic field lines, which also propagate downstream, then we expect to observe a rotation in the EVPA. This should be accompanied by a change in the degree of polarization, with a minimum in the middle of the rotation, where the flaring region contains magnetic field lines with opposite polarity [e.g., @Vlahakis2006; @Marscher:2008vn; @Larionov:2013kx]. Evidences of a helical magnetic field in CTA 102 jet can also be found in the detection of negative circular polarization [@Gabuzda:2008fk] and in a gradient in the rotation measure across the jet width at about 7 mas from the core [@Hovatta:2012fk], both in MOJAVE observations.
Spectral Energy Distribution
============================
We have computed the spectral energy distribution (SED) of the source from millimeter to $\gamma$-ray wavelengths at several epochs (see Figure \[fig:SED\]): two epochs between MJD 54720 and MJD 55055, corresponding to $\gamma$-ray quiescent states; the epochs of the first $\gamma$-ray flare (MJD 55715–55721), the main flare (MJD 56193), and the third $\gamma$-ray flare (MJD 56392–56398); one epoch of a quiescent state between the first and second flares (MJD 56040–56047), and a second one between the second and third flares (MJD 56273–56280). For the main $\gamma$-ray flare, all data are simultaneous except for the mm-wave data, which corresponds to MJD 56208. For the other epochs, we have considered a range of time (as indicated in Figure \[fig:SED\]) in order to cover the entire energy range.
![Spectral energy distribution of CTA 102 from millimeter-wave to $\gamma$-ray frequencies during the brightest $\gamma$-ray flare (black) and at other observing epochs, as labeled in the figure and discussed in the text.[]{data-label="fig:SED"}](nuFnu_nu.pdf){width="49.50000%"}
By examining Figure \[fig:SED\], we observe that, during the multi-wavelength flare in 2012 (black points) both, the synchrotron and the inverse Compton peaks increased. The synchrotron peak frequency during the flare is close to 10$^{14}$ Hz, at the upper end of the frequency range 10$^{12}$-10$^{14}$ Hz of synchrotron peaks observed in luminous blazars [@Ghisellini:2008fk]. At the same time, we also observe a shift in the inverse Compton peak to higher frequencies, which leads to a hardening of the spectrum between 0.1 and 1 GeV. We note that neither of the other two, weaker $\gamma$-ray flares display a similar shift in the peak of the inverse Compton spectrum. In particular, the weaker first and third $\gamma$-ray flares display a very similar inverse Compton spectrum, peaking at nearly the same frequency, with only a minor hardening toward higher energies during the third flare. The shift of the $\gamma$-ray peak toward higher frequencies during the main $\gamma$-ray flare can be explained by a change in the viewing angle – leading to an increase in Doppler factor – of the emitting region, in support of our hypothesis of a reorientation of the jet toward the line of sight during the multi-wavelength flare (see [§]{}[§]{} \[Sec:4\] and \[Sec:Pol\]).
The ratio of the inverse Compton to synchrotron peaks is of the order of 10, which is not sufficiently large to rule out synchrotron self-Compton scattering as the main mechanism for the production of the $\gamma$-ray emission [e.g., @Sikora:2009uq].
Discussion and results
======================
We have presented a multi-wavelength polarimetric study of the quasar CTA 102 during an unprecedented $\gamma$-ray outburst that was observed between 2012 September 23 and October 2. We find that the $\gamma$-ray outburst occurred simultaneously with flares from millimeter to X-ray wavelengths, with the exception that the 1 and 7 mm light curves peak almost one month after the shorter-wavelength flares. However, all of the millimeter-wave light curves begin to increase before the shorter-wavelength outburst, but took longer times to reach maximum flux and then to decay.
Our DCF analysis confirms the coincidence between the $\gamma$-ray flare and the optical-UV flare. The same analysis does not provide unambiguous correlation between the X-ray or NIR and the $\gamma$-ray light curves because of the multi-peak structure of the flare at these two frequencies and the relatively sparse sampling.
The [*Fermi*]{} LAT daily light curve reveals two more $\gamma$-ray outbursts apart from that in 2012: one in 2011 June and the other in 2013 April. Both outbursts are weaker and “orphan”. Only the bright outburst in 2012 September-October is coincident with flares at the other wavelengths and with the emergence of a new superluminal knot from the radio core.
We have combined our multi-wavelength study of light curves with an analysis of multi-epoch VLBA observations at 43 GHz that provide the necessary angular resolution to follow the evolution of the jet during the outburst. In the 43 GHz VLBA images, we observe the ejection of multiple superluminal knots from the radio core during the analyzed period, but only one of these knots, N4, is associated with a $\gamma$-ray flare. Component N4 was ejected in $2012.49\pm0.11$, within a time range between 47 and 127 days before the main $\gamma$-ray flare in 2012 (2012.73), when the radio core started to increase in flux density. The interaction between a traveling feature and the stationary radio core appears to have triggered a number of $\gamma$-ray outbursts in blazars [e.g., @Ramakrishnan:2014ys; @Morozova:2014uq] and radiogalaxies [@Grandi:2012fk; @Casadio:2015fk]. However, not every ejection of a new knot leads to a $\gamma$-ray flare. For instance, it is not clear why a $\gamma$-ray flare is associated with N4 in CTA 102 and not with the other moving radio components.
From the analysis of model-fit components at 43 GHz, we deduce that the jet changed its orientation with respect to the observer when component N4 was ejected. This is derived from an analysis of the variability Doppler factor and viewing angle, which indicates that a progressive increase in the Doppler factor occurred, caused by a re-orientation of the jet toward the line of sight. This led to a minimum viewing angle of $\theta\sim$1.2$^{\circ}$ when component N4 was ejected during the $\gamma$-ray outburst. This change in the orientation of the jet is supported by the observed progressive, slow rotation of the millimeter-wave EVPAs starting almost one year before the ejection of N4 and the $\gamma$-ray flare. We therefore conclude that the $\gamma$-ray emission in CTA 102 is related to a decrease in the viewing angle of the jet.
This correlation between $\gamma$-ray activity and orientation of the jet has been already observed in other BL Lac objects [@Marscher:2008vn; @Larionov:2010fk; @Rani:2014vn], quasars [@Abdo:2010uq; @Raiteri:2011kx; @Jorstad:2013uq], and radio galaxies [@Casadio:2015fk], although there are different interpretations regarding the cause of the change in orientation. Some authors consider a bent or precessing jet, while others suggest a helical jet with the radiating component following this helical path. A helical trajectory could also be the consequence of magnetic field lines twisting around a conical or parabolic jet [@Vlahakis2006].
In the case of CTA 102, there are indications of a helical magnetic field structure [@Gabuzda:2008fk; @Hovatta:2012fk]. We associate the fast variability in the polarized optical emission, as well as the clockwise rotation displayed in the EVPAs during the outburst, with the helical path followed by the superluminal component in its motion along the outwardly propagating magnetic field lines. On the other hand, a number of similar rotations of the mm-wave and optical polarization vectors occurred in both the clockwise and counterclockwise directions over the entire 2004–2014 monitoring period. This can be interpreted in terms of random walks of a turbulent magnetic field [@Jones1988; @DArcangelo2007; @Marscher2014]. Early results from the RoboPol program show that, while many EVPA rotations related to $\gamma$-ray flares can be produced by a random walk process, some are not [@Blinov:2015kx]. If the rotation associated with a $\gamma$-ray flare is caused by a helical geometry of the magnetic field, then future such outbursts should be accompanied by similar clockwise rotations.
The observed long-term rotation in millimeter-wave polarization vectors, together with the slower proper motion associated with component N4, suggest a change in the jet orientation, so that it becomes more closely aligned with the line of sight during the ejection of component N4 and the multi-wavelength flare.
The close timing of the $\gamma$-ray, X-ray, UV, and optical flares suggests co-spatiality of the emission at all these frequencies. Knot N4 was 0.025 to 0.07 mas downstream of the core when the $\gamma$-ray flare occurred, i.e., it had not yet reached feature C1 at $\sim$0.1 mas. This is confirmed by the increase in flux density in the 7 mm core during the $\gamma$-ray outburst. Hence we conclude that the bright $\gamma$-ray outburst occurred inside the mm-wave core region.
We observe component N4 for the first time in the VLBA images on 2013 April (MJD 56398), when it was located at $r\sim$0.12 mas. The $\gamma$-ray flare in 2013 April occurred between MJD 56387 and 56394. Therefore, a possible interpretation of this flare is the passage of component N4 through C1, interpreted by [@Fromm:2013fk] as a possible recollimation shock.
If the radio core were located within $\sim1$ pc of the black hole (BH), then the accretion disk or the broad line region could provide the necessary photon field to explain the high energy emission through external Compton scattering. The 43 GHz radio core in CTA 102 must be coincident with, or downstream of, the 86 GHz core that is located at a distance of $7.5\pm3.2$ pc [$\sim8.5\times10^{4}$ gravitational radii for a BH mass of $\sim8.5\times10^{8} M_{\odot}$; @Zamaninasab:2014fk] from the BH [@Fromm:2015uq]. A similar scaled distance, $\sim10^4$–$10^5$ gravitational radii, has been determined also for two radio galaxies, 3C 111 and 3C 120 [@Marscher:2002kx; @Chatterjee:2009ve; @Chatterjee:2011qf] and two blazars, BL Lac and 3C 279 [@Marscher:2008vn; @Abdo:2010uq]. For a mean viewing angle of the jet of CTA 102 of 2.6$^{\circ}$ [@Jorstad:2005fk; @Fromm:2015uq], the distance of N4 from C0 is 4.6–13 pc, hence the $\gamma$-ray outburst took place more than 12 pc from the BH. At this location, there should be a negligible contribution of photons from the disk or the broad line region, nor from the dusty torus [located $\sim$1.6 pc from the BH; @Pacciani:2014fk], for external Compton scattering to produce the high energy flare. The lack of a suitably strong external source of photons favors synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) scattering of NIR to UV photons by electrons in the jet with energies $\sim 10$ times the rest-mass energy, as the source of the $\gamma$-ray emission. The ratio of $\gamma$-ray to infrared (synchrotron) luminosity is $\lesssim10$, sufficiently low to be consistent with the SSC process.
conclusion
==========
Our study of the time variability of the multi-wavelength flux and linear polarization of the quasar CTA 102 confirms its erratic blazar nature, revealing both strong connections across wave bands in one outburst and no obvious connections for other events. The bright $\gamma$-ray outburst in late 2012 was accompanied by contemporaneous flares at longer wavelengths up to at least 8 mm, with the increase in mm-wave flux starting before the $\gamma$-ray activity. The polarization vector at both optical and millimeter wavelengths rotated from the time of the $\gamma$-ray peak until $\sim 150$ days later. A new superluminally moving knot, N4 — the feature with the highest Doppler beaming factor during our monitoring, according to our analysis — was coincident with the core in the 43 GHz VLBA images 47–127 days prior to the $\gamma$-ray peak. We conclude that the outburst was so luminous because the jet (or, at least, the portion of the jet where most of the emission occurs) had shifted to a direction closer to the line of sight than was previously the case. The time delay between the epoch when N4 crossed the centroid of the core (feature C0) and the epoch of peak $\gamma$-ray emission implies that the main flare took place $\gtrsim 12$ pc from the black hole. At this distance, the only plausible source of seed photons for inverse Compton scattering is NIR to UV emission from the jet itself. The ratio of $\gamma$-ray to infrared luminosity is only $\sim10$ at the peak of the outburst, low enough to be consistent with SSC high-energy emission.
Multiple superluminal knots appeared in the jet during the 7 years covered by our VLBA observations. These include a very bright component (N1) ejected in $2009.12\pm0.02$ and associated with a significant mm-wave flare in the core region ($\sim$4.2 Jy). Yet only component N4 is related to a flare at $\gamma$-ray energies. Two strong “orphan” $\gamma$-ray flares have no apparent optical counterparts. A strong mm-wave event with neither a $\gamma$-ray nor optical counterpart can be explained by an inability of the event to accelerate electrons up to energies $\sim 10^4 mc^2$ needed to radiate at such frequencies, although the reason for this inability is unclear. Orphan $\gamma$-ray flares might be explained by a knot crossing a region where there is a higher local density of seed photons for inverse Compton scattering [@Marscher2010; @MacDonald2015]. Indeed, the second orphan flare corresponds to the time of passage of knot N4 through stationary feature C1 (located $\sim 0.1$ mas from the core), which could be such a region.
During the multi-wavelength outburst we observe intra-day variability in the optical polarized emission, as well as a clockwise rotation in optical EVPAs. This rotation could be caused by a spiral path traced by the knot moving along helical magnetic field lines that propagate outwards relativistically. Alternatively, the various rotations of the polarization vector seen in our dataset, which are in the clockwise and counterclockwise direction over different time ranges, could be mainly random walks caused by a turbulent magnetic field.
CTA 102 displays the complex behavior characteristic of the blazar class of active galactic nuclei. Nevertheless, we have found possible connections between variations in the multi-wavelength flux and polarization and in the structure of the jet in some events. Continued monitoring of CTA 102 and other bright blazars at multiple wave bands with as dense sampling as possible, combined with mm-wave VLBI imaging, can eventually determine which connections are robust and the extent to which stochastic processes dominate the behavior of blazars.
This research has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) grant AYA2013-40825-P. The research at Boston University (BU) was funded in part by NASA Fermi Guest Investigator grants NNX14AQ58G and NNX13AO99G, and Swift Guest Investigator grant NNX14AI96G. Iván Agudo acknowledges support by a Ramón y Cajal grant of the MINECO. The VLBA is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. The PRISM camera at Lowell Observatory was developed by K. Janes et al. at BU and Lowell Observatory, with funding from the NSF, BU, and Lowell Observatory. St.Petersburg University team acknowledges support from Russian RFBR grant 15-02-00949 and St.Petersburg University research grant 6.38.335.2015. This research was conducted in part using the Mimir instrument, jointly developed at Boston University and Lowell Observatory and supported by NASA, NSF, and the W.M. Keck Foundation. The Mimir observations were performed by Lauren Cashman, Jordan Montgomery, and Dan Clemens, all from Boston University. This research is partly based on data taken at the IRAM 30m Telescope. IRAM is supported by INSU/CNRS (France), MPG (Germany), and IGN (Spain). The Submillimeter Array is a joint project between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics and is funded by the Smithsonian Institution and the Academia Sinica. Data from the Steward Observatory spectropolarimetric monitoring project were used. This program is supported by Fermi Guest Investigator grants NNX08AW56G, NNX09AU10G, and NNX12AO93G. The Metsähovi team acknowledges the support from the Academy of Finland to our observing projects (numbers 212656, 210338, 121148, and others).
[72]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , in **, edited by , , , volume of **, p.
—, ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , , , **, ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , in **, edited by , , , , , volume of **, p.
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , in **, volume of **, p.
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , ,
[^1]: Observations performed under the MAPCAT (Monitoring AGN with the Calar Alto Telescopes), see [@Agudo:2012fk]
[^2]: Data taken from the Steward Observatory monitoring project, see [@Smith:2009fk]
[^3]: Data published in [@Itoh:2013uq]
[^4]: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/
[^5]: http://www.bu.edu/blazars/research.html
[^6]: http://sma1.sma.hawaii.edu/callist/callist.html
[^7]: FWHM of the model-fit component calculated at the epoch of maximum flux
[^8]: http://www.weizmann.ac.il/weizsites/tal/research/software/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The Boltzmann H-theorem implies that the solution to the Boltzmann equation tends to an equilibrium, that is, a Maxwellian when time tends to infinity. This has been proved in varies settings when the initial energy is finite. However, when the initial energy is infinite, the time asymptotic state is no longer described by a Maxwellian, but a self-similar solution obtained by Bobylev-Cercignani. The purpose of this paper is to rigorously justify this for the spatially homogeneous problem with Maxwellian molecule type cross section without angular cutoff.\
[**AMS subject classifications:**]{} 82C40; 76P05.
[**Keywords:**]{} Measure valued solution, infinite energy, self-similar solutions, time asymptotic states.
author:
- |
[**Yoshinori Morimoto**]{}\
Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University\
Kyoto 606-8501, Japan\
E-mail address: [email protected]\
[**Tong Yang**]{}\
Department of Mathematics, City University of Hong Kong\
Kowloon Tang, Hong Kong, China\
E-mail address: [email protected]\
[**Huijiang Zhao**]{}\
School of Mathematics and Statistics, Wuhan University\
Wuhan 430072, China\
E-mail address: [email protected]
date:
title: '**Convergence to the Self-similar Solutions to the Homogeneous Boltzmann Equation**'
---
0.2cm
0.2cm 1.5pt \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
Introduction
============
Consider the homogeneous Boltzmann equation $$\label{Boltzmann-equation}
\partial_tf(t,v)=Q(f,f)(t,v),\quad v\in{\mathbb{R}}^3,\ \ t\in {\mathbb{R}^+}$$ with initial data $$\label{Boltzmann-IC}
f(0,v)=f_0(v)\geq 0,\quad v\in {\mathbb{R}^3},$$ where the non-negative unknown function $f(t,v)$ is the distribution density function of particles with velocity $v\in{\mathbb{R}}^3$ at time $t\in {\mathbb{R}^+}$. The right hand side of is the Boltzmann bilinear collision operator corresponding to the Maxwellian molecule type cross section $$\label{collision-term}
Q(g,f)(v)=\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}}^2}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{v-v_*}{|v-v_*|}\cdot \sigma\right)\Big(f(v')g(v'_*)-f(v)g(v_*)\Big)d\sigma dv_*.$$ Here for $\sigma\in {\mathbb{S}}^2$ $$v'=\frac{v+v_*}{2}+\frac{|v-v_*|}{2}\sigma,\quad v'_*=\frac{v+v_*}{2}-\frac{|v-v_*|}{2}\sigma,$$ from the conservation of momentum and energy, $$v'+v'_*=v+v_*,\quad |v'|^2+|v'_*|^2=|v|^2+|v_*|^2.$$
The Maxwellian molecule type cross section $\mathcal{B}(\tau)$ in is a non-negative function depending only on the deviation angle $\theta=\cos^{-1}(\frac{v-v_*}{|v-v_*|}\cdot \sigma)$. As usual, $\theta$ is restricted to $0\leq\theta\leq\frac\pi 2$ by replacing $\mathcal{B}(\cos\theta)$ by its “symmetrized” version $[\mathcal{B}(\cos\theta)+\mathcal{B}(\pi-\cos\theta)]{\bf 1}_{0\leq\theta\leq \pi/2}$. Moreover, motivated by inverse power laws, throughout this paper, we assume $$\label{cross-section}
\lim\limits_{\theta\to 0_+}\mathcal{B}(\cos\theta)\theta^{2+2s}=b_0$$ for positive constants $s\in (0,1)$ and $b_0>0$.
As in [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Cannone-Karch-KRM-2013; @Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995; @Morimoto-KRM-2012; @Toscani-Villani-JSP-1999], the Cauchy problem and is considered in the set of probability measures on $\mathbb{R}^3$. For presentation, we first introduce some function spaces defined in the previous literatures. For $\alpha\in [0,2]$, $\mathcal{P}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ denotes the probability density function $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ such that $$\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^\alpha f(v)dv<\infty,$$ and moreover when $\alpha\geq 1$, it requires that $$\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}v_j f(v)dv=0,\quad j=1,2,3.$$ Following [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010], a characteristic function $\varphi(t,\xi)$ is the Fourier transform of $f(t,v)\in\mathcal{P}^0(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with respect to $v$: $$\label{Fourier-transform}
\varphi(t,\xi)=\hat{f}(t,\xi)=\mathcal{F}(f)(t,\xi)=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}e^{-iv\cdot \xi}f(t,v)dv.$$ For each $\alpha\in[0,2]$, set $\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3) ={\mathcal{F}}^{-1}\left({\mathcal{K}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)\right)$ with $\mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^3)=\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{P}^0(\mathbb{R}^3))$ and $${\mathcal{K}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)=\Big\{\varphi\in \mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^3): \|\varphi-1\|_{{\mathcal{D}}^\alpha}<\infty\Big\}.$$ Here the distance $\mathcal{D}^\alpha$ between two suitable functions $\varphi(\xi)$ and $\tilde{\varphi}(\xi)$ with $\alpha>0$ is defined by $$\left\|\varphi-\tilde{\varphi}\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}\equiv\sup\limits_{0\not=\xi\in{\mathbb{R}}^3}\frac{\left|\varphi(\xi)-\tilde{\varphi}(\xi)\right|}{|\xi|^\alpha}.$$ Then the set ${\mathcal{K}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ endowed with the distance ${\mathcal{D}}^\alpha$ is a complete metric space. It follows from Lemma 3.12 of [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010], that $\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)=\{1\}$ for all $\alpha>2$ and the embeddings $\{1\}\subset \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)\subset \mathcal{K}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)\subset \mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ hold for $2\geq \alpha\geq \beta\geq 0$.
The advantage of considering the Maxwellian molecule cross section is that the Bobylev formula is in a simple form. That is, by taking the Fourier transform of the equation leads to the following equation for the new unknown $\varphi=\varphi(t,\xi)$: $$\label{Reformulated-equation}
\partial_t\varphi(t,\xi)=\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left(\varphi\left(t,\xi^+\right)
\varphi\left(t,\xi^-\right)-\varphi(t,\xi)\right)d\sigma,$$ where we have used $$\varphi(t,0)=\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}f(t,v)dv=1.$$ Here, $$\label{xi_pm}
\xi^+=\frac{\xi+|\xi|\sigma}{2},\quad \xi^-=\frac{\xi-|\xi|\sigma}{2}$$ satisfying $$\label{relation-xi_pm}
\xi^++\xi^-=\xi,\quad |\xi^+|^2+|\xi^-|^2=|\xi|^2.$$ From now on, we consider the Cauchy problem for with initial condition $$\label{Reformulated-IC}
\varphi(0,\xi)=\varphi_0(\xi).$$ For $\alpha\in (2s,2]$, it is shown in [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Morimoto-KRM-2012; @Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014] that this Cauchy problem admits a unique global solution $\varphi(t,\xi)\in C\left([0,\infty), \mathcal{K}^\alpha({\mathbb{R}^3})\right)$ for every $\varphi_0(\xi)\in\mathcal{K}^\alpha({\mathbb{R}^3})$. Moreover, $f(t,\cdot)\in L^1({\mathbb{R}^3}) \cap H^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for any $t>0$ if $\mathcal{F}^{-1}(\varphi_0)(v)$ is not a single Dirac mass, cf. [@Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014; @Morimoto-Yang-2012].
To study the large time behavior of the solution, it depends on whether the initial energy is finite or not, and in the above setting, it depends on the parameter $\alpha$, cf. [@Arkeryd-CMP-1982; @Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Cannone-Karch-KRM-2013; @Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995; @Morimoto-KRM-2012; @Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014; @Pulvirenti-Toscani-AMPA-1996; @Tanaka-WVG-1978; @Toscani-Villani-JSP-1999] and the references cited therein:
- When $\alpha=2$, the initial datum has finite energy so that the solution tends to the Maxwellian defined by the initial datum. This was indeed proved in the early work by Tanaka [@Tanaka-WVG-1978] using probability theory in the weak convergence in probability. And it was also proved later in [@Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995; @Pulvirenti-Toscani-AMPA-1996; @Toscani-Villani-JSP-1999] by using analytic methods about convergence in Toscani metrics. Moreover, if some moment higher than the second order is assumed to be bounded, the convergence in the $\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}-$distance with $\delta>0$ is shown to be exponentially decay in time, cf. [@Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995];
- When $2s<\alpha<2$, the initial energy is infinite so that the solution will no longer tend to an equilibrium, but to a self-similar solution $$f_{\alpha,K}(t,v)=e^{-3\mu_\alpha t}\Psi_{\alpha, K}\left(ve^{-\mu_\alpha t}\right)$$ constructed in [@Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002a; @Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002b], where $$\label{mu-alpha}
\mu_\alpha=\frac{\lambda_\alpha}{\alpha}, \quad \lambda_\alpha\equiv\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left(\frac{|\xi^-|^\alpha+|\xi^+|^\alpha}{|\xi|^\alpha}-1\right)d\sigma.$$ Here, $K>0$ is any given constant and $\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)$ is a radially symmetric non-negative function satisfying $$\label{property-SS}
\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)dv=1,\quad \hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}(\xi)\in {\mathcal{K}}^\alpha({\mathbb{R}^3}),\quad \lim\limits_{|\eta|\to 0}\frac{1-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}(\eta)}{|\eta|^\alpha}=K.$$ The regularity of the self-similar solution in $H^\infty({\mathbb{R}^3})$ was proved in [@Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014; @Morimoto-Yang-2012]. However, the convergence to the self-similar solution $f_{\alpha,K}(t,v)$ is not well understood even though there are some works, cf. [@Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002b; @Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Cannone-Karch-KRM-2013] about pointwise convergence in radially symmetric setting or in weak topology with scaling. In fact, even how to show convergence in distribution sense has been a problem.
The main difficulties in studying the convergence to the self-similar solutions come from the fact that the self-similar solution has infinite energy and it decays to zero exponentially in time except in $L_1$ norm. The purpose of this paper is to show strong convergence holds when $\alpha\in(\max\{2s,1\}, 2]$ under some conditions on the initial perturbation.
For this, we first consider the $\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}$ distance between two solutions. For $f_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $ g_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, as in [@Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995; @Ikenberry-Truesdell-JRMA-1956], set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{correction-funtion}
\widetilde{P}(t,\xi)&=&e^{-At}\widetilde{P}(0,\xi),\nonumber\\
\widetilde{P}(0,\xi)&=&\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l P_{jl}(0)X(\xi),\\
P_{jl}(0)&=&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)(f_0(v)-g_0(v))dv,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{A}
A=\frac 34\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}\right)
\left(1-\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}\right)^2\right)d\sigma,$$ $\delta_{jl}$ is the Kronecker delta and $X(\xi)\equiv X(|\xi|)$ is a smooth radially symmetric function satisfying $0\leq X(\xi)\leq 1$ and $X(\xi)=1$ for $|\xi|\leq 1$ and $X(\xi)=0$ for $|\xi|\geq 2$.
The first result in this paper on the $\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}$ time asymptotic stability of the solutions is given by
\[Thm1.1\] Suppose $f_0(v), g_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for $\alpha\in(\max\{2s,1\}, 2]$. Let $\hat{f}(t,\xi)$ and $ \hat{g}(t,\xi)$ be the corresponding two global solutions of the Cauchy problem with initial data $\hat{f}_0(\xi)$ and $\hat{g}_0(\xi)$ respectively. Assume for some $\delta\in(0,\alpha]\cap\left(0, \frac{A}{\mu_\alpha}\right)$, the initial data satisfy $$\label{zero-2-perturbation}
\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}|v|^2(f_0(v)-g_0(v))dv=0,$$ $$\label{high-integrability}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
{\displaystyle\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}}|v|^{2}|f_0(v)-g_0(v)|dv<+\infty,\\[5mm]
\left\|\hat{f}_0(\cdot)-\hat{g}_0(\cdot)-\widetilde{P}(0,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}<+\infty.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then there exists some positive constant $C_1>0$ independent of $t$ and $\xi$ such that $$\label{stability-estimate}
\left\|\hat{f}(t,\cdot)-\hat{g}(t,\cdot)-\widetilde{P}(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\leq C_1e^{-\eta_0t}, \quad t\geq 0.$$ Here, $\eta_0=\min\left\{A-\delta\mu_{\alpha}, B\right\}$ and $$\label{B}
B=\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}\right)\left(1-\left|\cos\frac\theta 2\right|^{2+\delta}-\left|\sin\frac\theta 2\right|^{2+\delta}\right)d\sigma,\quad \cos\theta=\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}.$$
Note that for the $\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}$ convergence to the self-similar solution, one can simply take $g_0=\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)$. Based on this, in order to obtain a convergence in strong topology, such as in the Sobolev norms, we will give a uniform in time estimate on the solution in $H^N$-norm that is given in
\[Thm1.2\] For $\max\left\{1,2s\right\}<\alpha<2$, assume that $f_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ satisfies - and is not a single Dirac mass, $g_0(v)=\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)$. Then for any given positive constant $t_1>0$ and any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exists a positive constant $C_2(t_1, N)$ independent of $t$ such that $$\label{uniform-H-N-bound}
\sup\limits_{t\in[t_1,+\infty)}\Big\{\left\|f(t,\cdot)\right\|_{H^N}\Big\}\leq C_2(t_1,N).$$ Consequently, there exists a positive constant $C_3(t_1,N)$ independent of $t$ such that $$\label{H-N-decay}
\Big\|f(t,\cdot)-f_{\alpha, K}(t,\cdot)\Big\|_{H^N}=\Big\|f(t,v)-e^{-3\mu_\alpha t}\Psi_{\alpha, K}\left(ve^{-\mu_\alpha t}\right)\Big\|_{H^N}\leq C_3(t_1,N) e^{-\frac{\eta_0 t}{2}}$$ holds for any $t\geq t_1$. Since $$\label{decay-similarity}
e^{-\frac{3\mu_\alpha t}{2}}\Big\|\Psi_{\alpha,K}(\cdot)\Big\|_{L^2}\leq\Big\|f_{\alpha,K}(t,\cdot)\Big\|_{H^N}\leq e^{-\frac{3\mu_\alpha t}{2}}\Big\|\Psi_{\alpha,K}(\cdot)\Big\|_{H^N},$$ and imply that when $$\label{mu-eta}
\mu_\alpha<\frac{\eta_0}{3},$$ the convergence rate given in is faster than the decay rate of the self-similar solution itself. Hence in this case, the infinite energy solution $f(t,v)$ converges to the self-similar solution $f_{\alpha,K}(t,v)$ exponentially in time.
Since $\mu_\alpha\to 0+$ as $\alpha\to 2$, the condition holds when $\alpha$ is close to $2$.
For the case with finite energy, the above stability estimates give a better convergence description on the solution obtained in the previous literatures, which extends the exponential convergence result in the Toscani metrics $\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}$ with $\delta>0$, cf. [@Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995], to the Sobolev space $H^N(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$. In fact, we have
\[decay-Maxwellian\] Suppose that $f_0(v)\in \mathcal{P}^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$ is not a single Dirac mass and satisfies $$\label{high-Maxwellian-integrability}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2f_0(v)dv=3,\quad
\left\|\hat{f}_0(\cdot)-\mu(\cdot)-\widetilde{P}(0,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}<+\infty,$$ for some positive constant $\delta\in (0,2]$ with $\mu=(2\pi)^{-\frac 32}e^{-|v|^2/2}$. Then for any $N\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there exist positive constants $C_4, C_5(t_1, N)>0$ independent of $t$ such that $$\label{stability-Maxwellian}
\left\|\hat{f}(t,\cdot)-\mu(\cdot)-\widetilde{P}(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\leq C_4e^{-\eta_1t}, \quad t>0,$$ and $$\label{uniform-bound}
\sup\limits_{t\in[t_1,+\infty)}\Big\{\left\|f(t,\cdot)\right\|_{H^N}\Big\}\leq C_5(t_1,N),\quad t\geq t_1.$$ Here $t_1>0$ is any given positive constant and $\eta_1=\min\left\{A, B\right\}$.
A direct consequence of and gives $$\label{decay-H-N-Maxwellian}
\Big\|f(t,\cdot)-\mu(\cdot)\Big\|_{H^N}\leq C_6(t_1,N) e^{-\frac{\eta_1t}{2}},$$ for some positive constant $C_6(t_1,N)$ depending only on $t_1$ and $N$.
Two comments on the above two theorems:
- By Lemma \[K-2+delta-bound\], sufficient conditions for the requirements and are $$\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^{2+\delta}\left| f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv<+\infty,$$ and $$\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^{2+\delta}\left| f_0(v)-\mu(v)\right|dv<+\infty,$$ respectively.
- The convergence rate in Corollary \[decay-Maxwellian\] is faster than the corresponding rates in Theorem \[Thm1.1\] and Theorem \[Thm1.2\].
Before the end of the introduction, we list some notations used throughout the paper. Firstly, $C$, $C_i$ with $i\in\mathbb{N}$, and $O(1)$ are used for some generic large positive constants and $\varepsilon, \kappa$ stand for some generic small positive constants. When the dependence needs to be explicitly pointed out, then the notations like $C(\cdot,\cdot)$ are used. For multi-index $\beta=(\beta_1,\beta_2,\beta_3)$, $\partial^\beta_v=\partial^{\beta_1}_{v_1}\partial^{\beta_2}_{v_2}\partial^{\beta_3}_{v_3}$. And $A\lesssim B$ means that there is a constant $C>0$ such that $A\leq CB$, and $A\sim B$ means $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$.
The rest of this paper will be organized as follows: Some known results concerning the global solvability, stability, and regularity of solutions to the Cauchy problem and in $\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ are recalled in Section 2. Moreover, some properties of the approximations of the initial data in $\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ will also be given in this section. And then the proofs of Theorem \[Thm1.1\], Theorem \[Thm1.2\], and Corollary \[decay-Maxwellian\] will be given in the next three sections respectively.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we wil first recall the global solvability, stability and regularity results on the Cauchy problem and obtained in [@Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002a; @Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002b; @Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Cannone-Karch-KRM-2013; @Morimoto-KRM-2012; @Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014; @Morimoto-Yang-2012]. And then we will study the properties of the approximation $f_{0R}(v)$ on the initial data $f_{0}(v)$ defined in for later stability estimates.
For the Cauchy problem and , the following estimates are proved in [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Cannone-Karch-KRM-2013; @Morimoto-KRM-2012; @Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014; @Morimoto-Yang-2012].
\[global-solvability\] For $\alpha\in(2s,2]$, if $\varphi_0(\xi)\in\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, then the Cauchy problem and admits a unique global classical solution $\varphi(t,\xi)\equiv \hat{f}(t,\xi)\in C\left([0,\infty), \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)\right)$ satisfying $$\label{K-alpha-stability-1}
\Big\|\varphi(t,\cdot)-1\Big\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}\leq e^{\lambda_\alpha t}
\Big\|\varphi_0(\cdot)-1\Big\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}.$$ If $ \psi(t,\xi)\in C\left([0,\infty), \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)\right)$ is another solution with initial data $\psi_0(\xi)\in \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, then $$\label{K-alpha-stability}
\Big\|\varphi(t,\cdot)-\psi(t,\cdot)\Big\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}\leq e^{\lambda_\alpha t}
\Big\|\varphi_0(\cdot)-\psi_0(\cdot)\Big\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}.$$ Furthermore, if $f_0(v)=\mathcal{F}^{-1}(\varphi_0)(v)$ is not a single Dirac mass, then $f(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)\cap\mathcal{P}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)\cap H^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for $t>0$ and $0<\beta<\alpha$.
And for self-similar solution $f_{\alpha,K}(t,v)$ constructed in [@Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002a; @Bobylev-Cercignani-JSP-2002b], by [@Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014; @Morimoto-Yang-2012], we have
\[global-solvability-similarity\] For $\alpha\in (2s,2)$ and a constant $K>0$, there exists a radially symmetric function $\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}(\xi)\in \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ satisfying such that $$f_{\alpha,K}(t,v)=e^{-3\mu_\alpha t}\Psi_{\alpha, K}\left(ve^{-\mu_\alpha t}\right)$$ is a solution of the Cauchy problem with initial datum $\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)$. Moreover, $\Psi_{\alpha,K}(t,\cdot)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)\cap\mathcal{P}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)\cap H^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$ for $0<\beta<\alpha$.
The relation between $\mathcal{P}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ was given in [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010] and [@Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014] and it can be stated as follows.
\[imbedding\] It holds that
- For $\alpha\in(0,2]$, if $h(v)\in \mathcal{P}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, then $\hat{h}(\xi)\in\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$;
- For $\alpha\in(0,2]$, if $\hat{h}(\xi)\in\mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, then for any $0<\beta<\alpha$, $h(v)\in \mathcal{P}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)$.
Since the energy of the initial data is infinite, for analysis, we will first approximate it by a cutoff on the large velocity so that the moment of any order is bounded. And then it remains to show that the solution with this kind of approximation has uniform bound independent of the cutoff paremeter. On the other hand, the approximate solution can not be arbitrary because it has to be in the function space $\mathcal{K}^\alpha$.
For $\alpha\in(2s,2]$ and $f_0(v)\in\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, let $X(v)$ be the smooth function defined in the construction of $\widetilde{{P}}(t,\xi)$ and set $X_R(v)=X(v/R)$, define $$\label{approximation-f-0}
f_{0R}(v)=\widetilde{f}_{0R}\left(v+a^f_R\right),\quad \widetilde{f}_{0R}(v)=\frac{f_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}
f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}$$ with $$\label{a-f-R}
a^f_R=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}v\widetilde{f}_{0R}(v)dv=\frac{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}vf_0(v)X_R(v)dv}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}.$$
The properties of the approximation function are given in
\[properties-of-f-0R\] For $1<\beta<\alpha\leq 2$, if we choose $R>0$ sufficiently large, then
- $\hat{f}_{0R}(\xi), \hat{g}_{0R}(\xi)\in {\mathcal{K}}^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$, and for sufficiently large $R>0$ it holds $$\label{estimate-IA-1}
\left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{g}_{0R}(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^2}\leq C_7\left( 1+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|\left(f_0(v)+g_0(v)\right)dv+
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv\right).$$ Here the positive constant $C_7$ depends only on $\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|v|^\beta)(f_0(v)+g_0(v))dv$;
- For $1<\beta<\alpha\leq 2$ and sufficiently large $R>0$, $f_{0R}(v)\in \mathcal{P}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)$ with $\mathcal{P}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)-$norm being uniformly bounded, precisely, $$\label{estimate-IA-2}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^\beta f_{0R}(v)dv\lesssim \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^\beta\right) f_{0}(v)dv.$$ Thus $$\label{estimate-IA-3}
\left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-1\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\lesssim 1,\quad \left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{f}_0(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\lesssim 1,$$ and $$\label{estimate-IA-4}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}\left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{f}_0(\cdot)\right\|
_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}=0.$$
We first prove -. Since it is straightforward to verify , [ ]{} is a direct consequence of and Lemma \[imbedding\]. We only prove as follows: For this, note that $$\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv=1.$$ Choose $R$ sufficiently large, we have $$\label{2.10}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\geq \frac 12,\quad \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}g_0(v)X_R(v)dv\geq \frac 12.$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.11}
\left|a^f_R\right|&\leq& 2\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}vf_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right|\\
&=&2\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}vf_0(v)\left(1-X_R(v)\right)dv\right|
\leq 2R^{1-\beta}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^\beta f_0(v)dv.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\label{2.12}
\left|a^g_R\right|\leq 2R^{1-\beta}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^\beta g_0(v)dv.$$ From , , and the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\hat{f}_{0R}(\xi)-\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|&\leq&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left|f_{0R}(v)-f_0(v)\right|dv\\
&\leq& \left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right)^{-1}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left|f_0\left(v+a^f_R\right)
-f_0(v)\right|dv\\
&&+\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right)^{-1}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)\left|X_R\left(v+a^f_R\right)-\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right|dv,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain
$$\label{2.13}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}\sup\limits_{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|\hat{f}_{0R}(\xi)-\hat{f}_0(\xi)\right|=0.$$
On the other hand, $\hat{f}_0(\xi)\in \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ implies that $\left\|1-\hat{f}_0\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}\lesssim 1$. Consequently, for $1<\beta<\alpha\leq 2$, it holds that $$\frac{\left|1-\hat{f}_0(\eta)\right|}{|\eta|^\beta}\leq \left\|1-\hat{f}_0\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}|\eta|^{\alpha-\beta},$$ so that for each $\varepsilon>0$, there exists a $\delta_1(\varepsilon)>0$ such that $$\label{2.14}
\frac{\left|1-\hat{f}_0(\eta)\right|}{|\eta|^\beta}<\frac \varepsilon 2$$ holds for any $|\eta|<\delta_1$.
Choose $\widetilde{\beta}\in(\beta,\alpha)$ so that $\left\|1-\hat{f}_{0R}\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{\widetilde{\beta}}}$ is bounded by a constant independent of $R$ because of . Then
$$\label{2.15}
\frac{\left|1-\hat{f}_{0R}(\eta)\right|}{|\eta|^\beta}\leq \left\|1-\hat{f}_{0R}\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{\widetilde{\beta}}}|\eta|^{\widetilde{\beta}-\beta}\lesssim|\eta|^{\widetilde{\beta}-\beta}
<\frac\varepsilon 2$$
provided that $|\eta|<\delta_2(\varepsilon)$ for some sufficiently small $\delta_2>0$.
together with imply that for any $\varepsilon>0$ and $|\eta|<\delta=
\min\left\{\delta_1,\delta_2\right\}$, we have $$\label{2.16}
\frac{\left|\hat{f}_{0R}(\eta)-\hat{f}_0(\eta)\right|}{|\eta|^\beta}\leq \frac{\left|1-\hat{f}_{0R}(\eta)\right|}{|\eta|^{\beta}}+ \frac{\left|1-\hat{f}_{0}(\eta)\right|}{|\eta|^{\beta}}
<\varepsilon.$$ And follows directly from and .
Now it remains to prove . Set $$\label{2.17}
k(v,\xi)=\frac{e^{-iv\cdot\xi}+iv\cdot\xi-1}{|\xi|^2},$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.18}
\frac{\left|\hat{f}_{0R}(\xi)-\hat{g}_{0R}(\xi)\right|}{|\xi|^2}&=&
\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(k\left(v-a^f_R,\xi\right)\frac{f_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}
-k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\frac{g_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}g_0(v)X_R(v)dv}\right)dv\right|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\underbrace{\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(k\left(v-a^f_R,\xi\right)-k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\right)
\frac{f_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}dv\right|}_{I_1}\\
&&+\underbrace{\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\left(\frac{f_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}
-\frac{g_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}g_0(v)X_R(v)dv}\right)dv\right|}_{I_2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, from , and the fact $$\left|k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\right|\lesssim \left|v-a^g_R\right|^2,$$ we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.19}
I_2&\leq& 2\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)(f_0(v)-g_0(v))X_R(v)dv\right|\nonumber\\
&&+4\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)g_0(v)X_R(v)
\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))X_R(v)dv\right)dv\right|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^2\right)\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv
+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^2\right)g_0(v)X_R(v)
\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))\left(1-X_R(v)\right)dv\right|dv\\
&\lesssim&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^2\right)\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv
+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^\beta\right)g_0(v)dv\cdot R^{2-\beta}\cdot
\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))\left(1-X_R(v)\right)dv\right|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^2\right)\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv
+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^\beta\right)g_0(v)dv\cdot \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^{2-\beta}\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^2\right)\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv\cdot
\left(1+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^\beta\right)g_0(v)dv\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
For $I_1$, by noticing $$\label{2.20}
\left|k\left(v-a^f_R,\xi\right)-k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\right|=
|\xi|^{-2}\left|e^{-i\left(v-a^f_R\right)\cdot\xi}
\left(e^{-i\left(a^g_R-a^f_R\right)\cdot\xi}-1\right)+i\left(a^g_R-a^f_R\right)\cdot\xi\right|,$$ we have for $|\xi|\geq 1$ that $$\label{2.21}
\left|k\left(v-a^f_R,\xi\right)-k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\right|\lesssim \left|a^g_R-a^f_R\right|\lesssim R^{1-\beta}.$$ For $|\xi|\leq 1$, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.22}
&&\left|k\left(v-a^f_R,\xi\right)-k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\right|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& |\xi|^{-2}\left|\left[
\left(1+O(1)\left|v-a^g_R\right||\xi|\right)\left(-i\left(a^g_R-a^f_R\right)\cdot\xi+O(1)\left|a^g_R-a^f_R\right|^2|\xi|^2\right)
+i\left(a^g_R-a^f_R\right)\cdot\xi\right]\right|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&\left|a^g_R-a^f_R\right|^2+\left|v-a^g_R\right|\left|a^g_R-a^f_R\right|
+\left|v-a^g_R\right|\left|a^g_R-a^f_R\right|^2|\xi|\\
&\lesssim& (1+|v|)R^{1-\beta}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus, , and imply that $$\label{2.23}
\left|k\left(v-a^f_R,\xi\right)-k\left(v-a^g_R,\xi\right)\right|\lesssim 1+|v|,$$ and consequently $$\label{2.24}
I_1\lesssim \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|v|)f_0(v)dv.$$ Inserting and into yields and this completes the proof of Lemma \[properties-of-f-0R\].
Now let $$\label{2.25}
P^R_{jl}(0)\equiv \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}
\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)\left(f_{0R}(v)-g_{0R}(v)\right)dv$$ be the approximation of $P_{jl}(0)$ defined by $_3$. The following lemma gives the convergence of $P^R_{jl}(0)$ to $P_{jl}(0)$ as $R\to+\infty$.
\[convergence-correction-function\] Assume $$\label{2.26}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2\left|f_0(v)-g_0(v)\right|dv<+\infty,$$ then $$\label{2.27}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}P_{jl}^R(0)=P_{jl}(0).$$
Notice that
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.28}
P^R_{jl}(0)&=&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}
\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)\frac{f_0
\left(v+a^f_R\right)X_R\left(v+a^f_R\right)-f_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)X_R\left(v+a^g_R\right)}
{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}dv\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right)^{-1}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)
\left(f_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)-g_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)\right)X_R\left(v+a^g_R\right)dv\\
&&+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}
\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)g_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)X_R\left(v+a^g_R\right)\left(
\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right)^{-1}-\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}g_0(v)X_R(v)dv\right)^{-1}\right)dv\nonumber\\
&=& \underbrace{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left[
\left(\left(v_j-a^f_{Rj}\right)\left(v_l-a^f_{Rl}\right)-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}\left|v-a^f_R\right|^2\right)
- \left(\left(v_j-a^g_{Rj}\right)\left(v_l-a^g_{Rl}\right)-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}\left|v-a^g_R\right|^2\right)\right]
\frac{f_0(v)X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}dv}_{I_3}\nonumber\\
&&+ \underbrace{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(\left(v_j-a^g_{Rj}\right)\left(v_l-a^g_{Rl}\right)-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}\left|v-a^g_R\right|^2\right)
\frac{(f_0(v)-g_0(v))X_R(v)}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv}dv}_{I_4}\nonumber\\
&&+\underbrace{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)g_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)X_R\left(v+a^g_R\right)
\frac{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))X_R(v)dv}{\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv\cdot \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}g_0(v)X_R(v)dv}dv}_{I_5}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We have from $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|\left(\left(v_j-a^f_{Rj}\right)\left(v_l-a^f_{Rl}\right)-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}\left|v-a^f_R\right|^2\right)
- \left(\left(v_j-a^g_{Rj}\right)\left(v_l-a^g_{Rl}\right)-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}\left|v-a^g_R\right|^2\right)\right|\\
&\lesssim&\left|a^f_R-a^g_R\right||v|+\left|a^g_R\right|^2+\left|a^f_R\right|^2,\end{aligned}$$ and that for $R\geq R_1$ $$|I_3|\lesssim\left(\left|a^g_R\right|+\left|a^f_R\right|\right)\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|v|)f_0(v)dv.$$ This together with - imply that $$\label{2.29}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty} I_3=0.$$ For $I_5$, if $R$ is sufficiently large, we have from , and the assumption that
$$\begin{aligned}
|I_5|&\lesssim& \left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)g_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)X_R\left(v+a^g_R\right)
\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))X_R(v)dv\right)dv\right|\\
&\lesssim& \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+\left|v-a^g_R\right|^2\right)g_0\left(v+a^g_R\right)X_R\left(v+a^g_R\right)
\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))\left(1-X_R(v)\right)dv\right|dv\\
&\lesssim& \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|v|^\beta)R^{2-\beta}g_0(v)X_R(v)
\left|\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(f_0(v)-g_0(v))\left(1-X_R(v)\right)dv\right|dv\\
&\lesssim&R^{2(1-\beta)}\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|v|^\beta)g_0(v)dv\right)
\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^\beta|f_0(v)-g_0(v)|dv\right)
\lesssim R^{2(1-\beta)}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus
$$\label{2.30}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty} I_5=0.$$
Finally for $I_4$, from , , the assumption and $\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}f_0(v)X_R(v)dv=1$, the dominated convergence theorem yields $$\label{2.31}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}I_4=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)(f_0(v)-g_0(v))dv=P_{jl}(0).$$ Inserting , and into gives . This completes the proof of the lemma.
In the last lemma of this section, a sufficient condition for on $f_0(v)-g_0(v)$ used in Theorem \[Thm1.1\] is given.
\[K-2+delta-bound\] Let $0<\delta\leq 1$, it holds that $$\label{2.32}
\left\|\hat{f}_0(\cdot)-\hat{g}_0(\cdot)-\widetilde{P}(0,\cdot)\right\|
_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\lesssim
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\left(1+|v|^{2+\delta}\right)|f_0(v)-g_0(v)|dv.$$
In fact, by the assumption , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{f}_0(\xi)-\hat{g}_0(\xi)-\widetilde{P}(0,\xi)&=&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}
\left[e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi-\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l X(\xi)\left(v_jv_l-\frac{\delta_{jl}}{3}|v|^2\right)\right](f_0(v)-g_0(v))dv\\
&=&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}
\left[e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi-\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l X(\xi)v_jv_l\right](f_0(v)-g_0(v))dv.\end{aligned}$$ The Taylor expansion of $e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi$ to the second order implies that $$\left|e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi-\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l X(\xi)v_jv_l\right|\lesssim |v|^2|\xi|^2,$$ and the Taylor expansion to $e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi-\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l X(\xi)v_jv_l$ to the third order gives $$\left|e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi-\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l X(\xi)v_jv_l\right|\lesssim \left(1+|v|^3\right)|\xi|^3.$$ Thus interpolation yields
$$\left|e^{-iv\cdot\xi}-1+iv\cdot\xi-\frac 12\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3\xi_j\xi_l X(\xi)v_jv_l\right|\lesssim \left(1+|v|^{2+\delta}\right)|\xi|^{2+\delta},$$ for $0<\delta\leq 1$. With this, follows. And this completes the proof of the lemma.
Proof of Theorem \[Thm1.1\]
===========================
To prove Theorem \[Thm1.1\], as in [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010], we first approximate the cross section by a sequence of bounded cross sections defined by $$\label{3.1}
\mathcal{B}_n(s)=\min\left\{\mathcal{B}(s), n\right\},\quad n\in\mathbb{N}.$$ Then consider $$\begin{aligned}
&&\partial_tH_n+H_n=\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}
\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{(v-v_*)\cdot \sigma}{|v-v_*|}\right)H_n(v')H_n(v'_*)d\sigma dv_*,\label{3.3}\\
&&H_n(0,v)=H_0(v).\label{3.4}\end{aligned}$$ Here $$\label{3.2}
\overline{\sigma}_n=\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot \sigma}{|\xi|}\right)d\sigma.$$
For $\alpha\in(\max\{2s,1\},2]$ and $f_0(v), g_0(v)\in\widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$, let $f_{0R}(v)$ and $g_{0R}(v)$ be the approximation of $f_0(v)$ and $g_0(v)$ constructed in the previous section. Since $f_{0R}(v), g_{0R}(v)\in \mathcal{P}^2(\mathbb{R}^3)\subset \mathcal{K}^2(\mathbb{R}^3)$, it follows from Lemma \[global-solvability\] that the Cauchy problem - with $H_0(v)=f_{0R}(v)$ ( $H_0(v)=g_{0R}(v)$) admits a unique non-negative global solution $F^n_R(t,v)$ ($G^n_R(t,v)$) satisfying $\hat{F}^n_R(t,\xi)\in C\left([0,\infty),\mathcal{K}^2(\mathbb{R}^3)\right)$ ($\hat{G}^n_R(t,\xi)\in C\left([0,\infty),\mathcal{K}^2(\mathbb{R}^3)\right)$). Moreover, for $\max\{2s,1\}<\beta<\alpha\leq 2$, , Lemma \[imbedding\] and Lemma \[properties-of-f-0R\] imply that $$\label{3.5}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\left\|\hat{F}^n_R(t,\cdot)-\hat{F}_n(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\leq e^{\lambda^n_\beta t}
\left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{f}_0(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\lesssim e^{\lambda^n_\beta t},\\[3mm]
\left\|\hat{G}^n_R(t,\cdot)-\hat{G}_n(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\leq e^{\lambda^n_\beta t}
\left\|\hat{g}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{g}_0(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\lesssim e^{\lambda^n_\beta t}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here $F_n(t,v)$ and $G_n(t,v)$ denote the unique non-negative solutions of the Cauchy problem - with initial data $f_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and $g_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ respectively, and $$\label{3.6}
\lambda^n_\alpha=\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\left(\frac{|\xi^+|^\alpha+|\xi^-|^\alpha}{|\xi|^\alpha}-1\right)d\sigma.$$
Furthermore, $$\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2F^n_R(t,v)dv=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2f_{0R}(v)dv<+\infty,\quad
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2G^n_R(t,v)dv=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2g_{0R}(v)dv<+\infty.$$ Consequently, Lemma \[global-solvability\] yields $$\label{3.7}
\left\|\hat{F}^n_R(t,\cdot)-\hat{G}^n_R(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^2}\leq
\left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{g}_{0R}(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^2}\lesssim 1,\quad t>0.$$
Noticing that $$\left|\hat{F}^n_R(t,\xi)-\hat{F}_n(t,\xi)\right|\leq |\xi|^\beta\left\|\hat{F}^n_R(t,\cdot)-\hat{F}_n(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta}\leq |\xi|^\beta e^{\lambda^n_\beta t}
\left\|\hat{f}_{0R}(\cdot)-\hat{f}_0(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\beta},$$ where has been used, from , we have
\[conv-f-n-R\] The limit $$\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}\left(\hat{F}^n_R(t,\xi),\hat{G}^n_R(t,\xi)\right)=\left(\hat{F}_n(t,\xi),\hat{G}_n(t,\xi)\right)$$ holds uniformly, locally with respect to $t\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^3$.
[ Putting]{} $$\label{3.8}
\Phi^{nR}_1(t,\xi)=\hat{F}^n_R(t,\xi)-\hat{G}^n_R(t,\xi)-\widetilde{P}^n_R(t,\xi)$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.9}
\widetilde{P}^n_R(t,\xi)&=&\frac 12 e^{-A_n t}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3P^R_{jl}(0)\xi_j\xi_lX(\xi),\\
A_n&=&\frac{3}{4\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\left[1-\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)^2\right]d\sigma,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ we now deduce the equation for $\Phi^{nR}_1(t,\xi)$. Set $$\label{3.10}
\hat{Q}^+_n\left(\hat{F},\hat{G}\right)=\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\hat{F}(t,\xi^+)\hat{G}(t,\xi^-)d\sigma.$$ Since $\hat{F}^n_R(t,\xi)$ and $\hat{G}^n_R(t,\xi)$ satisfy $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_t \hat{F}^n_R+\hat{F}^n_R=\hat{Q}^+\left(\hat{F}^n_R,\hat{F}^n_R\right),\\[3mm]
\partial_t \hat{G}^n_R+\hat{G}^n_R=\hat{Q}^+\left(\hat{G}^n_R,\hat{G}^n_R\right),
\end{array}
\right.$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.11}
\partial_t\Phi^{nR}_1+\Phi^{nR}_1&=&-\left(\partial_t\widetilde{P}^n_R+\widetilde{P}^n_R\right)
+\hat{Q}^+\left(\Phi_1^{nR},\hat{F}^n_R\right)+\hat{Q}^+\left(\hat{G}^n_R,\Phi_1^{nR}\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\hat{Q}^+\left(\widetilde{P}^n_R,\hat{F}^n_R\right)
+\hat{Q}^+\left(\hat{G}^n_R,\widetilde{P}^n_R\right),\\
\Phi^{nR}_1(0,\xi)&=&\hat{f}_{0R}(\xi)-\hat{g}_{0R}(\xi)-\widetilde{P}^n_R(0,\xi).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let $$\label{3.12}
\Phi^{n}_1(t,\xi)=\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)-\hat{G}^n(t,\xi)-\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi).$$ By taking $R\to+\infty$, we have from Lemma \[conv-f-n-R\] and Lemma \[convergence-correction-function\] that $\Phi^{nR}_1(t,\xi)\to \Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$ uniformly, locally with respect to $t\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^3$ as $R\to+\infty$. To derive the equation for $\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$, we firstly study $$\label{3.13}
E^n_R(t,\xi)=\hat{Q}^+\left(\widetilde{P}^n_R,\hat{F}^n_R\right)
+\hat{Q}^+\left(\hat{G}^n_R,\widetilde{P}^n_R\right)-\left(\partial_t\widetilde{P}^n_R(t,\xi)+\widetilde{P}^n_R(t,\xi)\right).$$ In fact, for $E^n_R(t,\xi)$, we have
\[I-6-R\] It holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.14}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}E^n_R(t,\xi)=E^n(t,\xi),\end{aligned}$$ uniformly, locally with respect to $t\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^3$. And $E^n(t,\xi)$ satisfies $$\label{3.15}
\left|E^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
O(1) |\xi|^{2+\delta}e^{-\left(A_n-\frac{\delta \lambda_\alpha^n}{\alpha} \right)t},&\quad |\xi|\leq 1,\\[2mm]
O(1)e^{-A_nt},&\quad |\xi|\geq 1
\end{array}
\right.$$ for any $\delta\in (0,\alpha]\cap\left(0,\frac{\alpha A_n}{\lambda^n_\alpha}\right)$ and some positive constant $O(1)$ independent of $t, \xi, R$ and $n$.
Since $$\begin{aligned}
E^n_R(t,\xi)&=&-\left(\partial_t\widetilde{P}^n_R(t,\xi)+\widetilde{P}^n_R(t,\xi)\right)\\
&&+\frac 1{2\overline{\sigma}_n}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P^R_{jl}(0)
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\Big[\xi_j^+\xi_l^+X(\xi^+)
+\xi_j^-\xi_l^-X(\xi^-)\Big]d\sigma\\
&&+\frac 1{2\overline{\sigma}_n}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P^R_{jl}(0)
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left[\xi_j^+\xi_l^+X(\xi^+)\left(\hat{F}^n_R(t,\xi^-)-1\right)
+\xi_j^-\xi_l^-X(\xi^-)\left(\hat{G}^n_R(t,\xi^+)-1\right)\right]d\sigma,\end{aligned}$$ [ it follows]{} from Lemma \[conv-f-n-R\] and Lemma \[convergence-correction-function\] that $$\label{3.16}
\lim\limits_{R\to+\infty}E^n_R(t,\xi)=E^n(t,\xi)$$ uniformly, locally with respect to $t\in\mathbb{R}^+$ and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^3$. Here $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.17}
E^n(t,\xi)&=&-\left(\partial_t\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)+\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)\right)+\underbrace{\frac 1{2\overline{\sigma}_n}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P_{jl}(0)
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\Big[\xi_j^+\xi_l^+X(\xi^+)
+\xi_j^-\xi_l^-X(\xi^-)\Big]d\sigma}_{I_6}\\
&&+\underbrace{\frac 1{2\overline{\sigma}_n}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P_{jl}(0)
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left[\xi_j^+\xi_l^+X(\xi^+)\left(\hat{F}^n(t,\xi^-)-1\right)
+\xi_j^-\xi_l^-X(\xi^-)\left(\hat{G}^n(t,\xi^+)-1\right)\right]d\sigma}_{I_7},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{3.18}
\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)=\frac 12 e^{-A_n t}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3P_{jl}(0)\xi_j\xi_lX(\xi).$$ To estimate the bounds on $I_6$ and $I_7$, firstly note that for $|\xi|\geq 1$, $$\left|\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq 1,\quad \left|\hat{G}^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq 1$$ [ imply]{} that $$\label{3.19}
\left|E^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq O(1)(1+A_n)e^{-A_nt}\leq O(1)e^{-A_nt}.$$ Here we have used the fact that $A_n$ has a uniform upper bound for any $n\in\mathbb{N}$.
If $|\xi|\leq 1$, then $|\xi^\pm|\leq 1$ so that $X(\xi^\pm)\equiv 1$. Hence, as obtained in [@Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995], we have $$\xi_j^-\xi_l^-+\xi_j^+\xi_l^+= \frac 12\left(\xi_j\xi_l+|\xi|^2\sigma_j\sigma_l\right),$$ and $$\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\sigma_j\sigma_ld\sigma
=\frac{2A_n}{3}\delta_{jl}+\left(1-2A_n\right)\frac{\xi_j\xi_l}{|\xi|^2}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
I_6&=&\frac 1{2\overline{\sigma}_n}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P_{jl}(0)
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\Big[\xi_j^+\xi_l^+
+\xi_j^-\xi_l^-\Big]d\sigma\\
&=&\frac 1{4\overline{\sigma}_n}\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P_{jl}(0)
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\Big[\xi_j\xi_l
+|\xi|^2\sigma_j\sigma_l\Big]d\sigma\\
&=&\frac 14\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P_{jl}(0)\xi_j\xi_l
+\frac 14\sum\limits_{j,l=1}^3e^{-A_nt}P_{jl}(0)\left[(1-2A_n)\xi_j\xi_l+\frac{2A_n}{3}\delta_{jl}|\xi|^2\right]\\
&=&(1-A_n)\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)= \partial_t\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)+\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi).\end{aligned}$$ Thus for $|\xi|\leq 1$, it holds that $$\label{3.20}
I_6-\left(\partial_t\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)+\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)\right)=0.$$ For $I_7$ when $|\xi|\leq 1$, we have from the assumption $f_0(v), g_0(v)\in \widetilde{\mathcal{P}}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3)$ and Lemma \[global-solvability\] that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|\hat{F}_n(t,\xi)-1\right|\leq |\xi|^\alpha\left\|\hat{F}_n(t,\cdot)-1\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}\leq e^{\lambda_\alpha^nt}|\xi|^\alpha \left\|\hat{f}_0(\cdot)-1\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha},\\
&&\left|\hat{G}_n(t,\xi)-1\right|\leq |\xi|^\alpha\left\|\hat{G}_n(t,\cdot)-1\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}\leq e^{\lambda_\alpha^nt}|\xi|^\alpha \left\|\hat{g}_0(\cdot)-1\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$ The above estimates together with $\left|\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq 1
$ and $ \left|\hat{G}^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq 1$ imply that $$\label{3.21}
\left|\hat{F}_n(t,\xi)-1\right|+\left|\hat{G}_n(t,\xi)-1\right|\leq O(1)|\xi|^{\varepsilon\alpha}e^{\varepsilon \lambda_\alpha^nt}$$ for any $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$. Consequently, for $|\xi|\leq 1$, $$\label{3.22}
|I_7|\leq O(1) |\xi|^{2+\varepsilon\alpha}e^{-\left(A_n-\varepsilon\lambda_\alpha^n\right)t}.$$ together with imply that $$\label{3.23}
\left|E^n(t,\xi)\right|\leq O(1) |\xi|^{2+\varepsilon\alpha}e^{-\left(A_n-\varepsilon\lambda_\alpha^n\right)t}, \quad |\xi|\leq 1.$$
With and , let $\delta=\varepsilon\alpha$, the estimate follows immediately. This completes the proof of the lemma.
Now by letting $R\to+\infty$ in , we get from Lemma \[convergence-correction-function\], Lemma \[conv-f-n-R\] and Lemma \[I-6-R\] that $\Phi^{n}_1(t,\xi)=\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)-\hat{G}^n(t,\xi)-\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\Phi^{n}_1+\Phi^{n}_1&=&\hat{Q}^+\left(\Phi_1^{n},\hat{F}^n\right)+\hat{Q}^+\left(\hat{G}^n,\Phi_1^{n}\right)
+E^n(t,\xi),\label{3.24}\\
\Phi^{n}_1(0,\xi)&=&\hat{f}_{0}(\xi)-\hat{g}_{0}(\xi)-\widetilde{P}^n(0,\xi).\label{3.25}\end{aligned}$$ Here $E^n(t,\xi)$ satisfies . By Lemmas \[convergence-correction-function\], \[conv-f-n-R\] and \[I-6-R\], $\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$, $\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)$, $\hat{G}_n(t,\xi)$ and $E^n(t,\xi)$ are continuous functions of $(t,\xi)\in \mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^3$ and satisfy in the sense of distribution. Since $\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$, $\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)$, $\hat{G}_n(t,\xi)$, and $E^n(t,\xi)$ are uniformly bounded, $\partial_t\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$ is also uniformly bounded so that $\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$ is globally Lipschitz continuous with respect to $t$. Hence holds almost everywhere. Furthermore, by the continuity of $\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$, $\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)$, $\hat{G}_n(t,\xi)$ and $E^n(t,\xi)$, we have that $\partial_t\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$ is a continuous function of $(t,\xi)\in \mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^3$ and consequently $\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)$ satisfies everywhere.
The next lemma is about the upper bound on $\left\|\Phi^n_1(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}$ for some $\delta\in(0,\alpha]\cap\left(0,\frac{\alpha A_n}{\lambda_n}\right)$.
\[Lemma-3.3\] If $\left\|\Phi^n_1(0,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}<+\infty$ with $\delta\in (0,\alpha]\cap\left(0,\frac{\alpha A_n}{\lambda_n}\right)$, then $$\label{3.26}
\left\|\Phi^n_1(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\lesssim e^{-\eta^n_0t}.$$ Here $\eta^n_0=\min\left\{B_n,A_n-\frac{\delta\lambda^n_\alpha}{\alpha}\right\}$ with $$\label{3.27}
B_n=\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}\right)\left(1-\left|\cos\frac\theta 2\right|^{2+\delta}-\left|\sin\frac\theta 2\right|^{2+\delta}\right)d\sigma,\quad \cos\theta=\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}.$$
The proof is divided into two steps, the first step is to show that $\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)}{|\xi|^{2+\delta}}\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3)$. Indeed, for $\kappa>0$, we have from that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.28}
&&\left(\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)}{|\xi|^{2}\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\right)_t+\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)}
{|\xi|^{2}\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot\xi}{|\xi|}\right)
\left[\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi^+)}{|\xi^+|^{2}\left(|\xi^+|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\frac{|\xi^+|^{2}\left(|\xi^+|^\delta+\kappa\right)}
{|\xi|^{2}\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\hat{F}^n(t,\xi^-)\right.\\
&&\left.+\hat{G}^n(t,\xi^+)
\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi^-)}{|\xi^-|^{2}\left(|\xi^-|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\frac{|\xi^-|^{2}\left(|\xi^-|^\delta+\kappa\right)}
{|\xi|^{2}\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\right]d\sigma +\frac{E^n(t,\xi)}{|\xi|^2\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, by letting $R\to+\infty$ in , we have from Lemma \[conv-f-n-R\] that for $t>0$ $$\label{3.29}
\left\|\hat{F}^n(t,\cdot)-\hat{G}^n(t,\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^2}\leq
\left\|\hat{f}_{0}(\cdot)-\hat{g}_{0}(\cdot)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^2}\lesssim 1.$$
together with the definition of $\widetilde{P}^n(t,\xi)$ imply that $$\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)}{|\xi|^{2}\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\in L^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3),\quad t>0,$$ for any $\kappa>0$. Hence, by , Lemma \[I-6-R\] and the fact that $|\xi^\pm|\leq |\xi|, |\hat{F}^n(t,\xi)|\leq 1, |\hat{G}^n(t,\xi)|\leq 1$, we can deduce by using the Gronwall inequality that there exists a positive constant $C(T)>0$ independent of $\kappa, n$ and $\xi$ such that $$\label{3.30}
\sup\limits_{0\not=\xi\in\mathbb{R}^3}\left\{\frac{\left|\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)\right|}{|\xi|^{2}\left(|\xi|^\delta+\kappa\right)}\right\}
\leq C(T),$$ holds for $0\leq t\leq T$. Here $T>0$ is any given positive constant.
Since the positive constant $C(T)>0$ in is independent of $\kappa$, we have from by letting $\kappa\to 0_+$ that $$\label{3.31}
\sup\limits_{0\not=\xi\in\mathbb{R}^3}\left\{\frac{\left|\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)\right|}{|\xi|^{2+\delta}}\right\}
\leq C(T), \quad 0\leq t\leq T.$$
With , set $$\label{3.32}
\Phi^n_2(t,\xi)=\frac{\Phi^n_1(t,\xi)}{|\xi|^{2+\delta}},$$ we can get from and the fact $|\xi^\pm|^2=\frac{|\xi|^2\pm\xi\cdot\sigma|\xi|}{2}=\frac{|\xi|^2(1\pm\cos\theta)}{2}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3.33}
\partial_t\Phi^n_2+\Phi^n_2&=&\frac{1}{\overline{\sigma}_n}\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}_n
\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left[
\Phi^n_2(t,\xi^+)\hat{F}^n(t,\xi^-)\left|\cos\frac\theta 2\right|^{2+\delta}\right.\\
&&\left.+\hat{G}^n(t,\xi^+)\Phi^n_2(t,\xi^-)\left|\sin\frac\theta 2\right|^{2+\delta}\right]d\sigma+\frac{E^n(t,\xi)}{|\xi|^{2+\delta}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A direct consequence of yields $$\label{3.34}
\left|\partial_t\Phi^n_2+\Phi^n_2\right|\leq (1-B_n)\left\|\Phi^n_2(t,\cdot)\right\|_{L^\infty}
+O(1)e^{-(A_n-\delta\lambda^n_\alpha/\alpha)t}.$$ Since $0<B_n<1$, we can apply the argument used in [@Gabetta-Toscani-Wennberg-JSP-1995] to have $$\label{3.35}
\left|\Phi^n_2(t,\xi)\right|\leq O(1)e^{-\eta_0t},$$ so that follows. This completes the proof of the lemma.
We now turn to prove Theorem \[Thm1.1\]. Let $F_n(t,v)$ and $G_n(t,v)$ be the unique solutions of the Cauchy problem - with initial data $f_0(v)$ and $g_0(v)$ respectively, then $$\label{3.36}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
f_n(t,v)\equiv F_n\left(\overline{\sigma}_nt,v\right),\\[2mm]
g_n(t,v)\equiv G_n\left(\overline{\sigma}_nt,v\right),
\end{array}
\right.$$ solve $$\label{3.37}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_tf_n+\overline{\sigma}_nf_n={\displaystyle\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot(v-v_*)}{|v-v_*|}\right)
f_n(v')f_n(v'_*)dv_*d\sigma,\\[3mm]
f_n(0,v)=f_0(v),
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$\label{3.38}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\partial_tg_n+\overline{\sigma}_ng_n={\displaystyle\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}}\mathcal{B}_n\left(\frac{\sigma\cdot(v-v_*)}{|v-v_*|}\right)
g_n(v')g_n(v'_*)dv_*d\sigma,\\[3mm]
g_n(0,v)=g_0(v),
\end{array}
\right.$$ respectively.
The estimate in Lemma \[Lemma-3.3\] gives $$\label{3.39}
\left\|\hat{F}_n(t,\cdot)-\hat{G}_n(t,\cdot)-\widetilde{P}^n(t,\cdot)\right\|
_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\leq O(1)e^{-\eta_0^nt}.$$
Putting and together yields $$\label{3.40}
\left\|\hat{f}_n(t,\cdot)-\hat{g}_n(t,\cdot)
-\widetilde{P}^n\left(\overline{\sigma}_nt,\cdot\right)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\leq O(1)e^{-\overline{\sigma}_n\eta_0^nt}.$$
Noticing that $$\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\overline{\sigma}_nA_n=A,\quad \lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\overline{\sigma}_nB_n=B,
\quad \lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\overline{\sigma}_n\lambda_\alpha^n=\lambda_\alpha,$$ we have $$\label{3.41}
\lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\overline{\sigma}_n\eta_0^n=\eta_0,\quad \lim\limits_{n\to+\infty}\widetilde{P}^n\left(\overline{\sigma}_nt,\xi\right)=\widetilde{P}(t,\xi).$$
On the other hand, it is shown in [@Cannone-Karch-CPAM-2010; @Morimoto-KRM-2012] that $\left(\hat{f}_n(t,\xi), \hat{g}_n(t,\xi)\right)\to
\left(\hat{f}(t,\xi), \hat{g}(t,\xi)\right)$ uniformly as $n\to+\infty$, locally in with respect to $(t,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^3$. By , we obtain from that $$\label{3.42}
\left\|\hat{f}(t,\cdot)-\hat{g}(t,\cdot)
-\widetilde{P}\left(t,\cdot\right)\right\|_{\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}}\lesssim O(1)e^{-\eta_0t}.$$ is exactly and thus the proof of Theorem \[Thm1.1\] is completed.
Proof of Theorem \[Thm1.2\]
===========================
To prove Theorem 1.2, compared with Theorem \[Thm1.1\], we only need to obtain the uniform $H^N(\mathbb{R}^3)-$estimate on $f(t,v)$ and the key point is to deduce the following coercivity estimate.
\[coercivity-estimate\] There exists a sufficiently large positive constant $t_1>0$ such that $$\label{dissipation-f}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left(1-\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi^-)\right|\right)d\sigma
\geq \kappa {{} e^{2s\mu_\alpha t}}|\xi|^{2s} \,, \enskip {{}\mbox{if $|\xi| \ge 2$}},$$ holds for any $t\geq t_1$ and some positive constant $\kappa>0$ which depends only on $t_1$.
Notice that $$\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}(\xi)\in \mathcal{K}^\alpha(\mathbb{R}^3),\quad \Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)\in L^1(\mathbb{R}^3)\cap H^\infty(\mathbb{R}^3),\quad \int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)dv=1,$$ we have from Theorem 1.1 of [@Morimoto-Wang-Yang-2014] that for $1<\beta<\alpha<2$ that $\Psi_{\alpha,K}(v)\in \mathcal{P}^\beta(\mathbb{R}^3)$, and consequently Lemma 3 of [@Alexandre-Desvillettes-Villani-Wennberg-ARMA-2000] shows that there exists a positive constant $\kappa_1>0$ independent of $t$ and $\xi$ such that $$1-\left|\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}(\xi)\right|\geq \kappa_1\min\left\{1, |\xi|^2\right\}.$$ Hence, we have $$\label{dissipation-Psi}
1-\left|\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|\geq \kappa_1\min\left\{1, \left|e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right|^2\right\},\quad \forall (t,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^3.$$ On the other hand, we have from the $\mathcal{D}^{2+\delta}-$stability estimate given in Theorem \[Thm1.1\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conseq-K-stability}
\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|&\leq&O(1)|\xi|^{2+\delta}e^{-\eta_0 t}+\left|\widetilde{P}(t,\xi)\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq&\kappa_2\left(|\xi|^{2+\delta}+|\xi|^2\right)e^{-\eta_0 t}\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $(t,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^3$ with a constant $\kappa_2>0$ independent of $t$ and $\xi$.
A direct consequence of and is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dissipation-f-2}
1-\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)\right|&\geq& \left(1-\left|\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|\right)-\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|\nonumber\\
&\geq& \kappa_1 \min\left\{1, \left|e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right|^2\right\}
-\kappa_2\left(|\xi|^{2+\delta}+|\xi|^2\right)e^{-\eta_0 t},\quad \forall (t,\xi)\in\mathbb{R}^+\times\mathbb{R}^3.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\label{dissipation-f-3}
1-\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)\right|\geq\max\left\{0, \kappa_1 \min\left\{1, \left|e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right|^2\right\}
-\kappa_2\left(|\xi|^{2+\delta}+|\xi|^2\right)e^{-\eta_0 t}\right\}.$$
With , we now turn to prove . Firstly, note that $|\xi^-|^2=|\xi|^2\sin^2\frac\theta 2$. If we choose $t_1>0$ sufficiently large such that $$\label{choose-t-1}
\kappa_1e^{2\mu_\alpha t}-2\kappa_2e^{-\eta_0 t}\geq\frac{\kappa_1}{2}e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
+ \frac{\kappa_1}{2}e^{2\mu_\alpha t_1}-2\kappa_2e^{-\eta_0 t_1}\geq \frac{\kappa_1}{2}e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
,\quad \forall t\geq t_1,$$ then for $t\geq t_1$, $|\xi| \ge 2$ and $\theta$ sufficiently small such that $$\label{range-theta}
\theta\in\left[0,\frac{2}{e^{\mu_\alpha t}|\xi|}\right]\subset\left[0,\frac \pi 2\right),$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lower-bound-f}
&&\kappa_1 \min\left\{1, \left|e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi^-\right|^2\right\}
-\kappa_2\left(\left|\xi^-\right|^{2+\delta}+\left|\xi^-\right|^2\right)e^{-\eta_0 t}\nonumber\\
&\geq& \kappa_1 \left|e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi^-\right|^2
-\kappa_2\left(\left|\xi^-\right|^{2+\delta}+\left|\xi^-\right|^2\right)e^{-\eta_0 t}\\
&\geq& \left(\kappa_1 e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
-2\kappa_2e^{-\eta_0 t}\right)\left|\xi^-\right|^2 \ge \frac{\kappa_1}{2}e^{2\mu_\alpha t}\left|\xi^-\right|^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Thus for the case when $t\geq t_1$, $|\xi| \ge 2$ and $\theta$ satisfies , one can deduce from the assumption , the estimates , and that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\limits_{\mathbb{S}^2}\mathcal{B}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)\left(1-\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi^-)\right|\right)d\sigma\\
&\geq& 2\pi \int\limits^{\frac {2}{e^{\mu_\alpha t}|\xi|}}_0\mathcal{B}(\cos\theta) \left(\kappa_1 e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
-2\kappa_2e^{-\eta_0 t}\right)\left|\xi^-\right|^2 \sin\theta d\theta\\
&\ge & \pi \left(\kappa_1 e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
\right)|\xi|^2\int\limits^{\frac {2}{e^{\mu_\alpha t}|\xi|}}_0\mathcal{B}(\cos\theta)\sin^2\frac\theta 2\sin\theta d\theta\\
&\geq & \frac{2 \kappa_1 e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
}{\pi^2}|\xi|^2\int\limits^{\frac {2}{e^{\mu_\alpha t}|\xi|}}_0\mathcal{B}(\cos\theta)\theta^3 d\theta\\
&\geq& \frac{b_0 \kappa_1 e^{2\mu_\alpha t}
}{\pi^2}|\xi|^2 \int\limits^{\frac {2}{e^{\mu_\alpha t}|\xi|}}_0\theta^{1-2s} d\theta
=\frac{2^{1-2s}b_0\kappa_1e^{2s\mu_\alpha t}}{(1-s)\pi^2}|\xi|^{2s}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the fact that $\sin\theta\geq \frac {2\theta} {\pi}$ for $0\leq\theta\leq \frac \pi 2$. This completes the proof of the lemma.
With Lemma \[coercivity-estimate\], we now deduce the uniform estimate on $f(t,v)$. Let $\varphi(t,\xi)$ be the Fourier transform of $f(t,v)$ with respect to $v$. For any $N\in {\mathbb{N}}$, let $M(\xi)=\widetilde{M}\left(|\xi|^2\right)\left(1-X\left(\frac{|\xi|^2}{4}\right)\right)$ with $\widetilde{M}(t)=t^N$ and $X(t)$ defined as in Theorem \[Thm1.1\]. Multiplying by $2M^2(\xi)\overline{\varphi}(t,\xi)$ with $\overline{\varphi}(t,\xi)$ being the complex conjugate of $\varphi(t,\xi)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{d}{dt}\left(\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi\right)\label{4.9}\\
&=&2\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}{\mathcal{B}}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\Re\Big\{\left(\varphi(t,\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^-)
-\varphi(t,\xi)\right)M^2(\xi)\overline{\varphi}(t,\xi)\Big\}d\sigma d\xi\nonumber\\
&=&\underbrace{-\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}{\mathcal{B}}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\Big(\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2+\left|M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right|^2
-2\Re\left\{\varphi(t,\xi^-)\left(M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right)\overline{M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)}\right\}\Big)d\sigma d\xi}_{J_1}\nonumber\\
&&-\underbrace{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}{\mathcal{B}}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\Big(\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2-\left|M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right|^2\Big)d\sigma d\xi}_{J_2}\nonumber\\
&&-2\underbrace{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}{\mathcal{B}}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\Re\Big\{\varphi(t,\xi^-)\left(M(\xi)-M(\xi^+)\right)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\overline{M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)}\Big\}d\sigma d\xi}_{J_3}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We estimate $J_1,\ J_2 $ and $J_3$ term by term as follows. Since ${\textrm{Supp}}\ M(\xi)\subset \left\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^3}, |\xi|\geq 2\right\}$, it follows firstly from Lemma \[coercivity-estimate\] that $$\label{4.10}
J_1\lesssim - e^{2s \mu_\alpha t} \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}|\xi|^{2s}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi\,,
$$ because $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2+\left|M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right|^2
-2\Re\left\{\varphi(t,\xi^-)\left(M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right)\overline{M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)}\right\}\\
&\geq &(1-|\varphi(t,\xi^-)|)\Big(\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2+\left|M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right|^2\Big)\\
&\geq &(1-|\varphi(t,\xi^-)|)\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2.\end{aligned}$$
For $J_2$, if we use the change of variable $\xi\to\xi^+$ for the term $M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)$, the cancelation lemma (Lemma 1 of [@Alexandre-Desvillettes-Villani-Wennberg-ARMA-2000]) implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|J_2\right|&=&2\pi\left|\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2
\left(\int\limits_0^{\frac \pi 2}{\mathcal{B}}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta\left(1-\cos^{-3}\left(\frac\theta 2\right)\right)d\theta\right)d\xi\right|\label{4.11}\\
&\lesssim& \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
For $J_3$, note that $$\begin{aligned}
J_3&=& \underbrace{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}{\mathcal{B}}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\Re\Big\{\varphi(t,\xi^-)\left(\widetilde{M}(\xi)-\widetilde{M}(\xi^+)\right)\left\{1-X\left(\frac{|\xi^+|^2}{4}\right)
\right\}\varphi(t,\xi^+)\overline{M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)}\Big\}d\sigma d\xi}_{J^1_3}\\
&&+\underbrace{\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\int\limits_{{\mathbb{S}^2}}{\mathcal{B}}\left(\frac{\xi\cdot\sigma}{|\xi|}\right)
\Re\Big\{\varphi(t,\xi^-)\widetilde{M}(\xi)\left(X\left(\frac{|\xi^+|^2}{4}\right)-X\left(\frac{|\xi|^2}{4}\right)\right)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\overline{M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)}\Big\}d\sigma d\xi}_{J^2_3}.\end{aligned}$$ We estimate $J^1_3$ and $J^2_3$ separately.
For $J_3^1$, since $|\xi^+|^2=|\xi|^2\cos^2\frac\theta 2\sim |\xi|^2$ for $\theta\in \left[0,\frac \pi 2\right]$ and $|\xi|^2-|\xi^+|^2=|\xi|^2\sin^2\frac\theta 2$, we have $$\left|\widetilde{M}(\xi)-\widetilde{M}(\xi^+)\right|\lesssim \sin^2\left(\frac\theta 2\right)\widetilde{M}(\xi^+),$$ and consequently $$\begin{aligned}
\left|J^1_3\right|&\lesssim& \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left(\int\limits_0^{\frac\pi 2} {\mathcal{B}}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta\sin^2\left(\frac\theta 2\right)d\theta\right)\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|\cdot \left|M(\xi^+)\varphi(t,\xi^+)\right| d\xi\label{4.12}\\
&\lesssim&\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the fact that $|\varphi(t,\xi^-)|\leq 1$.
For $J^2_3$, since $$\begin{aligned}
X\left(\frac{|\xi|^2}{4}\right)-X\left(\frac{|\xi^+|^2}{4}\right)
&=&X'\left(\frac{\eta|\xi|^2+(1-\eta)|\xi^+|^2}{4}\right)\frac{|\xi|^2-|\xi^+|^2}{4}\\
&=&\frac{|\xi|^2\sin^2\left(\frac\theta 2\right)}{4}X'\left(\frac{\eta|\xi|^2+(1-\eta)|\xi^+|^2}{4}\right), \quad \eta\in[0,1],\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\xi^+|^2 \le |\xi|^2\le 2|\xi^+|^2,\quad {\textrm{Supp}}\ \left\{X'\left(\frac{|\xi|^2}{4}\right)\right\}\subset\left\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^3}: 4 \leq|\xi|^2\le 8\right\},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\textrm{Supp}}\ \left\{\widetilde{M}(\xi)\left(X\left(\frac{|\xi|^2}{4}\right)-X\left(\frac{|\xi^+|^2}{4}\right)\right)\right\}
\subset \left\{\xi\in{\mathbb{R}^3}: 4\leq|\xi|^2\leq 16 \right\}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, there exists a constant $C_N >0$ depending on $N$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|J^2_3\right|&\le& 4^{2N} \int\limits_{|\xi|\leq 4}\left(\int\limits_0^{\frac\pi 2} {\mathcal{B}}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta\sin^2\left(\frac\theta 2\right)d\theta\right)|\varphi(t,\xi)|\cdot|\varphi(t,\xi^+)|d\xi\label{4.13}\\
&\le& C_N \nonumber
$$ because of $|\varphi(t,\xi)|\leq 1$. together with shows that there exists a $C_1 >0$ such that $$\label{4.14}
\left|J_3\right|\le C_1 \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}|\xi|^{2s}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi + C_N\,.$$
Inserting , and into , we have, for another $C_N' >0$, $$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi\right)+
\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi\leq C'_N\,,$$ which gives $$\label{4.16}
\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t,\xi)\right|^2d\xi
\leq e^{-(t-t_1)} \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}^3}}\left|M(\xi)\varphi(t_1,\xi)\right|^2d\xi +
C_N', \quad t\geq t_1.$$ Noting $|\varphi(\xi) | \le 1$ again, by means of we see that for any $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$ there exists a $C(t_1,N) >0$ such that $$\sup\limits_{t\in[t_1,\infty)}\Big\{\|f(t)\|_{H^N}\Big\}\leq C(t_1,N)<+\infty,\quad \forall N\in{\mathbb{N}}.$$ This and give $$\label{4.18}
\sup\limits_{t\in[t_1,\infty)}\Big\{\left\|f(t,\cdot)-f_{\alpha,K}(t,\cdot)\right\|_{H^N}\Big\}\leq C(t_1,N)<+\infty,\quad \forall N\in{\mathbb{N}},\quad t\geq t_1.$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{4.19}
&&\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|^2\nonumber\\
&\lesssim& e^{-\eta_0 t}|\xi|^{2+\delta}\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)-\widetilde{P}(t,\xi)\right|+
\left|\widetilde{P}(t,\xi)\right|^2\\
&\lesssim&e^{-\eta_0 t}|\xi|^{2+\delta}\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|+
e^{-At}|\xi|^4X(\xi)\left(|\xi|^\delta e^{-\eta_0 t}+e^{-At}\right).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and yield $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\|f(t,\cdot)-f_{\alpha,K}(t,\cdot)\right\|^2_{H^N}\nonumber\\
&=&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|\xi|^2)^N
\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|^2d\xi\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&e^{-\eta_0 t}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|\xi|^2)^N|\xi|^{2+\delta}
\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|d\xi\label{4.20}\\
&&+e^{-At}\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}X(\xi)\left(e^{-\eta_0 t}+e^{-At}\right)d\xi
\lesssim e^{-\eta_0 t}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|\xi|^2)^N|\xi|^{2+\delta}
\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|d\xi\\
&\leq &\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|\xi|^2)^{2(N+1)}|\xi|^{2(2+\delta)}
\left|\hat{f}(t,\xi)-\hat{\Psi}_{\alpha,K}\left(e^{\mu_\alpha t}\xi\right)\right|^2d\xi\right)^{\frac 12}\left(\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}(1+|\xi|^2)^{-2}d\xi\right)^{\frac 12}\\
&\leq& C(t_1,N), \quad t\geq t_1.\end{aligned}$$ is exactly and the proof of Theorem \[Thm1.2\] is completed.
Proof of Corollary \[decay-Maxwellian\]
=======================================
We prove Corollary \[decay-Maxwellian\] in this last section. Firstly of all, note that Theorem \[Thm1.1\] and Theorem \[Thm1.2\] hold for $\alpha=2$. The purpose of Corollary \[decay-Maxwellian\] is to have a better convergence rate in the case of finite energy.
In fact, compared with Theorem \[Thm1.1\] and Theorem \[Thm1.2\], the main difference is that now the initial data $f_0(v)$ is of finite energy and consequently the corresponding global solution $F_n(t,v)$ of the Cauchy problem - with $H_0(v)=f_{0R}(v)$ also has finite energy, i.e. $$\label{5.1}
\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2F^R_n(t,v)dv=\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2f_{0R}(v)dv
\lesssim 1+\int\limits_{\mathbb{R}^3}|v|^2f_0(v)dv<+\infty.$$ With , it is straightforward to show that $$\label{5.2}
\left|\hat{F}_n(t,\xi)-1\right|\leq O(1)|\xi|^2,\quad \left|\mu(\xi)-1\right|\leq O(1)|\xi|^2.$$ Consequently, the term $I_7$ in can be estimated by $$\label{5.3}
|I_7|\leq
\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
O(1)|\xi|^4e^{-A_nt},&\quad |\xi|\leq 1,\\[2mm]
O(1)e^{-A_nt},&\quad |\xi|\geq 1, \quad t\in\mathbb{R}^+.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here, $G_n(t,v)=\mu(v)$.
Having , the proof of Corollary \[decay-Maxwellian\] is the same as the ones for Theorem \[Thm1.1\] and Theorem \[Thm1.2\]. Thus, we omit the detail for brevity.
[**Acknowledgment**]{}
The research of the first author was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 25400160, Japan Society of the Promotion of Science. The research of the second author was supported by the NSFC-RGC Grant, N-CityU102/12. The research of the third author was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China and three grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts 10925103, 11271160 and 11261160485.
[99]{}
R. Alexandre, L. Desvillettes, C. Villani, and B. Wennberg, Entropy dissipation and longrange interactions. [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**152**]{} (2000), 327-355.
L. Arkeryd, Asymptotic behaviour of the Boltzmann equation with infinite range forces. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**86**]{} (1982), 475-484.
A. V. Bobylev, The method of the Fourier transform in the theory of the Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules. [*Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR*]{} [**225**]{} (6) (1975), 1041-1044.
A. V. Bobylev, The theory of the nonlinear spatially uniform Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules. In [*Mathematical physics reviews, Vol. 7,*]{} volume 7 of [*Soviet Sci. Rev. Sect. C Math. Phys. Rev.*]{}, pages 111¨C233. Harwood Academic Publ., Chur, 1988.
A. V. Bobylev and C. Cercignani, Exact eternal solutions of the Boltzmann equation. [*J. Statist. Phys.*]{} [**106**]{} (5-6) (2002), 1019-1038.
A. V. Bobylev and C. Cercignani, Self-similar solutions of the Boltzmann equation and their applications. [*J. Statist. Phys.*]{} [**106**]{} (5-6) (2002), 1039-1071.
M. Cannone and G. Karch, Infinite energy solutions to the homogeneous Boltzmann equation. [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**63**]{} (6) (2010), 747-778.
M. Cannone and G. Karch, On self-similar solutions to the homogeneous Boltzmann equation. [*Kinetic and Related Models*]{} [**6**]{} (4) (2013), 801-808.
E. Gabetta, G. Toscani, and B. Wennberg, Metrics for probability distributions and the trend to equilibrium for solutions of the Boltzmann equation. [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**81**]{} (5-6) (1995), 901-934.
E. Ikenberry and C. Truesdell, On the pressure and the flux of energy according to Maxwell’s kinetic energy I. [*J. Rat. Mech. Anal.*]{} [**5**]{} (1956), 1-54.
Y. Morimoto, A remark on Cannone-Karch solutions to the homogeneous Boltzmann equation for Maxwellian molecules. [*Kinet. Relat. Models*]{} [**5**]{} (3) (2012), 551-561.
Y. Morimoto, S.-K. Wang, and T. Yang, A new characterization and global regularity of infinite energy solutions to the homogeneous Boltzmann equation. [*J. Math. Pures Appl. (9)*]{} [**103**]{} (2015), no. 3, 809-829.
Y. Morimoto and T. Yang, Villani conjecture on smoothing effect of the homogeneous Boltzmann equation with measure initial datum. [*Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire*]{} [*32*]{} (2015), no. 2, 429-442.
A. Pulvirenti and G. Toscani, The theory of the nonlinear Boltzmann equation for Maxwell molecules in Fourier representation. [*Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.*]{} [**171**]{} (1996), 181-204.
H. Tanaka, Probabilistic treatment of the Boltzmann equation of Maxwellian molecules. [*Wahrsch. Verw. Geb.*]{} [**46**]{} (1978), 67-105.
G. Toscani and C. Villani, Probability metrics and uniqueness of the solution to the Boltz- mann equations for Maxwell gas. [*J. Statist. Phys.*]{} [**94**]{} (1999), 619-637.
C. Villani, On a new class of weak solutions to the spatially homogeneous Boltzmann and Landau equations. [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**143**]{} (1998), 273-307.
C. Villani. A review of mathematical topics in collisional kinetic theory. In [*Handbook of mathematical fluid dynamics, Vol. I*]{}, pages 71-305. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2002.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We review the quantum adiabatic approximation for closed systems, and its recently introduced generalization to open systems (M.S. Sarandy and D.A. Lidar, e-print quant-ph/0404147). We also critically examine a recent argument claiming that there is an inconsistency in the adiabatic theorem for closed quantum systems \[K.P. Marzlin and B.C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 160408 (2004)\] and point out how an incorrect manipulation of the adiabatic theorem may lead one to obtain such an inconsistent result.'
author:
- 'M.S. Sarandy, L.-A. Wu, D.A. Lidar'
title: Consistency of the Adiabatic Theorem
---
Introduction
============
The adiabatic theorem [@Ehrenfest:16; @Born:28; @Kato:50; @Messiah:book] is one of the oldest and most widely used general tools in quantum mechanics. The theorem concerns the evolution of systems subject to slowly varying Hamiltonians. Roughly, its content is that if a state is an instantaneous eigenstate of a sufficiently slowly varying $H$ at one time then it will remain an eigenstate at later times, while its eigenenergy evolves continuously. When the slowness assumption is relaxed transitions become weakly allowed [@Berry:87; @Nakagawa:87; @Sun:88; @Wu:89]. The role of the adiabatic theorem in the study of slowly varying quantum mechanical systems spans a vast array of fields and applications, such as the Landau-Zener theory of energy level crossings in molecules [@Landau:32; @Zener:32], quantum field theory [@Gellmann:51], and Berry’s phase [@Berry:84]. In recent years geometric phases [@Wilczek:84] have been proposed to perform quantum information processing [ZanardiRasseti:99,ZanardiRasseti:2000,Ekert-Nature]{}, with adiabaticity assumed in a number of schemes for geometric quantum computation (e.g., [Pachos:00,Duan-Science:01,Pachos:02,Fazio:03]{}). Additional interest in adiabatic processes has arisen in connection with the concept of adiabatic quantum computing, in which slowly varying Hamiltonians appear as a promising mechanism for the design of new quantum algorithms and even as an alternative to the conventional quantum circuit model of quantum computation [@Farhi:00; @Farhi:01; @Aharonov:04].
More recently, in Ref. [@SarandyLidar:04], the adiabatic theorem was generalized to the case of open quantum systems, i.e., quantum systems coupled to an external environment. Instead of making use of eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, adiabaticity is defined through the Jordan canonical form of the generator of the master equation governing the dynamics of the system. This new framework allowed for the derivation of an adiabatic approximation which includes the case of systems evolving in the presence of noise. This issue is particularly important in the context of quantum information processing, where environment induced decoherence is viewed as a fundamental obstacle on the path to the construction of quantum computers (e.g., [@LidarWhaley:03]).
The aim of this paper is to review the adiabatic approximation in quantum mechanics for both closed and open quantum systems as well as to point out how an incorrect manipulation of the adiabatic theorem can yield an inconsistent result. Indeed, in a recent paper entitled Inconsistency in the application of the adiabatic theorem [@Marzlin:04] the authors argue that there may be an inconsistency in the adiabatic theorem for closed quantum systems. We show here how this inconsistency can be resolved. Related discussions can be found in Refs. [@Tong:04; @Pati:04; @Wu:04].
The quantum adiabatic approximation for closed systems {#closed}
======================================================
Condition on the Hamiltonian
----------------------------
Let us begin by reviewing the adiabatic approximation in closed quantum systems, which evolve unitarily through a time-dependent Schrödinger equation $$H(t)\,|\psi (t)\rangle =i\,|{\dot{\psi}}(t)\rangle , \label{se}$$where $H(t)$ denotes the Hamiltonian and $|\psi (t)\rangle $ is a quantum state in a $D$-dimensional Hilbert space. We use units where ${\hbar }=1$. For simplicity we assume that the spectrum of $H(t)$ is entirely discrete and nondegenerate. Thus we can define an instantaneous basis of eigenenergies by $$H(t)\,|n(t)\rangle =E_{n}(t)\,|n(t)\rangle , \label{ebh}$$with the set of eigenvectors [$|n(t)\rangle $]{} chosen to be orthonormal. In this simplest case, where to each energy level there corresponds a unique eigenstate we can *define adiabaticity as the regime associated to an independent evolution of the instantaneous eigenvectors of* $H(t)$.
This means that instantaneous eigenstates at one time evolve continuously to the corresponding eigenstates at later times, and that their corresponding eigenenergies do not cross. In particular, if the system begins its evolution in a particular eigenstate $|n(0)\rangle $ then it will evolve to the instantaneous eigenstate $|n(t)\rangle $ at a later time $t$, without any transition to other energy levels.
It is conceptually useful to point out that the relationship between slowly varying Hamiltonians and adiabatic behavior can be demonstrated directly from a simple manipulation of the Schrödinger equation: recall that $H(t) $ can be diagonalized by a unitary similarity transformation $$H_{d}(t)=U^{-1}(t)\,H(t)\,U(t), \label{hdc}$$where $H_{d}(t)$ denotes the diagonalized Hamiltonian and $U(t)$ is a unitary transformation. Multiplying Eq. (\[se\]) by $U^{-1}(t)$ and using Eq. (\[hdc\]) we obtain $$H_{d}\,|\psi \rangle _{d}=i\,|{\dot{\psi}}\rangle _{d}-i\,{\dot{U}}^{-1}|\psi \rangle , \label{sed}$$where $|\psi \rangle _{d}\equiv U^{-1}|\psi \rangle $ is the state of the system in the basis of eigenvectors of $H(t)$. Upon considering that $H(t)$ changes slowly in time, i.e. $dH(t)/dt\approx 0$, we may also assume that the unitary transformation $U(t)$ and its inverse $U^{-1}(t)$ are slowly varying operators, yielding $$H_{d}(t)\,|\psi (t)\rangle _{d}=i\,|{\dot{\psi}}(t)\rangle _{d}.
\label{eq:Had}$$Thus, since $H_{d}(t)$ is diagonal, the system evolves separately in each energy sector, ensuring the validity of the adiabatic approximation.
Now let $$g_{nk}(t)\equiv E_{n}(t)-E_{k}(t) \label{eq:g}$$be the energy gap between level $n$ and $k$ and let $T$ be the total evolution time. One may then state *a general validity condition for adiabatic behavior* as follows: $$\max_{0\leq t\leq T}\left\vert \frac{\langle k|{\dot{H}}|n\rangle }{g_{nk}}\right\vert \,\ll \,\min_{0\leq t\leq T}\left\vert {g_{nk}}\right\vert .
\label{vcc}$$Note that the left-hand side of Eq. (\[vcc\]) has dimensions of frequency and hence must compared to the relevant physical frequency scale, which can be proved to be given by the gap $g_{nk}$ [Messiah:book,Mostafazadeh:book]{}. \[In fact, Eq. (\[vcc\]) will be seen to be a direct consequence of the adiabatic condition derived in Subsection [condtimeclosed]{}.\] The interpretation of the adiabaticity condition ([vcc]{}) is that for all pairs of energy levels, the expectation value of the time-rate-of-change of the Hamiltonian, in units of the gap, must be small compared to the gap. For a discussion of the adiabatic regime when there is no gap in the energy spectrum see Ref. [@Avron:98].
In order to obtain Eq. (\[vcc\]), let us expand $|\psi (t)\rangle $ in terms of the basis of instantaneous eigenvectors of $H(t)$: $$|\psi (t)\rangle =\sum_{n=1}^{D}a_{n}(t)\,e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime
}E_{n}(t^{\prime })}\,|n(t)\rangle , \label{ep}$$with $a_{n}(t)$ being complex functions of time. Substitution of Eq. ([ep]{}) into Eq. (\[se\]) and multiplying the result by $\langle k(t)|$, we have $${\dot{a}}_{k}=-\sum_{n}a_{n}\langle k|{\dot{n}}\rangle
\,e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime }g_{nk}(t^{\prime })}. \label{an2}$$A useful expression for $\langle k|{\dot{n}}\rangle $, for $k\neq n$, can be found by taking a time derivative of Eq. (\[ebh\]) and multiplying the resulting expression by $\langle k|$, which reads $$\langle k|{\dot{n}}\rangle =\frac{\langle k|{\dot{H}}|n\rangle }{g_{nk}}\quad (n\neq k). \label{knee}$$Therefore Eq. (\[an2\]) can be written as $${\dot{a}}_{k}=-a_{k}\langle k|{\dot{k}}\rangle -\sum_{n\neq k}a_{n}\frac{\langle k|{\dot{H}}|n\rangle }{g_{nk}}\,e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime
}g_{nk}(t^{\prime })}. \label{anf}$$Adiabatic evolution is ensured if the coefficients $a_{k}(t)$ evolve independently from each other, i.e., if their dynamical equations do not couple. As is apparent from Eq. (\[anf\]), this requirement is fulfilled when the condition (\[vcc\]) is imposed.
In the case of a degenerate spectrum of $H(t)$, Eq. (\[knee\]) holds only for eigenstates $|k\rangle $ and $|n\rangle $ for which $E_{n}\neq E_{k}$. Taking into account this modification in Eq. (\[anf\]), it is not difficult to see that the adiabatic approximation generalizes to the statement that each degenerate eigenspace of $H(t)$, instead of individual eigenvectors, has independent evolution, whose validity conditions given by Eq. (\[vcc\]) are to be considered over eigenvectors with distinct energies. Thus, in general one can define adiabatic dynamics of closed quantum systems as follows:
\[defc\] A closed quantum system is said to undergo adiabatic dynamics if its Hilbert space can be decomposed into decoupled Schrödinger-eigenspaces with distinct, time-continuous, and non-crossing instantaneous eigenvalues of $H(t)$.
Condition on the total evolution time {#condtimeclosed}
-------------------------------------
A very useful alternative is to express the adiabaticity condition in terms of the total evolution time $T$. We shall consider for simplicity a nondegenerate $H(t)$; the generalization to the degenerate case is also possible. Taking the initial state as the eigenvector $|m(0)\rangle $, with $a_{m}(0)=1$, the condition for adiabatic evolution can be stated as follows:$$T\gg \frac{\mathcal{F}}{\mathcal{G}^{2}}, \label{timead2}$$where $$\mathcal{F}=\max_{0\leq s\leq 1}|\langle k(s)|\frac{dH(s)}{ds}|m(s)\rangle
|\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\mathcal{G}=\min_{0\leq s\leq 1}|g_{mk}(s)|\,.$$Eq. (\[timead2\]) can be interpreted as stating the total evolution time must be much larger than the norm of the time-derivative of the Hamiltonian divided by the square of the energy gap. It gives an important validity condition for the adiabatic approximation, which has been used, e.g., to determine the running time required by adiabatic quantum algorithms [Farhi:00,Farhi:01,Aharonov:04]{}. By using the time variable transformation (\[nt\]), one can show that Eq. (\[timead2\]) is indeed equivalent to the adiabatic condition (\[vcc\]) on the Hamiltonian.
To derive Eq. (\[timead2\]), let us rewrite Eq. (\[anf\]) as follows [@Gottfried:book]: $$e^{i\gamma _{k}(t)}\,\frac{\partial }{\partial t}\left(
a_{k}(t)\,e^{-i\gamma _{k}(t)}\right) =-\sum_{n\neq k}a_{n}\frac{\langle k|{\dot{H}}|n\rangle }{g_{nk}}\,e^{-i\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime }g_{nk}(t^{\prime
})}, \label{adtti}$$where $\gamma _{k}(t)$ denotes the Berry’s phase [@Berry:84] associated to the state $|k\rangle $: $$\gamma _{k}(t)=i\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime }\langle k(t^{\prime })|{\dot{k}}(t^{\prime })\rangle .$$Now let us define a normalized time $s$ through the variable transformation $$t=sT,\,\,\,\,\,0\leq s\leq 1. \label{nt}$$Then, by performing the change $t\rightarrow s$ in Eq. (\[adtti\]) and integrating we obtain $$a_{k}(s)\,e^{-i\gamma _{k}(s)}=a_{k}(0)-\sum_{n\neq k}\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime
}\frac{F_{nk}(s^{\prime })}{g_{nk}(s^{\prime })}e^{-iT\int_{0}^{s^{\prime
}}ds^{\prime \prime }g_{nk}(s^{\prime \prime })}, \label{akint}$$where $$F_{nk}(s)=a_{n}(s)\,\langle k(s)|\frac{dH(s)}{ds}|n(s)\rangle \,e^{-i\gamma
_{k}(s)}.$$However, for an adiabatic evolution as defined above, the coefficients $a_{n}(s)$ evolve without any mixing, which means that $a_{n}(s)\approx
a_{n}(0)\,e^{i\gamma _{n}(s)}$. Therefore $$F_{nk}(s)=a_{n}(0)\,\langle k(s)|\frac{dH(s)}{ds}|n(s)\rangle \,e^{-i(\gamma
_{k}(s)-\gamma _{n}(s))}.$$In order to arrive at a condition on $T$ it is useful to separate out the fast oscillatory part from Eq. (\[akint\]). Thus, the integrand in Eq. (\[akint\]) can be rewritten as $$\frac{F_{nk}(s^{\prime })}{g_{nk}(s^{\prime })}e^{-iT\int_{0}^{s^{\prime
}}ds^{\prime \prime }g_{nk}(s^{\prime \prime })}=\frac{i}{T}\left[ \frac{d}{ds^{\prime }}\left( \frac{F_{nk}(s^{\prime })}{g_{nk}^{2}(s^{\prime })}e^{-iT\int_{0}^{s^{\prime }}ds^{\prime \prime }g_{nk}(s^{\prime \prime
})}\right) -\,e^{-iT\int_{0}^{s^{\prime }}ds^{\prime \prime
}g_{nk}(s^{\prime \prime })}\frac{d}{ds^{\prime }}\left( \frac{F_{nk}(s^{\prime })}{g_{nk}^{2}(s^{\prime })}\right) \right] . \label{ricc}$$Substitution of Eq. (\[ricc\]) into Eq. (\[akint\]) results in $$a_{k}(s)\,e^{-i\gamma _{k}(s)}=a_{k}(0)+\frac{i}{T}\sum_{n\neq k}\left(
\frac{F_{nk}(0)}{g_{nk}^{2}(0)}-\frac{F_{nk}(s)}{g_{nk}^{2}(s)}e^{-iT\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime }g_{nk}(s^{\prime })}+\,\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime
}\,e^{-iT\int_{0}^{s^{\prime }}ds^{\prime \prime }g_{nk}(s^{\prime \prime })}\frac{d}{ds^{\prime }}\frac{F_{nk}(s^{\prime })}{g_{nk}^{2}(s^{\prime })}\right) . \label{akfinal}$$A condition for the adiabatic regime can be obtained from Eq. (\[akfinal\]) if the last integral vanishes for large $T$. Let us assume that, as $T\rightarrow \infty $, the energy difference remains nonvanishing. We further assume that $d\{F_{nk}(s^{\prime })/g_{nk}^{2}(s^{\prime
})\}/ds^{\prime }$ is integrable on the interval $\left[ 0,s\right] $. Then it follows from the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma [@Churchill:book] that the last integral in Eq. (\[akfinal\]) vanishes in the limit $T\rightarrow
\infty $ (due to the fast oscillation of the integrand) [RiemannLebesgue]{}. What is left are therefore only the first two terms in the sum over $n\neq k$ of Eq. (\[akfinal\]). Thus, a general estimate of the time rate at which the adiabatic regime is approached can be expressed by $$T\gg \frac{F}{g^{2}}, \label{timead}$$where $$F=\max_{0\leq s\leq 1}|a_{n}(0)\,\langle k(s)|\frac{dH(s)}{ds}|n(s)\rangle
|,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,g=\min_{0\leq s\leq 1}|g_{nk}(s)|\,,$$with $\max $ and $\min $ taken over all $k$ and $n$. Eq. (\[timead2\]) is then obtained as the special case when the system starts its evolution in a particular eigenstate of $H(t)$.
Higher-order corrections to the adiabatic approximation {#adiabcorr}
-------------------------------------------------------
When the Hamiltonian of a quantum system changes slowly, but not extremely slowly, the degenerate eigenspaces of $H(t)$ (or individual eigenvectors in the case of nondegenerate spectrum) will not evolve completely independently from each other and, therefore, the dynamical equation (\[an2\]) will weakly couple distinct eigenspaces of $H(t)$. Then, for non-extremely slowly varying Hamiltonians, the adiabatic solution is actually a zeroth-order approximation and higher-order corrections must be considered. Some higher-order adiabatic approximation methods have been proposed [Berry:87,Nakagawa:87,Sun:88,Wu:89]{}. Here we shall review, for the non-degenerate case, the method proposed by Wu in Ref. [@Wu:89]. Let us begin by expanding the state vector $|\psi (t)\rangle $ in the instantaneous eigenbasis, as in Eq. (\[ep\]). Then, by using the normalized time $s$ introduced in Eq. (\[nt\]) we obtain the following matrix form for the Schrödinger equation $$\frac{d\psi (s)}{ds}=K(s)\psi (s),$$where $K(s)$ is an anti-Hermitian matrix with elements $$K_{mn}(s)=-\left\langle m(s)\right\vert \frac{d}{ds}\left\vert
n(s)\right\rangle \exp \left( iT\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime }\,g_{mn}(s^{\prime
})\right) .$$The matrix $K(s)$ can be separated into a diagonal matrix $D(s)$ and an off-diagonal matrix $O(s)$, yielding $$K(s)=D(s)+O(s). \label{kdo}$$The evolution operator $U(s)$ for the system satisfies the equation $$\frac{dU(s)}{ds}=K(s)U(s),\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{(}{\text{with}}\,\,\,U(0)=1\text{)} \label{evop}$$which, after integration and use of Eq. (\[kdo\]), becomes $$U(s)=1+\int_{0}^{s}ds_{1}\,[D(s_{1})+O(s_{1})]+\int_{0}^{s}ds_{1}\int_{0}^{s_{1}}ds_{2}\,[D(s_{1})+O(s_{1})][D(s_{2})+O(s_{2})]+\,\ldots$$Now let us define $$U^{(0)}(s)=1+\int_{0}^{s}ds_{1}\,D(s_{1})+\int_{0}^{s}ds_{1}\int_{0}^{s_{1}}ds_{2}\,D(s_{1})D(s_{2})+\,\ldots ,$$which involves only the diagonal parts. Moreover, for $n>0$, we denote $U^{(n)}(s)$ as the sum of all the integrals with $n$ off-diagonal $O(s)$ factors in the integrand. Therefore the evolution operator can be expanded in powers of the off-diagonal matrices $O(s)$ as $U(s)=\sum_{n=0}U^{(n)}(s)$. It can be shown [@Wu:89] that the $n^{\mathrm{th}}$ term $U^{(n)}(s)$ can be expressed through the lower order term $U^{(n-1)}(s)$ by means of the recurrence equation $$U^{(n)}(s)=\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime }\,U^{(0)}(s^{\prime })\,O(s^{\prime
})\,U^{(n-1)}(s^{\prime }).$$The expression above means that, by knowing the zeroth-order evolution operator $U^{(0)}(s)$, which exactly yields the adiabatic approximation, one can obtain $U^{(1)}(s)$, and then $U^{(2)}(s)$ and so on. The adiabatic case corresponds to no transitions, while a correction $U^{(n)}(s)$ of order $n\geq 1$ implies the existence of $n$ transitions between different energy levels [@Wu:89]. From this perspective one can interpret the adiabatic approximation as the zeroth order term in a perturbation theory in the number of transitions between energy levels connected by the time-varying Hamiltonian.
The quantum adiabatic approximation for open quantum systems {#open}
============================================================
In this section we review our recently introduced generalization of the adiabatic theorem to the case of open quantum systems [@SarandyLidar:04]. The motivations for considering such a generalization are many. The most fundamental is that the concept of a closed system is, of course, an idealization, and in reality all experimentally accessible systems are open. Thus applications of the adiabatic theorem for open systems include, among others, geometric phases (where open system effects have received considerable recent attention, e.g., Refs. [@geomphase-open]), quantum information processing, and molecular dynamics in condensed phases.
In the following we first introduce notation for open systems, then discuss the generalized adiabatic theorem.
The dynamics of open quantum system
-----------------------------------
Consider a quantum system $S$ coupled to an environment, or bath $B$ (with respective Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{H}_{S},\mathcal{H}_{B}$), evolving unitarily under the total system-bath Hamiltonian $H_{SB}$. The exact system dynamics is given by tracing over the bath degrees of freedom [Breuer:book]{} $$\rho (t)=\mathrm{Tr}_{B}[U(t)\rho _{SB}(0)U^{\dag }(t)], \label{system}$$where $\rho (t)$ is the system state, $\rho _{SB}(0)=\rho (0)\otimes \rho
_{B}(0)$ is the initially uncorrelated system-bath state, and $U(t)=\mathcal{T}\mathsf{\exp }(-i\int_{0}^{t}H_{SB}(t^{\prime })dt^{\prime })$ ($\mathcal{T}$ denotes time-ordering). Such an evolution is completely positive and trace preserving [@Breuer:book; @Kraus:71; @Alicki:87]. Under certain approximations, it is possible to convert Eq. (\[system\]) into the convolutionless form $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot{\rho}}(t) &=& \mathcal{L}(t) \rho (t).
\label{eq:t-Lind}\end{aligned}$$ An important example is $$\begin{aligned}
{\dot{\rho}}(t) &=&
-i\left[ H(t),\rho (t) \right] +\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left([\Gamma _{i}(t),\rho (t) \Gamma^{\dagger }_{i}(t)]
+[\Gamma_{i}(t)\rho (t), \Gamma^{\dagger }_{i}(t)]\right).
\label{eq:t-Lind2}\end{aligned}$$Here $H(t)$ is the time-dependent effective Hamiltonian of the open system and $\Gamma _{i}(t)$ are time-dependent operators describing the system-bath interaction. In the literature, Eq. (\[eq:t-Lind2\]) with time-*in*dependent operators $\Gamma _{i}$ is usually referred to as the Markovian dynamical semigroup, or Lindblad equation [@Breuer:book; @Alicki:87; @Gorini:76; @Lindblad:76] \[see also Ref. [@Lidar:CP01] for a simple derivation of Eq. (\[eq:t-Lind2\]) from Eq. (\[system\])\]. However, the case with time-dependent coefficients is also permissible under certain restrictions [@Lendi:86]. The Lindblad equation requires the assumption of a Markovian bath with vanishing correlation time. Equation (\[eq:t-Lind\]) can be more general; for example, it applies to the case of non-Markovian convolutionless master equations studied in Ref. [@Breuer:04]. Here we will consider the class of convolutionless master equations (\[eq:t-Lind\]). In a slight abuse of nomenclature, we will henceforth refer to the time-dependent generator $\mathcal{L}(t)$ as the Lindblad superoperator, and the $\Gamma
_{i}(t)$ as Lindblad operators. Conceptually, the difficulty in the transition of an adiabatic approximation from closed to open quantum systems is that the notion of Hamiltonian eigenstates is lost, since the Lindblad superoperator – the generalization of the Hamiltonian – cannot in general be diagonalized. It is then not a priori clear what should take the place of the adiabatic eigenstates. This difficulty was solved in Ref. [@SarandyLidar:04] by introducing the idea that this role is played by *adiabatic Jordan blocks of the Lindblad superoperator*. The Jordan canonical form [@Horn:book], with its associated left- and right-eigenvectors, is in this context the natural generalization of the diagonalization of the Hamiltonian. In this direction, it is convenient to work in the superoperator formalism, wherein the density matrix is represented by a $D^{2}$-dimensional coherence vector $$|\rho \rangle \rangle =\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\rho _{1} & \rho _{2} & \cdots & \rho _{D^{2}}\end{array}\right) ^{t}, \label{vcv}$$and the Lindblad superoperator $\mathcal{L}$ becomes a $D^{2}\times D^{2}$-dimensional supermatrix [@Alicki:87]. We use the double bracket notation to indicate that we are not working in the standard Hilbert space of state vectors. More generally, coherence vectors live in Hilbert-Schmidt space: a state space of linear operators endowed with an inner product that can be defined, for general vectors $u$ and $v$, as $$(u,v)\equiv \langle \langle u|v\rangle \rangle \equiv \frac{1}{{\mathcal{N}}}{\text{Tr}}\left( u^{\dagger }v\right) . \label{ip}$$where ${\mathcal{N}}$ is a normalization factor. Adjoint elements $\langle
\langle v|$ in the dual state space are given by row vectors defined as the transpose conjugate of $|v\rangle \rangle $: $\langle \langle
v|=(v_{1}^{\ast },v_{2}^{\ast },...,v_{D^{2}}^{\ast })$. A density matrix can then be expressed as a discrete superposition of states over a complete basis in this vector space, with appropriate constraints on the coefficients so that the requirements of Hermiticity, positive semi-definiteness and unit trace of $\rho $ are observed. Thus, representing the density operator in general as a coherence vector, we can rewrite Eq. (\[eq:t-Lind\]) in a superoperator language as $$\mathcal{L}(t)\,|\rho (t)\rangle \rangle =|{\dot{\rho}}(t)\rangle \rangle ,
\label{le}$$where $\mathcal{L}$ is now a supermatrix. This master equation generates non-unitary evolution, since $\mathcal{L}(t)$ is non-Hermitian and hence generally non-diagonalizable. However, one can always transform $\mathcal{L}$ into the Jordan canonical form [@Horn:book], where it has a block-diagonal structure. This is achieved via the similarity transformation $$\mathcal{L}_{J}(t)=S^{-1}(t)\,\mathcal{L}(t)\,S(t), \label{jd}$$where $\mathcal{L}_{J}(t)=\mathrm{diag}(J_{1},...,J_{m})$ denotes the Jordan form of $\mathcal{L}(t)$. The Jordan blocks $J_{\alpha }$, of dimension $n_{\alpha }$, are always of the form: $$J_{\alpha }=\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\lambda _{\alpha } & 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\
0 & \lambda _{\alpha } & 1 & ... & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & ... & 0 & \lambda _{\alpha } & 1 \\
0 & ... & ... & 0 & \lambda _{\alpha }\end{array}\right) . \label{ljmatg}$$To each Jordan block are associated a left and a right eigenvector with eigenvalue $\lambda _{\alpha }$, which can in general be complex. The number $m$ of Jordan blocks is given by the number of linearly independent eigenstates of $\mathcal{L}(t)$, with each eigenstate associated to a different block $J_{\alpha }$. Since $\mathcal{L}(t)$ is non-Hermitian, we generally do not have a basis of eigenstates, whence some care is required in order to find a basis for describing the density operator. It can be shown [@SarandyLidar:04] that instantaneous right $\left\{ |\mathcal{D}_{\beta }^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle \right\} $ and left $\left\{ \langle
\langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i)}(t)|\right\} $ bases in the state space of linear operators can always be systematically constructed, with the following suitable features:
$\bullet$ Orthonormality condition: $$\langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i)}(t)|\mathcal{D}_{\beta
}^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle =\,_{J}\langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i)}|\mathcal{D}_{\beta }^{(j)}\rangle \rangle _{J}=\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta
^{ij}. \label{lrr}$$
$\bullet $ Invariance of the Jordan blocks under the action of the Lindblad super-operator: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{L}(t)\,|\mathcal{D}_{\alpha }^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle =|\mathcal{D}_{\alpha }^{(j-1)}(t)\rangle \rangle +\lambda _{\alpha }(t)\,|\mathcal{D}_{\alpha }^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle . \label{ldo} \\
&&\langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i)}(t)|\,\mathcal{L}(t)=\langle
\langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i+1)}(t)|+\langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i)}(t)|\,\lambda _{\alpha }(t). \label{lro}\end{aligned}$$with $|\mathcal{D}_{\alpha }^{(-1)}\rangle \rangle \equiv 0$ and $\langle
\langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(n_{\alpha })}|\equiv 0$. Here the subscripts enumerate Jordan blocks ($\alpha \in \{1,...,m\}$), while the superscripts enumerate basis states inside a given Jordan block ($i,j\in
\{0,...,n_{\alpha }-1\}$).
Adiabatic conditions for open quantum system
--------------------------------------------
Before stating explicitly the conditions for adiabatic evolution, we provide a formal definition of adiabaticity for the case of open systems:
\[def:open-ad\] An open quantum system is said to undergo adiabatic dynamics if its Hilbert-Schmidt space can be decomposed into decoupled Lindblad–Jordan-eigenspaces with distinct, time-continuous, and non-crossing instantaneous eigenvalues of $\mathcal{L}(t)$.
This definition is a natural extension for open systems of the idea of adiabatic behavior. Indeed, in this case the master equation (\[eq:t-Lind\]) can be decomposed into sectors with different and separately evolving Lindblad-Jordan eigenvalues. The more familiar notion of closed-system adiabaticity is obtained as a special case when the Lindblad superoperator is Hermitian: in that case it can be diagonalized and the Jordan blocks all become one-dimensional, with corresponding real eigenvalues (that correspond to energy *differences*). The splitting into Jordan blocks of the Lindblad superoperator is achieved through the choice of a basis which preserves the Jordan block structure as, for example, the sets of right $\left\{ |\mathcal{D}_{\beta }^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle \right\} $ and left $\left\{ \langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i)}(t)|\right\} $ vectors introduced above. Such a basis generalizes the notion of Schrödinger-eigenvectors. Based on this concept of adiabaticity, we state below (without the proofs) several theorems which have been derived in Ref. [SarandyLidar:04]{}.
\[t1\] A sufficient condition for open quantum system adiabatic dynamics as given in Definition \[def:open-ad\] is: $$\max_{0\leq s\leq 1}\,\left\vert \sum_{p=1}^{(n_{\alpha }-i)}\left(
\prod_{q=1}^{p}\sum_{k_{q}=0}^{(j-S_{q-1})}\right) \frac{\langle \langle
\mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i+p-1)}|\frac{d\mathcal{L}}{ds}|\mathcal{D}_{\beta
}^{(j-S_{p})}\rangle \rangle }{(-1)^{S_{p}}\,\omega _{\beta \alpha
}^{p+S_{p}}}\right\vert \ll 1, \label{vc}$$where $s=t/T$ is the scaled time and $$\omega _{\beta \alpha }(t)=\lambda _{\beta }(t)-\lambda _{\alpha
}(t),\,\,\,\,\,\,\,S_{q}=\sum_{s=1}^{q}k_{s}\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\text{(}{\text{with}}\,\,\,S_{0}=0\text{)},\,\,\,\,\left(
\prod_{q=1}^{p}\sum_{k_{q}=0}^{(j-S_{q-1})}\right) \equiv
\sum_{k_{1}=0}^{j-S_{0}}\cdots \sum_{k_{p}=0}^{j-S_{p-1}},$$and where $\lambda _{\beta }\neq \lambda _{\alpha }$, with $i$ and $j$ denoting arbitrary indices associated to the Jordan blocks $\alpha $ and $\beta $, respectively.
The role of the energy differences that appear in the equations for the closed case is played here by the (in general complex-valued) difference between Jordan eigenvalues $\omega _{\beta \alpha }$, while the norm of the time-derivative of the Hamiltonian is replaced here by the norm of $\frac{d\mathcal{L}}{ds}$, evaluated over and inside Jordan blocks. Eq. (\[vc\]) gives a means to estimate the accuracy of the adiabatic approximation via the computation of the time derivative of the Lindblad superoperator acting on right and left vectors. The norm used in Eq. (\[vc\]) can be simplified by considering only the term with maximum absolute value, which results in:
\[c1os\] A sufficient condition for open quantum system adiabatic dynamics is $$\mathcal{N}_{ij}^{n_{\alpha }n_{\beta }}\max_{0\leq s\leq 1}\,\left\vert
\frac{\langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i+p-1)}|\frac{d\mathcal{L}}{ds}|\mathcal{D}_{\beta }^{(j-S_{p})}\rangle \rangle }{\omega _{\beta \alpha
}^{p+S_{p}}}\right\vert \ll 1,$$where the $\max $ is taken for any $\alpha \neq \beta $, and over all possible values of $i\in \{0,...,n_{\alpha }-1\}$, $j\in \{0,...,n_{\beta
}-1\}$, and $p$, with $$\mathcal{N}_{ij}^{n_{\alpha }n_{\beta }}=\frac{(n_{\alpha }-i+1+j)!}{(1+j)!(n_{\alpha }-i)!}-1. \label{numberterms}$$
The factor $\mathcal{N}_{ij}^{n_{\alpha }n_{\beta }}$ given in Eq. ([numberterms]{}) is just the number of terms of the sums in Eq. (\[vc\]). We have included a superscript $n_{\beta }$, even though there is no explicit dependence on $n_{\beta }$, since $j\in \{0,...,n_{\beta }-1\}$.
Furthermore, an adiabatic condition for a slowly varying Lindblad super-operator can directly be obtained from Eq. (\[vc\]), yielding:
A simple sufficient condition for open quantum system adiabatic dynamics is ${\dot{\mathcal{L}}}\approx 0$.
Note that this condition is in a sense too strong, since it need not be the case that $\dot{\mathcal{L}}$ is small in general (i.e., for all its matrix elements).
Just as in the closed-systems case, one can also express the condition for adiabaticity in terms of the total time of evolution. To this end, we expand the density matrix for an arbitrary time $t$ in the instantaneous right eigenbasis $\left\{ |{\mathcal{D}_{\beta }^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle }\right\}
$ as $$|\rho (t)\rangle \rangle =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\beta =1}^{m}\sum_{j=0}^{n_{\beta
}-1}p_{\beta }^{(j)}(t)\,e^{\int_{0}^{t}\lambda _{\beta }(t^{\prime
})dt^{\prime }}\,|\mathcal{D}_{\beta }^{(j)}(t)\rangle \rangle ,
\label{rtime}$$where $m$ is the number of Jordan blocks and $n_{\beta }$ is the dimension of the block $J_{\beta }$. We emphasize that we are assuming that there are no eigenvalue crossings in the spectrum of the Lindblad superoperator during the evolution. We also define $$V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s)=p_{\beta }^{(j)}(s)\langle \langle \mathcal{E}_{\alpha }^{(i+p-1)}(s)|\frac{d\mathcal{L}(s)}{ds}|\mathcal{D}_{\beta
}^{(j-S_{p})}(s)\rangle \rangle \label{vbapj}$$and $$\Omega _{\beta \alpha }(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\omega _{\beta \alpha }(t^{\prime
})\,dt^{\prime }. \label{Ombapj}$$Then the following adiabatic time condition can be established [SarandyLidar:04]{}:
\[t3\] Consider an open quantum system governed by a Lindblad superoperator $\mathcal{L}(s)$. Then the adiabatic dynamics in the interval $0\leq s\leq 1$ occurs if and only if the following time conditions, obtained for each coefficient $p_{\alpha}^{(i)}(s)$, are satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
T &\gg& \max_{0\leq s\leq 1} \left\vert \,\sum_{\beta \,|\,\lambda _{\beta
}\neq \lambda _{\alpha }}\sum_{j,p}\,(-1)^{S_{p}}
\left[ \frac{V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(0)}{\omega _{\beta \alpha
}^{p+S_{p}+1}(0)}-\frac{V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s)\,e^{T\,\Omega _{\beta
\alpha }(s)}}{\omega _{\beta \alpha }^{p+S_{p}+1}(s)}
+\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime }\,e^{T\,\Omega _{\beta \alpha
}(s^{\prime })}\frac{d}{ds^{\prime }}\frac{V_{\beta \alpha
}^{(ijp)}(s^{\prime })}{\omega _{\beta \alpha }^{p+S_{p}+1}(s^{\prime })}\right] \right\vert . \label{eq:tadscg}\end{aligned}$$
Theorem \[t3\] provides a very general condition for adiabaticity in open quantum systems. Equation (\[eq:tadscg\]) simplifies in a number of situations.
- Adiabaticity is guaranteed whenever $V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s)$ vanishes for all $\lambda_\alpha \neq \lambda_\beta $.
- Adiabaticity is similarly guaranteed whenever $V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s)$, which can depend on $T$ through $p_{\beta }^{(j)}$, vanishes for all $\lambda_\alpha
,\lambda_\beta $ such that $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega _{\beta \alpha })>0$ and does not grow faster, as a function of $T$, than $\exp (T|\,{\mathrm{Re}}\Omega
_{\beta \alpha }|)$ for all $\lambda_\alpha ,\lambda_\beta $ such that $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega
_{\beta \alpha })<0$.
- When $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega _{\beta \alpha })=0$ and $\mathrm{Im}(\Omega
_{\beta \alpha })\neq 0$ the integral in inequality (\[eq:tadscg\]) vanishes in the infinite time limit due to the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma [Churchill:book]{}, as in the closed case discussed before. In this case, again, adiabaticity is guaranteed provided $p_{\beta }^{(j)}(s)$ \[and hence $V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s)$\] does not diverge as a function of $T$ in the limit $T\rightarrow \infty$.
- When $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega _{\beta \alpha })>0$, the adiabatic regime can still be reached for large $T$ provided that $p_{\beta }^{(j)}(s)$ contains a decaying exponential which compensates for the growing exponential due to $\mathrm{Re}(\Omega _{\beta \alpha })$.
- Even if there is an overall growing exponential in inequality ([eq:tadscg]{}), adiabaticity could take place over a finite time interval $[0,T_{\ast }]$ and, afterwards, disappear. In this case, which would be an exclusive feature of open systems, the crossover time $T_{\ast }$ would be determined by an inequality of the type $T\gg a+b\exp (cT)$, with $c>0$. The coefficients $a,b$ and $c$ are functions of the system-bath interaction. Whether the latter inequality can be solved clearly depends on the values of $a,b,c$, so that a conclusion about adiabaticity in this case is model dependent.
A simpler sufficient condition can be derived from Eq. (\[eq:tadscg\]) by considering the term with maximum absolute value in the sum. This procedure leads to the following corollary:
\[ct3\] A sufficient time condition for the adiabatic regime of an open quantum system governed by a Lindblad superoperator $\mathcal{L}(t)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
T &\gg& \mathcal{M}_{ij}^{n_\alpha n_\beta} \, \max_{0\le s\le 1} \left\vert
\, \frac{V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(0)}{\omega _{\beta \alpha}^{p+S_{p}+1}(0)}
-\frac{V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s)\,e^{T\,\Omega_{\beta \alpha }(s)}}{\omega _{\beta \alpha}^{p+S_{p}+1}(s)}
+\int_{0}^{s}ds^{\prime }\,e^{T\,\Omega _{\beta \alpha }(s^{\prime
})}\frac{d}{ds^{\prime }} \frac{V_{\beta \alpha }^{(ijp)}(s^{\prime })}{\omega _{\beta\alpha }^{p+S_{p}+1}(s^{\prime })} \right\vert,
\label{eq:tadcol}\end{aligned}$$ where $\max $ is taken over all possible values of the indices $\lambda_\alpha \neq \lambda_\beta $, $i$, $j$, and $p$, with $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathcal{M}_{ij}^{n_\alpha n_\beta} = \sum_{\beta \,|\,\lambda _{\beta
}\neq \lambda _{\alpha}} \sum_{j=0}^{(n_{\beta}-1)}\sum_{p=1}^{(n_{\alpha
}-i)}\left( \prod_{q=1}^{p}\sum_{k_{q}=0}^{(j-S_{q-1})}\right) 1
= \Lambda_{\beta\alpha} \left[ \frac{(n_\alpha+n_\beta-i+1)!}{(n_\alpha-i+1)!n_\beta!}-n_\beta-1, \right] \label{Nlt}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Lambda_{\beta\alpha}$ denotes the number of Jordan blocks such that $\lambda_\alpha \neq \lambda_\beta$.
Further discussion of the physical significance of these adiabaticity conditions, as well as an illustrative example, can be found in Ref. [SarandyLidar:04]{}. The application of the adiabatic theorem for open quantum systems to problems in quantum information processing (e.g., in the context of adiabatic quantum computing [@Farhi:00; @Farhi:01; @Aharonov:04]) and geometric phases [@Thomaz:03; @Carollo:04; @Sanders:04], seems particularly appealing as a venue for future research.
The Marzlin-Sanders inconsistency
=================================
The adiabatic theorem can be deceptively simple when it is not carefully interpreted. In a recent paper entitled K.-P. Marzlin and B.C. Sanders argue that there may be an inconsistency in the adiabatic theorem for closed quantum systems [@Marzlin:04], when the change in instantaneous adiabatic eigenstates is significant. Here we simplify their argument and show where exactly is the fallacy that leads one to conclude that there is such an inconsistency.
The condition for adiabaticity revisited
----------------------------------------
Let us consider a quantum system evolving unitarily under the Schrödinger equation (\[se\]). At the initial time $t_{0}$ the system is assumed to be in the particular instantaneous energy eigenstate $|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle $. For a general time $t$ the evolution of the system is described by $$|\psi (t)\rangle =U(t,t_{0})|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle , \label{ge}$$where $U(t,t_{0})=\mathcal{T}\exp (-i\int_{t_{0}}^{t}H(t^{\prime
})dt^{\prime })$ is the unitary evolution operator. Assuming that the Hamiltonian changes slowly in time and that $|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle $ is non-degenerate, the adiabatic theorem implies that $$|\psi (t)\rangle =e^{-i\int^{t}E_{0}}e^{i\beta _{0}}|E_{0}(t)\rangle
\label{adp}$$where $\int^{t}E_{0}\equiv \int_{t_{0}}^{t}E_{0}(t^{\prime })dt^{\prime }$ and the Berry’s phase $\beta _{0}$ is given by $\beta _{0}=i\int \langle
E_{0}|{\dot{E}}_{0}\rangle $. Therefore the substitution of Eq. (\[adp\]) into the instantaneous eigenbasis of $H(t)$, defined by $H(t)|E_{n}(t)\rangle =E_{n}(t)|E_{n}(t)\rangle $, yields $$H(t)|\psi (t)\rangle =E_{0}(t)|\psi (t)\rangle , \label{e0t}$$which simply states that the wave function is an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian in the adiabatic regime. Substituting Eq. (\[e0t\]) into the Schrödinger equation (\[se\]) one obtains $$i|{\dot{\psi}}\rangle =E_{0}(t)|\psi (t)\rangle . \label{ase}$$It is important to observe that the above equation has been derived by using the fact that *the adiabatic solution must be an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian*. Moreover one can see that the adiabatic wave function is really a solution of the adiabatic Schrödinger equation by substituting Eq. (\[adp\]) into Eq. (\[ase\]), from which one obtains $$\left( 1-|E_{0}(t)\rangle \langle E_{0}(t)|\right) |{\dot{E}}_{0}(t)\rangle
=0. \label{eproj}$$In order to show that Eq. (\[eproj\]) is obeyed in the adiabatic regime we can project this equation by multiplying it by each instantaneous basis vector $\langle E_{n}(t)|$: $$\langle E_{n}(t)|\left( 1-|E_{0}(t)\rangle \langle E_{0}(t)|\right) |{\dot{E}}_{0}(t)\rangle =0.$$Therefore we obtain that the above equation is satisfied, for each $n$, if the adiabatic constraints \[see Eq. (\[vcc\])\] are obeyed $$\left\vert \frac{\langle E_{n}(t)|{\dot{E}}_{0}(t)\rangle }{E_{0}(t)-E_{n}(t)}\right\vert \ll 1,\,\,\,(n\neq 0)$$
The inconsistent step
---------------------
Now suppose that we wish to solve the adiabatic Schrödinger equation (\[ase\]), but (incorrectly) ignore the fact that it has been derived by assuming that $|\psi (t)\rangle $ is an instantaneous eigenstate of $H(t)$. Then, imposing the initial condition $|\psi (t_{0})\rangle
=|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle $, one easily finds that Eq. (\[ase\]) is satisfied by the following wave function: $$|\psi (t)\rangle =e^{-i\int^{t}E_{0}}|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle . \label{fsol}$$However, this $|\psi (t)\rangle $ is clearly inconsistent with Eq. (\[e0t\]) and therefore is an illegal solution, since it generally is not an instantaneous eigenstate of the Hamiltonian. Indeed, the general adiabatic solution is given by Eq. (\[adp\]), which includes the Berry’s phase and $|E_{0}(t)\rangle $, as opposed to $|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle $. In fact, if we take Eq. (\[fsol\]) as the adiabatic wave function and substitute it into Eq. (\[adp\]) we obtain $$e^{i\beta _{0}}|E_{0}(t)\rangle =|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle . \label{inc1}$$Then multiplying Eq. (\[inc1\]) by $\langle E_{0}(t_{0})|$ $$e^{i\beta _{0}}\langle E_{0}(t_{0})|E_{0}(t)\rangle =1. \label{inc2}$$This inconsistency is precisely the one claimed by Marzlin and Sanders in Ref. [@Marzlin:04], Eq. (6). Note that this result is obtained there in a somewhat more complicated manner, by considering the adiabatic solution of a time-reversed wave function $|{\bar{\psi}}(t)\rangle =U^{\dagger
}(t,t_{0})|E_{0}(t_{0})\rangle $. We note that the solution for $|{\bar{\psi}}(t)\rangle $ \[their Eq. (4)\] is very similar to our Eq. (\[fsol\]). Hence, in the same way that we have been led to an inconsistent result due to a deliberately wrong adiabatic solution for $|\psi (t)\rangle $, Ref. [@Marzlin:04] has been led to an inconsistent solution for their $|{\bar{\psi}}(t)\rangle $.
Conclusion
==========
We have reviewed the adiabatic dynamics of both closed and open quantum systems. In the case of closed systems the adiabatic limit is the case where initial Schrödinger-eigenspaces evolve independently, without any transitions between eigenspaces; this limit can be relaxed and a perturbation theory can be developed in the number of transitions. In the case of open systems the notion of Schrödinger-eigenspaces is replaced by independently evolving Lindblad-Jordan blocks. A corresponding perturbation theory has not yet been developed. We have also shown that the inconsistency in the adiabatic theorem claimed in Ref. [@Marzlin:04] is a consequence of an improper adiabatic solution for the wave function. One arrives at an inconsistent result by taking the *instantaneous* adiabatic eigenstates and integrating them over *all time* using the adiabatic Schrödinger equation. The adiabatic theorem remains a valuable and consistent tool for studying the dynamics of slowly evolving quantum systems.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The research of the authors is sponsored by CNPq-Brazil (to M.S.S.), and the Sloan Foundation, PREA and NSERC (to D.A.L.).
[99]{} P. Ehrenfest, [Ann. d. Phys.]{} **51**, 327 (1916).
, [Zeit. f. Physik]{} **51**, 165 (1928).
, [J. Phys. Soc. Jap.]{} **5**, 435 (1950).
, *Quantum mechanics* ([North-Holland]{}, [Amsterdam]{}, 1962), Vol. 2.
M.V. Berry, [Proc. R. Soc. London]{} A **414**, 31 (1987).
N. Nakagawa, [Ann. Phys.]{} **179**, 145 (1987).
C.P. Sun, [J. Phys. A]{} **21**, 1595 (1988).
Z. Wu, [Phys. Rev. A]{} **40**, 2184 (1989).
, Zeitschrift **2**, 46 (1932).
, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A **137**, 696 (1932).
, Phys. Rev. **84**, 350 (1951).
, Proc. Roy. Soc. (Lond.) **392**, 45 (1989).
, Phys. Rev. Lett. **52**, 2111 (1984).
, Phys. Lett. A **264**, 94 (1999).
, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 010305 (2000).
, Nature **403**, 869 (2000).
, Phys. Rev. A **62**, 052318 (2000).
, Science **292**, 1695 (2001).
, Phys. Rev. A **66**, 022102 (2002).
, Phys. Rev. Lett. **90**, 028301 (2003).
, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0001106.
, Science **292**, 472 (2001).
D. Aharonov, W. v. Dam, J. Kempe, Z. Landau, S. Lloyd, O. Regev, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0405098.
, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0404147, Phys. Rev. A (2004), in press.
, in *Irreversible Quantum Dynamics*, Vol. 622 of *Lecture Notes in Physics*, edited by [F. Benatti and R. Floreanini]{} ([Springer]{}, [Berlin]{}, 2003), p. 83, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0301032.
, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 160408 (2004).
, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0406163 (2004).
, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0405129 (2004).
Z. Wu and H. Yang, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0410118 (2004).
, *Dynamical Invariants, Adiabatic Approximation, and the Geometric Phase* ([Nova Science Publishers]{}, [New York]{}, 2001).
J.E. Avron and A. Elgart, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 4300 (1998); Commun. Math. Phys. [**203**]{}, 445 (1999).
, *Quantum Mechanics: Fundamentals* ([Springer]{}, [New York]{}, 2003).
, *Fourier series and boundary value problems* ([McGraw-Hill]{}, [New York]{}, 1993).
The Riemann-Lebesgue lemma can be stated through the proposition: Let $f:[a,b]\rightarrow \mathbf{C}$ be an integrable function on the interval $[a,b]$. Then $\int_{a}^{b}\,dx\,e^{inx}f(x)\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow \pm \infty $.
L.-B. Fu, J.-L. Chen, J. Phys. A **37**, 3699 (2004); E. Sjöqvist, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0404174; K.-P. Marzlin, S. Ghose, B.C. Sanders, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0405052; D.M. Tong, E. Sjöqvist, L.C. Kwek, C.H. Oh, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0405092; R.S. Whitney, Y. Makhlin, A. Shnirman, Y. Gefen, LANL Preprint cond-mat/0405267; I. Kamleitner, J.D. Cresser, B.C. Sanders, LANL Preprint quant-ph/0406018.
, *The Theory of Open Quantum Systems* ([Oxford University Press]{}, Oxford, 2002).
, Ann. of Phys. **64**, 311 (1971).
, *Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications*, No. 286 in *Lecture Notes in Physics* ([Springer-Verlag]{}, Berlin, 1987).
, J. Math. Phys. **17**, 821 (1976).
, Commun. Math. Phys. **48**, 119 (1976).
, Chem. Phys. **268**, 35 (2001).
K. Lendi, Phys. Rev. A [**33**]{}, 3358 (1986).
H.-P. Breuer, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 012106 (2004).
, *Matrix Analysis* ([Cambridge University Press]{}, [Cambridge, UK]{}, 1999).
, J. Phys. A [**36**]{}, 7461 (2003).
, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 020402 (2004).
I. Kamleitner, J.D. Cresser, and B.C. Sanders, e-print quant-ph/0406018 (2004).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Current generative networks are increasingly proficient in generating high-resolution realistic images. These generative networks, especially the conditional ones, can potentially become a great tool for providing new image datasets. This naturally brings the question: *Can we train a classifier only on the generated data?* This potential availability of nearly unlimited amounts of training data challenges standard practices for training machine learning models, which have been crafted across the years for limited and fixed size datasets. In this work we investigate this question and its related challenges. We identify ways to improve significantly the performance over naive training on randomly generated images with regular heuristics. We propose three standalone techniques that can be applied at different stages of the pipeline, , data generation, training on generated data, and deploying on real data. We evaluate our proposed approaches on a subset of the ImageNet dataset and show encouraging results compared to classifiers trained on real images.'
address: |
^1^Valeo.ai, Paris, France\
^2^Sorbonne University, Paris, France\
bibliography:
- 'citation.bib'
title: 'This dataset does not exist: training models from generated images'
---
Image classification, generative networks
Introduction
============
Related Work
============
Approach {#sec:approach}
========
Experiments
===========
Conclusions
===========
\[sec:refs\]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[**Abstract.**]{} We introduce an automata-theoretic method for the verification of distributed algorithms running on ring networks. In a distributed algorithm, an arbitrary number of processes cooperate to achieve a common goal (e.g., elect a leader). Processes have unique identifiers (pids) from an infinite, totally ordered domain. An algorithm proceeds in synchronous rounds, each round allowing a process to perform a bounded sequence of actions such as send or receive a pid, store it in some register, and compare register contents wrt. the associated total order. An algorithm is supposed to be correct independently of the number of processes. To specify correctness properties, we introduce a logic that can reason about processes and pids. Referring to leader election, it may say that, at the end of an execution, each process stores the maximum pid in some dedicated register. Since the verification of distributed algorithms is undecidable, we propose an underapproximation technique, which bounds the number of rounds. This is an appealing approach, as the number of rounds needed by a distributed algorithm to conclude is often exponentially smaller than the number of processes. We provide an automata-theoretic solution, reducing model checking to emptiness for alternating two-way automata on words. Overall, we show that round-bounded verification of distributed algorithms over rings is PSPACE-complete.'
author:
- 'C. Aiswarya'
- Benedikt Bollig
- Paul Gastin
title: 'An Automata-Theoretic Approach to the Verification of Distributed Algorithms[^1] '
---
=0.9mm
(pid1)(-8,19.8)[$p_i=$]{} (pid1)(0,20)[4]{} (pid2)(23,20)[8]{} (pid3)(46,20)[3]{} (pid4)(69,20)[1]{} (pid5)(92,20)[6]{} (pid6)(115,20)[5]{} (pid7)(138,20)[7]{}
(0,-5)[ (i)(-7,20.5)[$i=$]{} (i1)(0,20) (i2)(23,20) (i3)(46,20) (i4)(69,20) (i5)(92,20) (i6)(115,20) (i7)(138,20) ]{}
(conf)(-16,8)[${C}_0$]{} (conf)(-16,-8)[${C}_1$]{} (conf)(-16,-32)[${C}_2$]{} (conf)(-16,-48)[${C}_3$]{} (conf)(-16,-72)[${C}_4$]{} (conf)(-16,-88)[${C}_5$]{} (conf)(-16,-112)[${C}_6$]{}
(conf)(-16,0) (conf)(-16,-20) (conf)(-16,-40) (conf)(-16,-60) (conf)(-16,-80) (conf)(-16,-100)
(pid1,pid2) (pid2,pid3) (pid3,pid4) (pid4,pid5) (pid5,pid6) (pid6,pid7) (pid1,pid7)
[ (ialabel)(0,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(23,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(46,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(69,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(92,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(115,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(138,0)[ ]{}]{}
(0,-20)[ [ (ailabel)(0,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (aplabel)(23,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ailabel)(46,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (newaplabel)(69,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (aplabel)(92,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ailabel)(115,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (aplabel)(138,0)[ ]{}]{} ]{}
(0,-40)[ [ (ialabel)(0,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(23,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(46,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(69,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(92,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(115,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(138,0)[ ]{}]{} ]{}
(0,-60)[ [ (newaplabel)(0,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(23,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (aplabel)(46,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(69,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(92,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ailabel)(115,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(138,0)[ ]{}]{} ]{}
(0,-80)[ [ (pplabel)(0,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(23,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(46,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(69,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(92,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (ialabel)(115,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(138,0)[ ]{}]{} ]{}
(0,-100)[ [ (pplabel)(0,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(23,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(46,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(69,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(92,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (aelabel)(115,0)[ ]{}]{} [ (pplabel)(138,0)[ ]{}]{} ]{}
(c)(0,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 4 4 4
-----------------------
(c)(23,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 8 8
-----------------------
(c)(46,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 3 3 3
-----------------------
(c)(69,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 1 1 1
-----------------------
(c)(92,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 6 6
-----------------------
(c)(115,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 5 5 5
-----------------------
(c)(138,8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 7 7
-----------------------
(c)(0,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 4 7 4
-----------------------
(c)(23,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 4 8
-----------------------
(c)(46,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 3 8 3
-----------------------
(c)(69,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 1 3 1
-----------------------
(c)(92,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 1 6
-----------------------
(c)(115,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 5 6 5
-----------------------
(c)(138,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 5 7
-----------------------
(0,-24)
(c)(0,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 7 5
-----------------------
(c)(23,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 4 7
----------------------
(c)(46,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 8 4
-----------------------
(c)(69,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 1 3 8
----------------------
(c)(92,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 1 3
----------------------
(c)(115,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 6 1
-----------------------
(c)(138,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 5 6
----------------------
(0,-40)
(c)(0,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 6 5
-----------------------
(c)(23,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 4 7
----------------------
(c)(46,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 7 4
-----------------------
(c)(69,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 3 8
----------------------
(c)(92,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 1 3
----------------------
(c)(115,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 8 1
-----------------------
(c)(138,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 5 6
----------------------
(0,-64)
(c)(0,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 6 8
----------------------
(c)(23,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 6 4 7
----------------------
(c)(46,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 7 6
----------------------
(c)(69,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 3 8
----------------------
(c)(92,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 7 1 3
----------------------
(c)(115,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_0$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 8 7
-----------------------
(c)(138,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 5 6
----------------------
(0,-80)
(c)(0,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 6 8
----------------------
(c)(23,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 4 7
----------------------
(c)(46,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 7 6
----------------------
(c)(69,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 3 8
----------------------
(c)(92,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 1 3
----------------------
(c)(115,-8)
-----------------------
${\mathit{active}}_1$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 8 7
-----------------------
(c)(138,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 5 6
----------------------
(0,-104)
(c)(0,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 6 8
----------------------
(c)(23,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 4 7
----------------------
(c)(46,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 7 6
----------------------
(c)(69,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 3 8
----------------------
(c)(92,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 1 3
----------------------
(c)(115,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{found}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 8 8
----------------------
(c)(138,-8)
----------------------
${\mathit{passive}}$
\[-0.6ex\] 8 5 6
----------------------
(p0)(30,15) (p1)(30,2) (p2)(37,-2) (p3)(37,-26) (p4)(37,-43) (p5)(106,-43) (p6)(106,-66) (p7)(4,-66)
(p0,p1) (p1,p2) (p2,p3) (p3,p4) (p4,p5) (p5,p6) (p6,p7)
(p0)(99,15) (p1)(99,2) (p2)(106,-2) (p3)(106,-25) (p4)(106,-37) (p5)(-9,-37) (p6)(-9,-65)
(p0,p1) (p1,p2) (p2,p3) (p3,p4) (p4,p5) (p5,p6)
=1.2mm (-2,-103)
(p1)(-3,1) (p1)(2,0) (p2)(10,0) (p3)(20,0) (p4)(30,0) (p5)(40,0) (p6)(50,0) (p7)(60,0) (p8)(70,0) (p9)(80,0) (p10)(90,0) (p11)(100,0) (p12)(110,0)
(p1,p2) (p2,p3) (p4,p5) (p7,p8) (p8,p9) (p10,p11) (p11,p12)
(p1,p2) (p2,p3) (p3,p4) (p4,p5) (p5,p6) (p6,p7) (p7,p8) (p8,p9) (p9,p10) (p10,p11) (p11,p12)
=1.2mm (-2,-95)
(p1)(-3,1) (p1)(2,0) (p2)(10,0) (p3)(20,0) (p4)(30,0) (p5)(40,0) (p6)(50,0) (p7)(60,0) (p8)(70,0) (p9)(80,0) (p10)(90,0) (p11)(100,0) (p12)(110,0)
(p1,p2) (p2,p3) (p4,p5) (p7,p8) (p8,p9) (p10,p11) (p1,p2) (p2,p3) (p3,p4) (p4,p5) (p5,p6) (p6,p7) (p7,p8) (p8,p9) (p9,p10) (p10,p11) (p11,p12)
Introduction
============
Distributed algorithms are a classic discipline of computer science and continue to be an active field of research [@Lynch:1996; @Fokkink2013]. A distributed algorithm employs several processes, which perform one and the same program to achieve a common goal. It is required to be correct independently of the number of processes. Prominent examples are leader-election algorithms, whose task is to determine a unique leader process and to announce it to all other processes. Those algorithms are often studied for ring architectures. One practical motivation comes from local-area networks that are based on a token-ring protocol. Moreover, rings generally allow one to nicely illustrate the main conceptual ideas of an algorithm.
However, it is well-known that there is no (deterministic) distributed algorithm over rings that elects a leader under the assumption of anonymous processes. Therefore, classical algorithms, such as Franklin’s algorithm [@Franklin:1982] or the Dolev-Klawe-Rodeh algorithm [@DolevKR82], assume that every process is equipped with a unique process identifier (pid) from an infinite, totally ordered domain. In this paper, we consider such distributed algorithms, which work on ring architectures and can access unique pids as well as the associated total order.
Distributed algorithms are intrinsically hard to analyze. Correctness proofs are often intricate and use subtle inductive arguments. Therefore, it is worthwhile to consider automatic verification methods such as model checking [@ClarkeGP2001]. Besides a formal model of an algorithm, this requires a generic specification language that is feasible from an algorithmic point of view but expressive enough to formulate correctness properties. In this paper, we propose a language that can reason about processes, states, and pids. In particular, it will allow us to formalize when a leader-election algorithm is correct: *At the end of an execution, every process stores, in register $r$, the maximum pid among all processes*. Our language is inspired by Data-XPath, which can reason about trees over infinite alphabets [@BenediktFG08; @BojanczykMSS09; @FS11].
However, formal verification of distributed algorithms cumulates various difficulties that already arise, separately, in more standard verification: First, the number of processes is unknown, which amounts to parameterized verification [@Esparza14]; second, processes manipulate data from an infinite domain [@BojanczykMSS09; @FS11]. In each case, even simple verification questions are undecidable, and so is the combination of both.
In various other contexts, a successful approach to retrieving decidability has been a form of *bounded model checking*. The idea is to consider correctness up to some parameter, which restricts the set of runs of the algorithm in a non-trivial way. In multi-threaded recursive programs, for example, one may restrict the number of control switches between different threads [@Qadeer:TACAS05]. Actually, this idea seems even more natural in the context of distributed algorithms, which usually proceed in *rounds*. In each round, a process may emit some messages (here: pids) to its neighbors, and then receive messages from its neighbors. Pids can be stored in registers, and a process can check the relation between stored pids before it moves to a new state and is ready for a new round. It turns out that the number of rounds is often exponentially smaller than the number of processes (cf. the above-mentioned leader-election algorithms). Thus, roughly speaking, a small number of rounds allows us to verify correctness of an algorithm for a large number of processes.
The key idea of our method is to interpret a (round-bounded) execution of a distributed algorithm symbolically as a word-like structure over a finite alphabet. The finite alphabet is constituted by the transitions that occur in the algorithm and possibly contain tests of pids wrt. equality or the associated total order. To determine feasibility of a symbolic execution (i.e., *is there a ring that satisfies all the guards employed?*), we use propositional dynamic logic with loop and converse (LCPDL) over words [@Goeller2009]. Basically, we translate a given distributed algorithm into a formula that detects cyclic (i.e., contradictory) smaller-than tests. Its models are precisely the feasible symbolic executions. A specification is translated into LCPDL as well so that verification amounts to checking satisfiability of a single formula. The latter can be reduced to an emptiness problem for alternating two-way automata over words so that we obtain a PSPACE procedure for round-bounded model checking.
#### Related Work.
Considerable effort has been devoted to the verification of fault-tolerant algorithms, which have to cope with faults such as lost or corrupted messages (e.g., [@Merz:2009; @KonnovVW14]). After all, there have been only very few generic approaches to model checking distributed algorithms. In [@KVW12], several possible reasons for this are identified, among them the presence of unbounded data types and an unbounded number of processes, which we have to treat simultaneously in our framework. Parameterized model checking of ring-based systems where communication is subject to a token policy and the message alphabet is finite has been studied in [@EmersonN03; @AminofJKR14].
The theory of words and trees over infinite alphabets (aka data words/trees) provides an elegant formal framework for database-related notions such as XML documents [@BojanczykMSS09], or for the analysis of programs with data structures such as lists and arrays [@Alur:2011; @Alur:2012]. Notably, streaming transducers [@Alur:2011] also work over an infinite, totally ordered domain. The difference to our work is that we model distributed algorithms and provide a logical specification language. Recall that the latter borrows concepts from [@BenediktFG08; @BojanczykMSS09; @FS11], whose logic is designed to reason about XML documents. A fragment of MSO logic over *ordered* data trees was studied in [@Tan14]. The paper [@BCGK-fossacs12] pursued a symbolic model-checking approach to systems involving data. But the model was purely sequential and pids could only be compared for equality. The ordering on the data domain actually has a subtle impact on the choice of the specification language.
#### Outline.
In Section, \[sec:algorithms\], we present our model of a distributed algorithm. Section \[sec:spec\] introduces the specification language to express correctness criteria. In Section \[sec:verification\], we show how to solve the round-bounded model-checking problem in polynomial space. We conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\]. Some proof details are omitted but can be found in the appendix.
Distributed Algorithms {#sec:algorithms}
======================
By ${\mathbb{N}}= \{0,1,2,\ldots\}$, we denote the set of natural numbers. For $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we set ${[n]} = \{1,\ldots,n\}$ and ${[n]_0} = \{0,1,\ldots,n\}$. The set of finite words over an alphabet $A$ is denoted by $A^\ast$, and the set of nonempty finite words by $A^+$.
#### Syntax of Distributed Algorithms.
We consider distributed algorithms that run on arbitrary ring architectures. A ring consists of a finite number of processes, each having a unique process identifier (pid). Every process has a unique left neighbor (referred to by ${\mathbf{left}}$) and a unique right neighbor (referred to by ${\mathbf{right}}$). Formally, a *ring* is a tuple ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$, given by its size $n \ge 1$ and the pids $p_i \in {\mathbb{N}}$ assigned to process $i \in {[n]}$. We require that pids are unique, i.e., $p_i \neq p_j$ whenever $i \neq j$. For a process $i < n$, process $i+1$ is the right neighbor of $i$. Moreover, $1$ is the right neighbor of $n$. Analogously, if $i > 2$, then $i-1$ is the left neighbor of $i$. Moreover, $n$ is the left neighbor of $1$. Thus, processes $1$ and $n$ must not be considered as the “first” or “last” process. Actually, a distributed algorithm will not be able to distinguish between, for example, $(4:4,1,5,2)$ and $(4:5,2,4,1)$.
One given distributed algorithm can be run on *any* ring. It is given by a single program ${\mathcal{D}}$, and each process runs a copy of ${\mathcal{D}}$. It is convenient to think of ${\mathcal{D}}$ as a (finite) automaton. Processes proceed in synchronous rounds. In one round, every process executes one transition of its program. In addition to the change of state, a process may optionally perform the following phases within a transition: (i) send some pids to its neighbors, (ii) receive pids from its neighbors and store them in registers, (iii) compare register contents with one another, (iv) update its registers. For example, consider the transition $t={\langles\textup{:}~{\mathbf{left}{!}r} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{!}r'} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{?}r'} {\,\text{;}\,}r<r' {\,\text{;}\,}{r := r'} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{goto}~s'}\rangle}$. A process can execute $t$ if it is in state $s$. It then sends the contents of register $r$ to its left neighbor and the contents of $r'$ to its right neighbor. If, afterwards, it receives a pid $p$ from its right neighbor, it stores $p$ in $r'$. If $p$ is greater than what has been stored in $r$, it sets $r$ to $p$ and goes to state $s'$. Otherwise, the transition is not applicable. The first phase can, alternatively, be filled with a special command ${\mathbf{fwd}}$. Then, a process will just forward any pid it receives. Note that a message can be forwarded, in one and the same round, across several processes executing ${\mathbf{fwd}}$.
\[def:da\] A *distributed algorithm* ${\mathcal{D}}=({{S}},{s_0},{\mathit{Reg}},{\Delta})$ consists of a nonempty finite set ${{S}}$ of *(local) states*, an *initial state* ${s_0}\in {{S}}$, a nonempty finite set ${\mathit{Reg}}$ of *registers*, and a nonempty finite set ${\Delta}$ of *transitions*. A transition is of the form ${\langles\textup{:}~\mathit{send} {\,\text{;}\,}\mathit{rec} {\,\text{;}\,}\mathit{guard} {\,\text{;}\,}\mathit{update} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{goto}~s'}\rangle}$ where $s,s' \in {{S}}$ and the components $\mathit{send}$, $\mathit{rec}$, $\mathit{guard}$, and $\mathit{update}$ are built as follows:
- $\mathit{send} ~::=~ {\mathbf{skip}}~\mid~ {\mathbf{fwd}}~\mid~ {\mathbf{left}{!}r} ~\mid~ {\mathbf{right}{!}r} ~\mid~ {\mathbf{left}{!}r}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{!}r'}$
- $\mathit{rec} ~::=~ {\mathbf{skip}}~\mid~ {\mathbf{left}{?}r} ~\mid~ {\mathbf{right}{?}r} ~\mid~ {\mathbf{left}{?}r}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{?}r'}$
- $\mathit{guard} ~::=~ {\mathbf{skip}}~\mid~ r < r' ~\mid~ r = r' ~\mid~ \mathit{guard} {\,\text{;}\,}\mathit{guard}$
- $\mathit{update} ~::=~ {\mathbf{skip}}~\mid~ {r := r'} ~\mid~ \mathit{update}{\,\text{;}\,}\mathit{update}$
with $r$ and $r'$ ranging over ${\mathit{Reg}}$. We require that
- in a $\mathit{rec}$ statement of the form ${\mathbf{left}{?}r}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{?}r'}$, we have $r \neq r'$ (actually, the order of the two receive actions does not matter), and
- in an $\mathit{update}$ statement, every register occurs at most once as a left-hand side.
In the following, occurrences of “${\mathbf{skip}}\,\text{;}$” are omitted; this does not affect the semantics. [$\lhd$]{}
Note that a guard $r \le r'$ can be simulated in terms of guards $r < r'$ and $r = r'$, using several transitions. We separate $<$ and $=$ for convenience. They are actually quite different in nature, as we will see later in the proof of our main result.
At the beginning of an execution of an algorithm, every register contains the pid of the respective process. We also assume, wlog., that there is a special register ${\mathit{id}}\in {\mathit{Reg}}$ that is never updated, i.e., no transition contains a command of the form ${\mathbf{left}{?}{\mathit{id}}}$, ${\mathbf{right}{?}{\mathit{id}}}$, or ${{\mathit{id}}:= r}$. A process can thus, at any time, access its own pid in terms of ${\mathit{id}}$.
In the semantics, we will suppose that all updates of a transition happen simultaneously, i.e., after executing ${r := r'} {\,\text{;}\,}{r' := r}$, the values previously stored in $r$ and $r'$ will be swapped (and do not necessarily coincide). As, moreover, the order of two sends and the order of two receives within a transition do not matter, this will allow us to identify a transition with the set of states, commands (apart from ${\mathbf{skip}}$), and guards that it contains. For example, $t={\langles\textup{:}~{\mathbf{left}{!}r} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{!}r'} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{right}{?}r'} {\,\text{;}\,}r<r' {\,\text{;}\,}{r := r'} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{goto}~s'}\rangle}$ is considered as the set $t=\{s\,,\,{\mathbf{left}{!}r}\,,\,{\mathbf{right}{!}r'}\,,\,{\mathbf{right}{?}r'}\,,\,r<r'\,,\,{r := r'}\,,\,{\mathbf{goto}~s'}\}$.
Before defining the semantics of a distributed algorithm, we will look at two examples.
\[ex:franklin\] Consider Franklin’s algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{Franklin}$ to determine a leader in a ring [@Franklin:1982]. It is given in Figure \[fig:franklin\]. The goal is to assign leadership to the process with the highest pid. To do so, every process sends its own pid to both neighbors, receives the pids of its left and right neighbor, and stores them in registers $r_1$ and $r_2$, respectively (transitions $t_1,\ldots,t_4$). If a process is a local maximum, i.e., $r_1 < {\mathit{id}}$ and $r_2 < {\mathit{id}}$ hold, it is still in the race for leadership and stays in state ${\mathit{active}}$. Otherwise, it has to take $t_2$ or $t_3$ and goes into state ${\mathit{passive}}$. In ${\mathit{passive}}$, a process will just forward any pid it receives and store the message coming from the left in $r$ (transition $t_5$). When an active process receives its own pid (transition $t_4$), it knows it is the only remaining active process. It copies its own pid into $r$, which henceforth refers to the leader. We may say that a run is accepting (or terminating) when all processes terminate in ${\mathit{passive}}$ or ${\mathit{found}}$. Then, at the end of any accepting run, (i) there is exactly one process $i_0$ that terminates in ${\mathit{found}}$, (ii) all processes store the pid of $i_0$ in register $r$, and the pid of $i_0$ is the maximum of all pids in the ring. Since, in every round, at least half of the active processes become passive, the algorithm terminates after at most $\lfloor \log_2 n\rfloor +1$ rounds where $n$ is the number of processes. [$\lhd$]{}
\[ex:dolev\] The Dolev-Klawe-Rodeh leader-election algorithm [@DolevKR82] is an adaptation of Franklin’s algorithm to cope with unidirectional rings, where a process can only, say, send to the right and receive from the left. The algorithm, denoted ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{DKR}$, is given in Figure \[fig:dkr\]. The idea is that the local maximum among the processes $i-2,i-1,i$ is determined by $i$ (rather than $i-1$). Therefore, each process $i$ will execute two transitions, namely $t_1$ and $t_2$, and store the pids sent by $i-2$ and $i-1$ in $r''$ and $r'$, respectively. After two rounds, since $r$ still contains the pid of $i$ itself, $i$ can test if $i-1$ is a local maximum among $i-2,i-1,i$ using the guards in transition $t_2$. If both guards are satisfied, $i$ stores the pid sent by $i-1$ in $r$. It henceforth ”represents” process $i-1$, which is still in the race, and goes to state ${\mathit{active}}_0$. Otherwise, it enters ${\mathit{passive}}$, which has the same task as in Franklin’s algorithm. The algorithm is correct in the following sense: At the end of an accepting run (each process ends in ${\mathit{passive}}$ or ${\mathit{found}}$), (i) there is exactly one process that terminates in ${\mathit{found}}$ (but not necessarily the one with the highest pid), and (ii) all processes store the maximal pid in register $r$. The algorithm terminates after at most $2\lfloor
\log_2 n\rfloor+2$ rounds. Note that the correctness of ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{DKR}$ is less clear than that of ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{Franklin}$. [$\lhd$]{}
\#1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
height \#1 @axhline
#### Semantics of Distributed Algorithms.
Now, we give the formal semantics of a distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}=({{S}},{s_0},{\mathit{Reg}},{\Delta})$. Recall that ${\mathcal{D}}$ can be run on any ring ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$. An (${\mathcal{R}}$-)configuration of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a tuple $(s_1,\ldots,s_n,{\rho}_1,\ldots,{\rho}_n)$ where $s_i$ is the current state of process $i$ and ${\rho}_i: {\mathit{Reg}}\to \{p_1,\ldots,p_n\}$ maps each register to a pid. The configuration is called *initial* if, for all processes $i \in {[n]}$, we have $s_i = {s_0}$ and ${\rho}_i(r) = p_i$ for all $r \in {\mathit{Reg}}$. Note that there is a unique initial ${\mathcal{R}}$-configuration.
In one round, the algorithm moves from one configuration to another one. This is described by a relation ${C}{\stackrel{t}{\rightsquigarrow}}
{C}'$ where ${C}=(s_1,\ldots,s_n,{\rho}_1,\ldots,{\rho}_n)$ and ${C}'=(s_1',\ldots,s_n',{\rho}_1',\ldots,{\rho}_n')$ are ${\mathcal{R}}$-configurations and $t = (t_1,\ldots,t_n) \in {\Delta}^n$ is a tuple of transitions where $t_i$ is executed by process $i$. To determine when ${C}{\stackrel{t}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}'$ holds, we first define two auxiliary relations. For registers $r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}$ and processes $i,j \in {[n]}$, we write ${r@ i \rightarrowtail r'@j}$ if the contents of $r$ is sent to the right from $i$ to $j$, where it is stored in $r'$. Thus, we require that
${\mathbf{right}{!}r} \in t_i ~\wedge~ {\mathbf{left}{?}r'} \in t_j ~\wedge~ {\mathbf{fwd}}\in t_k$ for all $k \in \mathit{Between}(i,j)$
where $\mathit{Between}(i,j)$ means $\{i+1,\ldots,j-1\}$ if $i<j$ or $\{1,\ldots,j-1,i+1,\ldots,n\}$ if $j\leq i$. Note that, due to the ${\mathbf{fwd}}$ command, ${r@ i \rightarrowtail r'@j}$ may hold for several $r'$ and $j$. The meaning of ${r'@j \leftarrowtail r@i}$ is analogous, we just replace “right direction” by “left direction”:
${\mathbf{left}{!}r} \in t_i ~\wedge~ {\mathbf{right}{?}r'} \in t_j ~\wedge~ {\mathbf{fwd}}\in t_k$ for all $k \in \mathit{Between}(j,i)$.
The guards in the transitions $t_1,\ldots,t_n$ are checked against “intermediate” register assignments $\hat{{\rho}}_1,\ldots,\hat{{\rho}}_n: {\mathit{Reg}}\to \{p_1,\ldots,p_n\}$, which are defined as follows: $$\hat{{\rho}}_j(r') =
\begin{cases}
{\rho}_i(r) & \text{ if } {r@ i \rightarrowtail r'@j} \text{ or } {r'@j \leftarrowtail r@i} \\
{\rho}_j(r') & \text{ if, for all } r,i\text{, neither } {r@ i \rightarrowtail r'@j} \text{ nor } {r'@j \leftarrowtail r@i}
\end{cases}$$ Note that this is well-defined, due to condition (1) in Definition \[def:da\].
Now, we write ${C}{\stackrel{t}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}'$ if, for all $j \in {[n]}$ and $r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}$, the following hold:
1. $s_j \in t_j$ and $({\mathbf{goto}~s_j'}) \in t_j$,
2. $\hat{{\rho}}_j(r) < \hat{{\rho}}_j(r')$ if $(r<r') \in {t_j}$,
3. $\hat{{\rho}}_j(r) = \hat{{\rho}}_j(r')$ if $(r=r') \in {t_j}$,
4. ${\rho}_j'(r) =
\begin{cases}
\hat{{\rho}}_j(r') & \text{ if } ({r := r'}) \in t_j \\
\hat{{\rho}}_j(r) & \text{ if } t_j \text{ does not contain an update of the form } {r := r''} \\
\end{cases}$
Again, 4. is well-defined thanks to condition (2) in Definition \[def:da\].
An (${\mathcal{R}}$-)*run* of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a sequence ${\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}$ where $k \ge 1$, ${C}_0$ is the initial ${\mathcal{R}}$-configuration, and $t^j = (t_{1}^j,\ldots,t_{n}^j) \in {\Delta}^n$ for all $j \in {[k]}$. We call $k$ the *length* of ${\chi}$. Note that ${\chi}$ uniquely determines the underlying ring ${\mathcal{R}}$.
A receive command is always non-blocking even if there is no corresponding send. As an alternative semantics, one could require that it can only be executed if there has been a matching send, or vice versa. One could even include tags from a finite alphabet that can be sent along with pids. All this will not change any of the forthcoming results. [$\lhd$]{}
A run of ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mathsf{DKR}}$ from Example \[ex:dolev\] on the ring ${\mathcal{R}}=(7:4,8,3,1,6,5,7)$ is depicted in Figure \[fig:symbrun\] (for the moment, we may ignore the blue and violet lines). A colored row forms a configuration. The three pids in a cell refer to registers $r,r',r''$, respectively (we ignore ${\mathit{id}}$). Moreover, a non-colored row forms, together with the states above and below, a transition tuple. When looking at the step from ${C}_3$ to ${C}_4$, we have, for example, ${r'@ 3 \rightarrowtail r@4}$ and ${r'@ 3 \rightarrowtail r''@6}$. Moreover, ${r'@ 6 \rightarrowtail r@7}$ and ${r'@ 6 \rightarrowtail r''@1}$ (recall that we are in a ring). Note that the run conforms to the correctness property formulated in Example \[ex:dolev\]. In particular, in the final configuration, all processes store the maximum pid in register $r$. [$\lhd$]{}
The Specification Language {#sec:spec}
==========================
In Examples \[ex:franklin\] and \[ex:dolev\], we informally stated the correctness criterion for the presented algorithms (e.g., “at the end, all processes store the maximal pid in register $r$”). Now, we introduce a *formal* language to specify correctness properties. It is defined wrt. a given distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}=({{S}},{s_0},{\mathit{Reg}},{\Delta})$, which we fix for the rest of this section.
Typically, one requires that a distributed algorithm is correct no matter what the underlying ring is. Since we will bound the number of rounds, we moreover study a form of partial correctness. Accordingly, a property is of the form ${\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}$, which has to be read as “for all rings, all runs, and all processes ${\mathsf{m}}$, we have ${{\varphi}}$”. The marking ${\mathsf{m}}$ is used to avoid to “get lost” in a ring when writing the property ${{\varphi}}$. This is like placing a pebble in the ring that can be retrieved at any time. Actually, ${{\varphi}}$ allows us to “navigate” back and forth (${\mathord{\uparrow}}$ and ${\mathord{\downarrow}}$) in a run, i.e., from one configuration to the previous or next one (similar to a temporal logic with past operators). By means of ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}$ and ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}$, we may also navigate horizontally within a configuration, i.e., from one process to a neighboring one.
Essentially, a sequence of configurations is interpreted as a cylinder (cf.Figure \[fig:symbrun\]) that can be explored using regular expressions $\pi$ over $\{{\epsilon},{\mathord{\leftarrow}},{\mathord{\rightarrow}},{\mathord{\uparrow}},{\mathord{\downarrow}}\}$ (where ${\epsilon}$ means “stay”). At a given position/coordinate of the cylinder, we can check *local (or positional)* properties like the state taken by a process, or whether we are on the marked process ${\mathsf{m}}$. Such a property can be combined with a regular expression $\pi$: The formula ${\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{{\varphi}}$ says that ${{\varphi}}$ holds at every position that is reachable through a $\pi$-path (a path matching $\pi$). Dually, ${\ensuremath{\langle\pi\rangle}}{{\varphi}}$ holds if there is a $\pi$-path to some position where ${{\varphi}}$ is satisfied. The most interesting construct in our logic is ${\langle \pi \rangler \bowtie \langle \pi' \rangler'}$, where ${\bowtie} \in
\{\mathord{=},\mathord{\neq},\mathord{<},\mathord{\le}\}$, which has been used for reasoning about XML documents [@BenediktFG08; @BojanczykMSS09; @FS11]. It says that, from the current position, there are a $\pi$-path and a $\pi'$-path that lead to positions $y$ and $y'$, respectively, such that the pid stored in register $r$ at $y$ and the pid stored in $r'$ at $y'$ satisfy the relation $\bowtie$.
We will now introduce our logic in full generality. Later, we will restrict the use of $<$- and $\le$-guards to obtain positive results.
\[def:datapdl\] The logic ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ is given by the following grammar: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi &::= {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}\\
{{\varphi}},{{\varphi}}' &::= {\mathsf{m}}\,\mid\, s \,\mid\, \neg{{\varphi}}\,\mid\, {{\varphi}}\wedge {{\varphi}}' \,\mid\, {{\varphi}}\Rightarrow {{\varphi}}' \,\mid\, {\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{{\varphi}}\,\mid\, {\langle \pi \rangler \bowtie \langle \pi' \rangler'}\\
\pi,\pi' &::= {\{{{\varphi}}\}?} \,\mid\, d \,\mid\, \pi + \pi' \,\mid\, \pi \cdot \pi' \,\mid\, \pi^{\ast}\end{aligned}$$ where $s \in {{S}}$, $r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}$, ${\bowtie} \in \{\mathord{=},\mathord{\neq},\mathord{<},\mathord{\le}\}$, and $d \in \{{\epsilon},{\mathord{\leftarrow}},{\mathord{\rightarrow}},{\mathord{\uparrow}},{\mathord{\downarrow}}\}$. [$\lhd$]{}
We call ${{\varphi}}$ a *local formula*, and $\pi$ a *path formula*. We use common abbreviations such as ${\mathit{false}}= {\mathsf{m}}\wedge \neg{\mathsf{m}}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\pi\rangle}}{{\varphi}}= \neg{\ensuremath{[\pi]}}\neg{\varphi}$, and ${{\varphi}}\vee {{\varphi}}' = \neg(\neg{{\varphi}}\wedge \neg{{\varphi}}')$, and we may write $\pi\pi'$ instead of $\pi \cdot \pi'$. Implication $\Rightarrow$ is included explicitly in view of the restriction defined below.
Next, we define the semantics. Consider a run ${\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ where ${C}_j = (s_1^j,\ldots,s_n^j,{\rho}_1^j,\ldots,{\rho}_n^j)$, i.e., $n$ is the number of processes in the underlying ring. A local formula ${{\varphi}}$ is interpreted over ${\chi}$ wrt. a marked process $m \in {[n]}$ and a position $(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$ where ${\mathit{Pos}({\chi})} = {[n]} \times {[k]_0}$. Let us define when ${\chi},m,(i,j) \models {{\varphi}}$ holds. The operators $\neg$, $\wedge$, and $\Rightarrow$ are as usual. Moreover, ${\chi},m,(i,j) \models {\mathsf{m}}$ if $i = m$, and ${\chi},m,(i,j) \models s$ if $s_i^j = s$.
The other local formulas use path formulas. The semantics of a path formula $\pi$ is given in terms of a binary relation ${{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}} \subseteq {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})} \times {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$, which we define below. First, we set:
- ${\chi},m,(i,j) \models {\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{{\varphi}}$ if $\forall (i',j')$ such that $((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$, we have ${\chi},m,(i',j') \models {{\varphi}}$
- ${\chi},m,(i,j) \models {\langle \pi \rangler \bowtie \langle \pi' \rangler'}$ (where ${\bowtie} \in \{=,\neq,\mathord{<},\mathord{\le}\}$) if $\exists (i_1,j_1),(i_2,j_2)$ such that $((i,j),(i_1,j_1)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$ and $((i,j),(i_2,j_2)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi']\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$ and ${\rho}_{i_1}^{j_1}(r) \bowtie {\rho}_{i_2}^{j_2}(r')$
It remains to define ${{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$ for a path formula $\pi$. First, a local test and a stay ${\epsilon}$ do not “move” at all: ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\{{{\varphi}}\}?}]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}} = \{(x,x) \mid x \in
{\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$ such that ${\chi},m,x \models {{\varphi}}\}$, and ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\epsilon}]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}
= \{(x,x) \mid x \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}\}$. Using ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}$, we move to the right neighbor of a process: ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\rightarrow}}]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}} =
\{((i,j),(i+1,j)) \mid i \in {[n-1]}$ and $j \in {[k]_0}\} \cup
\{((n,j),(1,j)) \mid j \in {[k]_0}\}$. We define ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\leftarrow}}]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$ accordingly. Moreover, ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\downarrow}}]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}} = \{((i,j),(i,j+1)) \mid i \in
{[n]}$ and $j \in {[k-1]_0}\}$, and similarly for ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\uparrow}}]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$. The regular constructs, $+$, $\cdot$, and $\ast$ are as expected and refer to the union, relation composition, and star over binary relations.
Finally, ${\mathcal{D}}$ satisfies the [$\textup{DataPDL}$]{}formula ${\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}$, written ${\mathcal{D}}\models {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}$, if, for all rings ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:\ldots)$, all ${\mathcal{R}}$-runs ${\chi}$, and all processes $m \in {[n]}$, we have ${\chi},m,(m,0) \models {{\varphi}}$. Thus, ${{\varphi}}$ is evaluated at the first configuration, wrt. all processes $m$.
Next, we define a restricted logic, ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, for which we later present our main result. We say that a path formula $\pi$ is *unambiguous* if, from a given position, it defines at most one reference point. Formally, for all rings ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:\ldots)$, ${\mathcal{R}}$-runs ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$, processes $m \in {[n]}$, and positions $x \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$, there is at most one $x' \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$ such that $(x,x') \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},m}}$. For example, ${\epsilon}$, ${\mathord{\downarrow}}$, ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}$, and ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast{\{{\mathsf{m}}\}?}$ are unambiguous, while ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast$ and ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}+ {\mathord{\rightarrow}}$ are not unambiguous.
A ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formula is contained in ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ if every subformula ${\varphi}={\langle \pi \rangler \bowtie \langle \pi' \rangler'}$ with ${\bowtie} \in \{<,\le\}$ is such that $\pi$ and $\pi'$ are *unambiguous*. Moreover, ${\varphi}$ must *not* occur (i) in the scope of a negation, (ii) on the left-hand side of an implication $\underline{~\;} \!\Rightarrow\! \underline{~\;}\,$, or (iii) within a test ${\{\,\underline{~\;}\,\}?}$. Note that guards using $=$ and $\neq$ are still unrestricted. [$\lhd$]{}
\[ex:datapdl\] Let us *formalize*, in ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, the correctness criteria for ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{Franklin}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{DKR}$ that we stated informally in Examples \[ex:franklin\] and \[ex:dolev\]. Consider the following local formulas: $$\begin{array}{ll}
{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{last}={\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\downarrow}}]}}{\mathit{false}}&
{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{max} = {\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast]}} \bigl({{\langle {\epsilon}\rangle{\mathit{id}}\le \langle {\pi_\mathsf{found}}\rangler}}\bigr)\\[1ex]
{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{acc} = {\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast]}}({\mathit{passive}}\vee {\mathit{found}}) &
{{\varphi}}_{r={\mathit{id}}} = {\ensuremath{\langle{\pi_\mathsf{found}}\rangle}}\bigl({\langle {\epsilon}\rangler = \langle {\epsilon}\rangle{\mathit{id}}}\bigr)\\[1ex]
{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{found} = {\ensuremath{\langle{\pi_\mathsf{found}}{\mathord{\rightarrow}}({\{\neg{\mathit{found}}\}?}{\mathord{\rightarrow}})^\ast\rangle}}{\mathsf{m}}~~~~~~ &
{{\varphi}}_{r=r} = \neg\bigl({\langle {\epsilon}\rangler \neq \langle {\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast \rangler}\bigr)
\end{array}$$ where ${\pi_\mathsf{found}}=({\{\neg{\mathit{found}}\}?}{\mathord{\rightarrow}})^\ast{\{{\mathit{found}}\}?}$. Note that ${\pi_\mathsf{found}}$ is unambiguous: while going to the right, it always stops at the *nearest* process that is in state ${\mathit{found}}$. Thus, ${\varphi}_\mathsf{max}$ is indeed a local [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}formula. Consider the ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}$ formula $$\Phi_1 = {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}
{\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\downarrow}}^\ast]}}\bigl(({{\varphi}}_\mathsf{last}\wedge{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{acc}) \Rightarrow ({{\varphi}}_\mathsf{found} \wedge {{\varphi}}_\mathsf{max} \wedge {{\varphi}}_{r=r} \wedge {{\varphi}}_{r={\mathit{id}}})\bigr)
}\,.$$ It says that, at the end (i.e., in the last configuration) of each accepting run, expressed by ${\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\downarrow}}^\ast]}}\bigl(({{\varphi}}_\mathsf{last}\wedge{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{acc}) \Rightarrow{\ldots}\bigr)$, we have that
- there is exactly one process $i_0$ that ends in state ${\mathit{found}}$ (guaranteed by ${{\varphi}}_\mathsf{found}$),
- register $r$ of $i_0$ contains the maximum over all pids (${{\varphi}}_\mathsf{max}$),
- register $r$ of $i_0$ contains the pid of $i_0$ itself (${{\varphi}}_{r={\mathit{id}}}$), and
- all processes store the same pid in $r$ (${{\varphi}}_{r=r}$).
Thus, ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{Franklin} \models \Phi_1$. On the other hand, we have ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{DKR} \not\models \Phi_1$, because in ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{DKR}$ the process that ends in ${\mathit{found}}$ is not necessarily the process with the maximum pid. However, we still have ${\mathcal{D}}_\mathsf{DKR} \models
\Phi_2$ where $$\Phi_2={\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}
{\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\downarrow}}^\ast]}}\bigl(({{\varphi}}_\mathsf{last}\wedge{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{acc}) \Rightarrow ({{\varphi}}_\mathsf{found} \wedge {{\varphi}}_\mathsf{max} \wedge {{\varphi}}_{r=r})\bigr)
}\,.$$
The next example formulates the correctness constraint for a distributed sorting algorithm. We would like to say that, at the end of an accepting run, the pids stored in registers ${\mathit{r}}$ are strictly totally ordered. Suppose ${{\varphi}}_\mathsf{acc}$ represents an acceptance condition and ${{\varphi}}_\mathsf{least}$ says that there is exactly one process that terminates in some dedicated state $\mathit{least}$, similarly to ${{\varphi}}_\mathsf{found}$ above. Then, $$\Phi_3 = {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}
{\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\downarrow}}^\ast]}}\bigl(({{\varphi}}_\mathsf{last}\wedge{{\varphi}}_\mathsf{acc}) \Rightarrow
({\varphi}_\mathsf{least} \wedge {\ensuremath{[{\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast{\{\neg\mathit{least}\}?}]}}
({{\langle {\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangler < \langle {\epsilon}\rangler}}))\bigr)}$$ makes sure that, whenever process $j$ is not terminating in $\mathit{least}$, its left neighbor $i$ stores a smaller pid in $r$ than $j$ does.
Note that $\Phi_1$, $\Phi_2$, and $\Phi_3$ are indeed [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}formulas. [$\lhd$]{}
Unsurprisingly, model checking distributed algorithms against [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}is undecidable:
\[thm:undecidable\] The following problem is undecidable: Given a distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}$ and $\Phi \in {\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, do we have ${\mathcal{D}}\models \Phi$? (Actually, this even holds for formulas $\Phi$ that express simple state-reachability properties and do not use any guards on pids.)
Round-Bounded Model Checking {#sec:verification}
============================
In the realm of multithreaded concurrent programs, where model checking is undecidable in general, a fruitful approach has been to underapproximate the behavior of a system [@Qadeer:TACAS05]. The idea is to introduce a parameter that measures a characteristic of a run such as the number of thread switches it performs. One then imposes a bound on this parameter and explores all behaviors up to that bound. In numerous distributed algorithms, the number ${b}$ of rounds needed to conclude is exponentially smaller than the number of processes (cf. Examples \[ex:franklin\] and \[ex:dolev\]). Therefore, ${b}$ seems to be a promising parameter for bounded model checking of distributed algorithms.
For a distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}$, a formula $\Phi={\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}} \in {\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, and ${b}\ge 1$, we write ${\mathcal{D}}\models_{b}\Phi$ if, for all rings ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:\ldots)$, all ${\mathcal{R}}$-runs ${\chi}$ of length $k \le {b}$, and all processes $m \in {[n]}$, we have ${\chi},m,(m,0) \models {{\varphi}}$. We now present our main result:
\[thm:main\] The following problem is PSPACE-complete: Given a distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}$, $\Phi \in {\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, and a natural number ${b}\ge 1$ (encoded in unary), do we have ${\mathcal{D}}\models_{b}\Phi$?
The lower-bound proof, a reduction from the intersection-emptiness problem for a list of finite automata, can be found in the appendix. Before we prove the upper bound, let us discuss the result in more detail. We will first compare it with “na[ï]{}ve” approaches to solve related questions. Consider the problem to determine whether a distributed algorithm satisfies its specification for all rings up to size $n$ and all runs up to length ${b}$. This problem is in coNP: We guess a ring (i.e., essentially, a permutation of pids) and a run, and we check, using [@Lange06], whether the run does *not* satisfy the formula. Next, suppose only ${b}$ is given and the question is whether, for all rings up to size $2^{b}$ and all runs up to length ${b}$, the property holds. Then, the above procedure gives us a coNEXPTIME algorithm.
Thus, our result is interesting complexity-wise, but it offers some other advantages. First, it actually checks correctness (up to round number ${b}$) for *all* rings. This is essential when verifying distributed *protocols* against safety properties. Second, it reduces to a satisfiability check in the well-studied propositional dynamic logic with loop and converse (LCPDL) [@Goeller2009], which in turn can be reduced to an emptiness check of alternating two-way automata (A2As) over words [@Vardi1998]. The “na[ï]{}ve” approaches, on the other hand, do not seem to give rise to viable algorithms. Finally, our approach is uniform in the following sense: We will construct, in polynomial time, an A2A that recognizes precisely the symbolic abstractions of runs (over arbitrary rings) that violate (or satisfy) a given formula. Our construction is *independent* of the parameter ${b}$. The emptiness check then requires a bound on the number of rounds (or on the number of processes), which can be adjusted gradually without changing the automaton.
#### Proof Outline for Upper Bound of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Let ${\mathcal{D}}$ be the given distributed algorithm and $\Phi \in {\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$. We will reduce model checking to the satisfiability problem for LCPDL [@Goeller2009]. While [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}is interpreted over runs, containing pids from an infinite alphabet, the new logic will reason about symbolic abstractions over a *finite* alphabet. A symbolic abstraction of a run only keeps the transitions and discards pids. Thus, it can be seen as a table (or picture) whose entries are transitions (cf. Figure \[fig:symbrun\]).
First, we translate ${\mathcal{D}}$ into an LCPDL formula. Essentially, it checks that guards are not used in a contradictory way. To compare ${\mathcal{D}}$ with $\Phi$, the latter is translated into an LCPDL formula, too. However, there is a subtle point here. For simplicity, let us write $r < r'$ instead of ${\langle {\epsilon}\rangler < \langle {\epsilon}\rangler'}$. Satisfaction of a formula $r < r'$ can only be guaranteed in a symbolic execution if the flow of pids provides *evidence* that $r < r'$ really holds. More concretely, the (hypothetic) formula $(r < r') \vee (r = r') \vee (r' < r)$ is a tautology, but it may not be possible to prove any of its disjuncts on the basis of a symbolic run. This is the reason why ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}$ restricts $<$- and $\le$-tests. It is then indeed enough to reason about symbolic runs (cf. Lemma \[lem:lcpdl\] below). We leave open whether one can deal with full [$\textup{DataPDL}$]{}.
Overall, we reduce model checking to satisfiability of the conjunction of two [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}formulas of polynomial size: the formula representing the algorithm, and the negation of the formula representing the specification. Satisfiability of LCPDL over symbolic runs (of bounded height) can be checked in PSPACE [@Goeller2009] by a reduction to the emptiness problem for A2As over words [@Vardi1998]. Our approach is, thus, automata theoretic in spirit, though the power of alternation is used differently than in [@Vardi1996], which translates LTL formulas into automata.
Next, we present the logic LCPDL over symbolic runs. Then, in separate subsections, we translate ${\mathcal{D}}$ as well as its [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}specification into LCPDL. For the remainder of this section, we fix a distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}=({{S}},{s_0},{\mathit{Reg}},{\Delta})$.
#### PDL with Loop and Converse (LCPDL).
As mentioned before, a symbolic abstraction of a run of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is a table, whose entries are transitions from the finite alphabet ${\Delta}$. A *table* is a triple ${T}=(n,k,\lambda)$ where $n,k \ge 1$ and $\lambda: {\mathit{Pos}(T)} \to {\Delta}$ labels each position/coordinate from ${\mathit{Pos}(T)}= {[n]} \times {[k]_0}$ with a transition. Thus, we may consider that $T$ has $n$ columns and $k+1$ rows. In the following, we will write ${{T}[i,j]}$ for $\lambda(i,j)$, and ${{T}[i]}$ for the $i$-th column of $T$, i.e., ${{T}[i]}={T}[i,0] \ldots {T}[i,k] \in {\Delta}^+$. Let ${{\Delta}^{++}}$ denote the set of all tables.
Formulas ${\psi}\in {\ensuremath{\textup{LCPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ are interpreted over tables. Their syntax is given as follows: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
{\psi},{\psi}' &\!\!::=\!\!& t \mid s \mid {\mathbf{goto}~s} \mid {\mathbf{fwd}}\mid {\mathbf{left}{!}r} \mid {\mathbf{right}{!}r} \mid {\mathbf{left}{?}r} \mid {\mathbf{right}{?}r} \mid r<r' \mid r=r' \mid {r := r'} \mid\\[0.5ex]
& & \neg {\psi}\mid {\psi}\wedge {\psi}' \mid {\ensuremath{\langle\pi\rangle}}{{\psi}} \mid {\mathsf{loop}(\pi)}
\\[1ex]
\pi,\pi' &\!\!::=\!\!& {\{{\psi}\}?} \mid d \mid \pi + \pi' \mid \pi \cdot \pi' \mid \pi^{\ast} \mid \pi^{-1} \mid {\mathcal{A}}\end{array}$$ where $t \in {\Delta}$, $s \in {{S}}$, $r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}$, $d \in \{{\epsilon},{\mathord{\rightarrow}},{\mathord{\downarrow}}\}$, and ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a *path automaton*: a non-deterministic finite automaton whose transitions are labeled with path formulas $\pi$. Again, ${\psi}$ is called a *local formula*. We use common abbreviations to include disjunction, implication, ${\mathit{true}}$, and ${\mathit{false}}$, and we let $\pi^+ = \pi \cdot \pi^\ast$, ${\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{\psi}{=}\neg{\ensuremath{\langle\pi\rangle}}\neg{\psi}$, ${\ensuremath{\langle\pi\rangle}} {=}{\ensuremath{\langle\pi\rangle}}{\mathit{true}}$, ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}= {\mathord{\rightarrow}}^{-1}$, and ${\mathord{\uparrow}}= {\mathord{\downarrow}}^{-1}$.
The semantics of [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}is very similar to that of [$\textup{DataPDL}$]{}. A local formula ${\psi}$ is interpreted over a table ${T}=(n,k,\lambda)$ and a position $x \in {\mathit{Pos}(T)}$. When it is satisfied, we write ${T},x \models {\psi}$. Moreover, a path formula $\pi$ determines a binary relation ${{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{T}}} \subseteq {\mathit{Pos}(T)} \times {\mathit{Pos}(T)}$, relating those positions that are connected by a path matching $\pi$.
We consider only the most important cases: We have ${T},(i,j) \models t$ if ${T}[i,j]=t$. For a state, command, guard, or update $\gamma$, let ${T},(i,j) \models \gamma$ if $\gamma \in {T}[i,j]$. Loop and converse are as expected: ${T},x \models {\mathsf{loop}(\pi)}$ if $(x,x) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{T}}}$, and ${{\ensuremath{[\![\pi^{-1}]\!]}}_{{T}}} = \{(y,x) \mid (x,y) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{T}}}\}$. The semantics of ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}$ (and ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}$) is slightly different than in [$\textup{DataPDL}$]{}, since we are not allowed to go beyond the last and first column. Thus, ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\rightarrow}}]\!]}}_{{T}}} =
\{((i,j),(i+1,j)) \mid i \in {[n-1]}$ and $j \in {[k]_0}\}$. However, we can simulate the “roundabout” of a ring and set ${\hookrightarrow} = {\mathord{\rightarrow}}+ {\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\rightarrow}}\rangle}}\}?}{\mathord{\leftarrow}}^\ast{\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangle}}\}?}$ as well as ${\hookleftarrow} = {\hookrightarrow^{-1}}$. Actually, the first column of a table will play the role of a marked process in a ring (later, ${\mathsf{m}}$ will be translated to $\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangle}}$).
Finally, the semantics of path automata is given by ${{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}]\!]}}_{{T}}} = \{(x,y) \mid$ there is $\pi_1 \ldots \pi_\ell \in L({\mathcal{A}})$ with $(x,y) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot \pi_\ell]\!]}}_{{T}}}\}$ where $L({\mathcal{A}})$ contains a *sequence* $\pi_1 \ldots \pi_\ell$ of path formulas if ${\mathcal{A}}$ admits a path $q_0 \xrightarrow{\pi_1} q_1 \xrightarrow{\pi_2} \ldots \xrightarrow{\pi_\ell} q_\ell$ from its initial state $q_0$ to a final state $q_\ell$.
A formula $\psi \in {\ensuremath{\textup{LCPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ defines the language $L({\psi}) = \{{T}\in {{\Delta}^{++}}\mid {T},(1,0) \models {\psi}\}$. For ${b}\ge 1$, we denote by $L_{b}({\psi})$ the set of tables $(n,k,\lambda) \in L({\psi})$ such that $k \le {b}$.
\[thm:icpdl\] The following problem is PSPACE-complete: Given a distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}$, a formula ${\psi}\in {\ensuremath{\textup{LCPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, and ${b}\ge 1$ (encoded in unary), do we have $L_{b}({\psi}) = \emptyset$? (The input ${\mathcal{D}}$ is only needed to determine the signature of the logic.)
#### From Distributed Algorithms to [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}.
[l]{} ${\mathit{loc}_{r,r'}^{0,1}} {=}\begin{cases}
{\{\bigwedge_{\bar{r} \in {\mathit{Reg}}}\!\neg{\ensuremath{\langle({\mathit{msg}_{\bar{r},r}^{0,1}})^{-1}\rangle}}\}?} & \textup{if~} r = r'\\[0.5ex]
{\{{\mathit{false}}\}?} & \textup{if~} r \neq r'
\end{cases}$ ${\mathit{upd}_{r,r'}^{1,2}} {=}\begin{cases}
{\{ \bigwedge_{\bar{r} \neq r} \neg({r := \bar{r}})
\}?} & \textup{if~} r = r'\\[0.5ex]
{\{{r' := r}\}?} & \textup{if~} r \neq r'
\end{cases}$\
${\mathit{msg}_{r,r'}^{0,1}} {=}\left(
\begin{array}{rl}
& {\{{\mathbf{right}{!}r}\}?} \cdot (\hookrightarrow \cdot {\{{{\mathbf{fwd}}}\}?})^\ast \cdot \hookrightarrow \cdot{\{{\mathbf{left}{?}{r'}}\}?}\\[0.5ex]
\!+ \!\!\!\!& {\{{\mathbf{left}{!}r}\}?} \cdot (\hookleftarrow \cdot {\{{{\mathbf{fwd}}}\}?})^\ast \cdot \hookleftarrow \cdot{\{{\mathbf{right}{?}{r'}}\}?}
\end{array}\right)$ ${\mathit{next}_{r,r'}^{2,0}} {=}\begin{cases}
{\mathord{\downarrow}}& \textup{if~} r = r'\\[0.5ex]
{\{{\mathit{false}}\}?} & \textup{if~} r \neq r'
\end{cases}$
Wlog., we assume that ${\Delta}$ contains ${\mathsf{t}}={\langle\mathsf{s}\textup{:}~{\mathbf{skip}}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{skip}}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{skip}}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{skip}}{\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{goto}~{s_0}}\rangle}$ where $\mathsf{s} \neq {s_0}$ does not occur in any other transition.
Let ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ be a ring and ${\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}$ be an ${\mathcal{R}}$-run of ${\mathcal{D}}$, where $t^j = (t_{1}^j,\ldots,t_{n}^j) \in {\Delta}^n$ for all $j \in {[k]}$. From ${\chi}$, we extract the *symbolic run* ${{T}_{{\chi}}}=(n,k,\lambda) \in {{\Delta}^{++}}$ given by its columns ${{T}_{{\chi}}}[i] = {\mathsf{t}}\, t_i^1 \ldots t_i^k$. The purpose of the dummy transition ${\mathsf{t}}$ at the beginning of a column is to match the number of configurations in a run.
We will construct, in polynomial time, a formula ${\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}\in {\ensuremath{\textup{LCPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ such that $L({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}) = \{{{T}_{{\chi}}} \mid {\chi}$ is a run of ${\mathcal{D}}\}$. In particular, ${\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}$ will verify that (i) there are no cyclic dependencies that arise from $<$-guards, and (ii) registers in equality guards can be traced back to the same origin. In that case, the symbolic run is consistent and corresponds to a “real” run of ${\mathcal{D}}$.
The main ingredients of ${\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}$ are some path formulas that describe the transmission of pids in a symbolic run. They are depicted in Figure \[fig:pathform\]. For $\theta \in \{\mathit{loc},\mathit{msg},\mathit{upd},\mathit{next}\}$ and ${h}\in \{0,1,2\}$, the meaning of $(x,y) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\theta_{r,r'}^{{h},{h}'}]\!]}}_{T}}$ is that the pid stored in $r$ at *stage* ${h}$ of position/transition $x$ has been propagated to register $r'$ at stage ${h}'$ of $y$. Here, ${h}=0$ means “after sending”, ${h}=1$ “after receiving”, and ${h}=2$ “after register update”. The interpretation of “propagated” depends on $\theta$. Formula ${\mathit{loc}_{r,r'}^{0,1}}$ says that the value of register $r$ is not affected by reception. Similarly, $\smash{{\mathit{upd}_{r,r'}^{1,2}}}$ takes care of updates. Formula $\smash{{\mathit{next}_{r,r'}^{2,0}}}$ allows us to switch to the next transition of a process, preserving the value of $r (= r')$. The most interesting case is $\smash{{\mathit{msg}_{r,r'}^{0,1}}}$, which describes paths across several processes. It relates the sending of $r$ and a corresponding receive in $r'$, which requires that all intermediate transitions are forward transitions. All path formulas are illustrated in Figure \[fig:symbrun\].
Since pids can be transmitted along several transitions and messages, the formulas $\smash{\theta_{r,r'}^{{h},{h}'}}$ will be composed by path automata. For $\textup{{h}} \in \{1,2\}$ and $\textup{r} \in {\mathit{Reg}}$, we define a path automaton $\smash{{\mathcal{A}}_{\textup{r}}^{\textup{{h}}}}$ that, in $T_{\chi}$, connects some positions $(i,0)$ and $(i',j')$ iff, in ${\chi}$, register $\textup{r}$ stores $p_i$ at stage $\textup{h}$ of position $(i',j')$. Its set of states is $\iota \cup (\{0,1,2\} \times {\mathit{Reg}})$. For all ${\mathit{r}}\in {\mathit{Reg}}$, there is a transition from the initial state $\iota$ to $(0,r)$ with transition label ${\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\uparrow}}\rangle}}\}?}$. Thus, the automaton starts at the top row and non-deterministically chooses some register $r$. From state $({h},r)$, it can read any transition label $\smash{\theta_{r,r'}^{{h},{h}'}}$ and move to $({h}',r')$. The only final state is $(\textup{{h}},\textup{r})$. Figure \[fig:symbrun\] describes (partial) runs of ${\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{r''}^{1}$, which allow us to identify the origin of $r'$ and $r''$ when applying the guard $r'<r''$.
Now, consistency of equality guards can indeed be verified by an [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}formula. It says that, whenever an equality check $r = r'$ occurs in the symbolic run, then the pids stored in $r$ and $r'$ have a common origin. This can be conveniently expressed in terms of loop and converse. Note that guards are checked at stage ${h}=1$ of the corresponding transition: $${\psi}_= ~{=}~ {\ensuremath{[({\mathord{\rightarrow}}+ {\mathord{\downarrow}})^\ast]}} \textstyle\bigwedge_{r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}} \Bigl(r = r' ~\Rightarrow~ {\mathsf{loop}(({\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1})}\Bigr)\,.$$ The next path formula connects the first coordinate of a process $i$ with the first coordinate of another process $i'$ if some guard forces the pid of $i$ to be smaller than that of $i'$: $$\pi_< ~{=}\Bigl(\textstyle\sum_{r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}} {\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1} \cdot {\{r < r'\}?} \cdot ({\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1})^{-1}\Bigr)^+\,.$$ Note that, here, we use the (strict) transitive closure. Consistency of $<$-guards now reduces to saying that there is no $\pi_<$-loop: ${\psi}_< ~{=}~ \neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast\rangle}} {\mathsf{loop}(\pi_<)}$.
Finally, we can easily write an [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}formula ${\psi}_{\mathsf{col}}$ that checks whether every column ${T}[i] \in {\Delta}^+$ (ignoring ${\mathsf{t}}$) is a valid transition sequence of ${\mathcal{D}}$. Finally, let ${\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}{=}{\psi}_= \wedge {\psi}_< \wedge {\psi}_{\mathsf{col}}$.
\[lem:datapdl\] We have $L({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}) = \{{{T}_{{\chi}}} \mid {\chi}$ is a run of ${\mathcal{D}}\}$.
#### From [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}to [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}.
Next, we inductively translate every local ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formula ${{\varphi}}$ into an ${\ensuremath{\textup{LCPDL}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formula ${\widetilde{{{\varphi}}}}$. The translation is given in Figure \[fig:transl\]. As mentioned before, the first column in a table plays the role of a marked process so that ${\widetilde{{\mathsf{m}}}} =
\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangle}}$. The standard formulas are translated as expected. Now, consider ${\widetilde{~\smash{{\langle \pi \rangler < \langle \pi' \rangler'}}}}$ (the remaining cases are similar). To “prove” ${\langle \pi \rangler < \langle \pi' \rangler'}$ at a given position in a symbolic run, we require that there are a ${\widetilde{\pi}}$-path and a ${\widetilde{\pi}}'$-path to coordinates $x$ and $x'$, respectively, whose registers $r$ and $r'$ satisfy $r < r'$. To guarantee the latter, the pids stored in $r$ and $r'$ have to go back to coordinates that are connected by a $\pi_<$-path. Again, using converse, this can be expressed as a loop (cf.Figure \[fig:existsless\]). Note that, hereby, ${\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{2}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{2}$ refer to stage ${h}=2$, which reflects the fact that ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}}\xspace}$ speaks about *configurations* (determined after updates).
[ ]{} [ ]{}
\[lem:lcpdl\] Let ${T}\in \{{{T}_{{\chi}}} \mid {\chi}$ is a run of ${\mathcal{D}}\}$ and ${\varphi}$ be a local ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formula. We have $T,(1,0) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}} \;\Longleftrightarrow\, \bigl({\chi},1,(1,0) \models {\varphi}\text{ for all runs } {\chi}\text{ of } {\mathcal{D}}\text{ such that } T_{\chi}= T\bigr)$.
Using Lemmas \[lem:datapdl\] and \[lem:lcpdl\], we can now prove Lemma \[lem:satisf\] below. Together with Theorem \[thm:icpdl\], the upper bound of Theorem \[thm:main\] follows.
\[lem:satisf\] Let ${\mathcal{D}}$ be a distributed algorithm, $\Phi={\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}} \in {\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$, and ${b}\ge 1$. We have (a) ${\mathcal{D}}\models \Phi \,\Longleftrightarrow\, L({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}\wedge \neg{\widetilde{{{\varphi}}}}) = \emptyset$, and (b) ${\mathcal{D}}\models_{b}\Phi \,\Longleftrightarrow\, L_{b}({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}\wedge \neg{\widetilde{{{\varphi}}}}) = \emptyset$.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we provided a conceptually new approach to the verification of distributed algorithms that is robust against small changes of the model.
Actually, we made some assumptions that simplify the presentation, but are not crucial to the approach and results. For example, we assumed that an algorithm is synchronous, i.e., there is a global clock that, at every clock tick, triggers a round, in which every process participates. This can be relaxed to handle communication via (bounded) channels. Second, messages are pids, but they could contain message contents from a finite alphabet as well. Though the restriction to the class of rings is crucial for the complexity of our algorithm, the logical framework we developed is largely independent of concrete (ring) architectures. Essentially, we could choose any class of architectures for which [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}is decidable.
We leave open whether round-bounded model checking can deal with full [$\textup{DataPDL}$]{}, or with properties of the form ${\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\exists_{\mathit{run}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}$, which are branching-time in spirit.
[10]{}
R. Alur and P. Černý. Streaming transducers for algorithmic verification of single-pass list-processing programs. In [*POPL’11*]{}, pages 599–610. ACM, 2011.
R. Alur, P. Černý, and S. Weinstein. Algorithmic analysis of array-accessing programs. , 13(3):27:1–27:29, August 2012.
B. Aminof, S. Jacobs, A. Khalimov, and S. Rubin. Parameterized model checking of token-passing systems. In [*VMCAI’14*]{}, volume 8318 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 262–281, 2014.
M. Benedikt, W. Fan, and F. Geerts. satisfiability in the presence of [DTDs]{}. , 55(2), 2008.
M. Bojanczyk, A. Muscholl, T. Schwentick, and L. Segoufin. Two-variable logic on data trees and [XML]{} reasoning. , 56(3), 2009.
B. Bollig, A. Cyriac, P. Gastin, and K. Narayan Kumar. Model checking languages of data words. In [*[FoSSaCS]{}’12*]{}, volume 7213 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 391–405. Springer, 2012.
M. Chaouch-Saad, B. Charron-Bost, and S. Merz. A reduction theorem for the verification of round-based distributed algorithms. In [*RP’09*]{}, volume 5797 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 93–106. Springer, 2009.
E. M. Clarke, O. Grumberg, and D. Peled. . Press, 2001.
D. Dolev, M. M. Klawe, and M. Rodeh. An [O]{}(n log n) unidirectional distributed algorithm for extrema finding in a circle. , 3(3):245–260, 1982.
E. A. Emerson and K. S. Namjoshi. On reasoning about rings. , 14(4):527–550, 2003.
J. Esparza. Keeping a crowd safe: On the complexity of parameterized verification. In [*STACS’14*]{}, volume 25 of [*LIPIcs*]{}, pages 1–10, 2014.
D. Figueira and L. Segoufin. Bottom-up automata on data trees and vertical [XP]{}ath. In [*STACS’11*]{}, volume 9 of [*LIPIcs*]{}, pages 93–104, 2011.
W. Fokkink. . MIT Press, 2013.
R. Franklin. On an improved algorithm for decentralized extrema finding in circular configurations of processors. , 25(5):336–337, 1982.
S. G[ö]{}ller, M. Lohrey, and C. Lutz. with intersection and converse: satisfiability and infinite-state model checking. , 74(1):279–314, 2009.
I. Konnov, H. Veith, and J. Widder. Who is afraid of model checking distributed algorithms?, 2012.
I. Konnov, H. Veith, and J. Widder. On the completeness of bounded model checking for threshold-based distributed algorithms: Reachability. In [*[CONCUR’14]{}*]{}, volume 8704 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 125–140. Springer, 2014.
M. Lange. Model checking propositional dynamic logic with all extras. , 4(1):39–49, 2006.
N. A. Lynch. . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1996.
S. Qadeer and J. Rehof. Context-bounded model checking of concurrent software. In [*TACAS’05*]{}, volume 3440 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 93–107. Springer, 2005.
T. Tan. Extending two-variable logic on data trees with order on data values and its automata. , 15(1):8, 2014.
M. Y. Vardi. An automata-theoretic approach to linear temporal logic. In [*Logics for Concurrency*]{}, volume 1043 of [*LNCS*]{}, pages 238–266. Springer, 1996.
M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning about the past with two-way automata. In [*ICALP’98*]{}, LNCS, pages 628–641. Springer, 1998.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:undecidable\]
====================================
The following remark will be exploited in the proof of Theorem \[thm:undecidable\] and for the lower-bound proof of Theorem \[thm:main\].
\[rem:messagesAlphabet\] Note that the only way to communicate information from one process to another is by exchanging and comparing pids. However, we can simulate the exchange of messages from a *finite* alphabet $B=\{b_1,\ldots,b_{k}\}$ that can be compared for equality.
Assume a ring ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$. A possible protocol for simulation can employ a leader election algorithm first. Afterwards, the leader identifies $k$ distinct pids (say the $k$ closest pids on its left), and transmits them to all other processes who keep them in dedicated registers $\hat{r}_1, \ldots, \hat{r}_k$. After this initialization phase, the actual simulation can take place with the convention that message $b_j$ is identified by the pid in $\hat{r}_j$ (of any process). In order for the simulation to work, we have to require that $n \ge k$.
The drawback of the above protocol is that the initialization phase requires $\log(n)$ rounds. Below we describe another protocol where the initialization can be achieved in $k$ rounds.
Assume a ring ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ and that $n \ge k$. Each process has $k+1$ dedicated registers $\hat{r}_0, \ldots, \hat{r}_k$. After the initialization (described below), for each process $i$, register $\hat{r}_j$ holds $p_{i-j}$ (modulo $n$). Thus $\hat{r}_j$ of process $i$ holds the same value as $\hat{r}_{j+1}$ of process $i+1$.
**Conventions.** To send message $b_j$ to left, a process simply sends the contents of $\hat{r}_j$. On the other hand, to send message $b_j$ to right, it sends the contents of $\hat{r}_{j-1}$. When a process receives a message from the left, it compares it with registers $\hat{r}_1, \ldots, \hat{r}_k$, and if it matches $\hat{r}_j$ then the message is interpreted as $b_j$. On receiving from right, on contrary, it is compared to $\hat{r}_0, \ldots \hat{r}_{k-1}$, and if it matches $\hat{r}_j$ then the message is interpreted as $b_{j+1}$.
**Initialization.** It uses $k+1$ control states $s_0, \ldots, s_k$. At $s_0$, all registers have self pid. This fills in the correct value for $\hat{r}_0$. In round $j$, a process moves from $s_{j-1}$ to $s_j$, sending $\hat{r}_{j-1}$ to the right and receiving in $\hat{r}_j$ from the left.
Notice that this simulation cannot be used to forward a message to another process using ${\mathbf{fwd}}$-commands in between. However, the lower bound proofs presented below do not rely on ${\mathbf{fwd}}$-commands. [$\lhd$]{}
We give a reduction from the halting problem of Turing machines. It is equivalent to checking whether a given Turing machine ${\mathsf{TM}}$ can never reach a specific target state (call it [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">halt</span>]{}) on any (some) input. Let ${S_\mathsf{TM}}$ be the set of control states of a Turing machine. Let ${B_\mathsf{TM}}$ be the tape alphabet of the Turing Machine. Wlog., we assume that the ${\mathsf{TM}}$ starts on the empty tape. From the empty tape, it may simulate an arbitrary input using non-determinism. We also assume that, on reaching the state ${\textsc{halt}\xspace}$, it writes ${\textsc{halt}\xspace}$ in the current cell. Thus ${\textsc{halt}\xspace}\in {S_\mathsf{TM}}$ and ${\textsc{halt}\xspace}\in {B_\mathsf{TM}}$. We describe the distributed algorithm ${{\mathcal{D}}_{\mathsf{TM}}}$.
Intuitively, the number of processes in the ring gives an upper bound to the space needed by the Turing machine. Every process will correspond to a cell in the Turing machine’s work tape. Since there is no specific starting process for a ring, we run a leader election algorithm first, and the leader will act as the leftmost cell of the tape. The $i$-th process to the right of the leader acts as the $i$-th tape cell. The local state of processes indicate the corresponding cell contents. It also indicates whether the head is currently present at the respective cell. Thus the local states are pairs of the form $({\mathsf{sym}}, {\mathsf{head}})$ where ${\mathsf{sym}}\in {B_\mathsf{TM}}$ indicates the content of a tape cell, and ${\mathsf{head}}$ is a boolean value denoting the presence of the head of the Turing machine at the current cell. Initially, only the leader process has the ${\mathsf{head}}$ bit set ${\mathit{true}}$. In the simulation, only the process with ${\mathsf{head}}= {\mathit{true}}$ can send messages, and once it emits a message, the ${\mathsf{head}}$ bit is turned ${\mathit{false}}$. The process that receives the message turns the ${\mathsf{head}}$ bit ${\mathit{true}}$. The message alphabet (cf. Remark \[rem:messagesAlphabet\]) is ${S_\mathsf{TM}}$ which denotes the target control state upon simulating one transition of the Turing machine. The control state of the ${\mathsf{TM}}$ is stored in a designated register ${r_\text{state}}$.
We describe the construction in detail now. There are two preliminary phases to facilitate the actual simulation. In phase 1, the processes agree upon the message alphabet ${S_\mathsf{TM}}$ as described in Remark \[rem:messagesAlphabet\]. This phase requires $|{S_\mathsf{TM}}| +1$ registers and local states. Recall that the ring must have size bigger than $|{S_\mathsf{TM}}|$ for simulating the encoding described in Remark \[rem:messagesAlphabet\]. Otherwise, the distributed algorithm will be blocked in this phase. However, our reduction would still work because of two reasons. First, our specification will be true for rings smaller than this threshold. This is, in a sense, reducing the model-checking problem with ${\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}}$ prefix to another model-checking problem where the prefix is rephrased to “All rings of size bigger than $\ell$” (here, $\ell = |{S_\mathsf{TM}}|$). Second, the run which uses only a small amount of tape can be simulated on a big tape. (It maintains the unnecessary cells on the right with the empty tape symbol always. In our simulation these processes will be in the state $(\$,{\mathit{false}})$.) Notice that, the number of processes in the ring is only an upper bound of (rather than exact) space needed by the Turing machine.
Phase 2 simulates a leader-election protocol, say, the Dolev-Klawe-Rodeh algorithm. The pid of the leader is stored in all processes in a special register ${r_\text{leader}}$. Recall that the leader process will act as the leftmost cell of the tape. A process can always check whether it is the leftmost by comparing the value of ${r_\text{leader}}$ to the register ${\mathit{id}}$. This check will be used in guards later in transitions involving moving the head of ${\mathsf{TM}}$ to the left.
Once phase 2 is completed, the configuration of the ring proceeds to represent the initial configuration of ${\mathsf{TM}}$. For this, all processes other than the leader will move to the state $(\$,{\mathit{false}})$, i.e., representing the empty tape cell and indicating the absence of the head. The leader process will move to the state $(\$, {\mathit{true}})$. On taking this transition, the register ${r_\text{state}}$ of all the processes are set to hold the initial state of the Turing machine.
The simulation of the Turing machine works as follows. Consider a transition of the Turing machine which checks that the current state is $s$ and the current cell contains $a$, updates the cell content to $b$, moves the head to the left and updates the control state to $s'$. The distributed algorithm will have a transition which moves from local state $(a, {\mathit{true}})$ to $(b,{\mathit{false}})$ which also (i) ensures (by a guard) that ${r_\text{state}}$ contains the encoding of $s $, (ii) ensures (by a guard) that it is not the leftmost cell (${r_\text{leader}}\neq {\mathit{id}}$), and (iii) sends the encoding of $s'$ to the left. For this transition to take place, there are complementary transitions at the receive end which go from $(\text{-}, {\mathit{false}})$ to $(\text{-}, {\mathit{true}})$ upon receiving a value from a neighbor (left or right) to its register ${r_\text{state}}$. In fact, such a receive transition is enabled for all processes in all the states. Other transitions of the Turing machine are also implemented similarly. Notice that message transmissions are performed by a process only if ${\mathsf{head}}= {\mathit{true}}$. Notice also that the leader process does not send to left. Also, there are no forwarding states.
There is actually one subtlety here that arises from the fact that receptions are non-blocking. We have to make sure that a process is aware whether a “real” message was received or not. To do so, we introduce a register $r_\bot$, containing a special message $\bot$. Note that the first preliminary phase must indeed be executed for an extended message alphabet that also includes the special symbol $\bot$. For incoming messages, a process will use a special register $r_\mathsf{in}$, which initially contains $\bot$. After executing a receive action, a process will check whether $r_\mathsf{in} \neq r_\bot$, which makes sure that a message has indeed arrived. The subsequent update will then execute ${r_\mathsf{in} := r_\bot}$ to reset $r_\mathsf{in}$.
Finally, the specification ${\varphi}_{\mathsf{TM}}$ checks that there is no process in the state $({\textsc{halt}\xspace}, {\mathit{true}})$. Thus, if the model-checking problem answers negatively, then there is a ring and a run which encodes a valid Turing machine computation on a tape of size bigger than ${S_\mathsf{TM}}$ (which also simulates any smaller size tape) and still reaches the [<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">halt</span>]{}state: $${\varphi}_{\mathsf{TM}}= {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}} {\ensuremath{[{{\mathord{\downarrow}}^\ast}]}}\neg({\textsc{halt}\xspace}, {\mathit{true}}) }$$ This concludes the proof of Theorem \[thm:undecidable\].
Proof of Lower bound of Theorem \[thm:main\] {#app:LowerboundThmMain}
============================================
To prove the lower bound, we give a polynomial reduction from the intersection-emptiness problem of finite state automata. That is, given $k$ finite-state automata ${\mathcal{A}}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal{A}}_k$ over a finite alphabet $\Sigma$, where ${\mathcal{A}}_i = (Q_i, \Delta_i, {\textsf{init}}_i, {\textsf{F}}_i)$, whether $\bigcap_i {L}({\mathcal{A}}_i) = \emptyset$? This problem is known to be PSPACE-complete.
We will need only unidirectional rings for our reduction. We construct the distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}$ as follows.
The number of processes in the ring corresponds to the length of a candidate word accepted by all the automata ${\mathcal{A}}_i$. Each process thus corresponds to a position in the word. The local state of the process remembers the letter from $\Sigma$ at the respective position. The message contents will be the states of the automata. A preliminary phase sets the message alphabet as per Remark \[rem:messagesAlphabet\]. At round $i$ after the preliminary phase, all the processes try to simulate a transition of automaton ${\mathcal{A}}_i$ on the respective position. We give the details below.
In a preliminary phase, the distributed algorithm establishes the finite message alphabet $B = \bigcup_i Q_i$. This requires $|B| +1$ states, registers, and rounds. In case the ring is smaller than $|B|$, the distributed algorithm will be blocked in this phase. However, our reduction would still work because of two reasons. First, our specification will be true for rings smaller than this threshold. Second, if a word is accepted by all the automata ${\mathcal{A}}_i$, then acceptance of that word can be simulated on arbitrarily large rings. This will become clear below when we give the actual construction.
The register used for sending the value of a state $s$ to the right is denoted ${\textsf{EncOf}}(s)$. On receiving a value from the left, let ${\textsf{DecOf}}(s)$ be the register against which it is compared to ensure that the received value corresponds to state $s$.
After the preliminary phase, a process non-deterministically moves to a local state from the set $(\Sigma \cup \{\$\}) \times {[1]}$. The special symbol $\$$ marks that a candidate word may start at the right of this process and end at the left of this process. The local state may also remember an index $i$ from ${[k]}$, indicating that it is currently simulating ${\mathcal{A}}_i$. For each $a \in \Sigma$ and $i \le k$, we have a transition of the form $$\langle (a,i)\textup{:}~{\mathbf{right}{!}{\textsf{EncOf}}(s')} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{left}{?}r} {\,\text{;}\,}r = {{\textsf{DecOf}}(s)} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{goto}~(a,i+1)}\rangle$$ if $(s,a,s') \in \Delta_i$. Further we have $$\langle (\$,i)\textup{:}~{\mathbf{right}{!}{\textsf{EncOf}}({\textsf{init}})} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{left}{?}r} {\,\text{;}\,}r = {{\textsf{DecOf}}(f)} {\,\text{;}\,}{\mathbf{goto}~(\$,i+1)}\rangle$$ if $f \in {\textsf{F}}_i$. Notice that the symbol associated to a process does not change in any of these transitions.
Thus, the number of rounds needed by the distributed algorithm is ${b}= |B| +m + 1$, which is polynomial in the size of the input to intersection emptiness problem of finite state automata. The size of the distributed algorithm ${\mathcal{D}}$ is also polynomial.
Finally, the ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formula states that a state of the form $(\$, k+1)$ cannot be reached: $${\varphi}_m = {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}} {\ensuremath{[{{\mathord{\downarrow}}^\ast}]}}\neg(\$, k+1) }$$
Notice that, if the bounded model checking answers no, then there are a ring, a run, and a marked process $m$ such that $m$ eventually reaches the state $(\$, k+1)$. This means that, on all states $(\$, i)$, $m$ has received a state $f_i \in {\textsf{F}}_i$. Let $m'$ be the first process on the left of $m$ which has a state of the form $(\$,i)$. Note that $m'$ can be same as $m$. The word represented by the states of the processes between $m'$ and $m$ is in $\bigcap_i {L}({\mathcal{A}}_i)$. Note that, even if this is the empty word (that is, $m'$ is the left neighbor of $m$), it must be in the intersection since ${\textsf{init}}_i \in {\textsf{F}}_i$ for every automaton ${\mathcal{A}}_i$. On the other hand, if the intersection is non-empty, there is a run that violates the specification.
Thus, the bounded model checking of ${\mathcal{D}}$ answers yes if, and only if, the intersection of the $L({\mathcal{A}}_i)$ is empty.
This proves the PSPACE lower bound stated in Theorem \[thm:main\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:icpdl\]
==============================
We can restrict to pictures of height $k={b}$ (rather than $k \le {b}$), since checking satisfiability for every height separately does not change the complexity. We reduce the problem to words, for which [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}satisfiability is known to be PSPACE-complete [@Goeller2009] (since formulas from [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}have bounded intersection width). A picture ${T}=(n,k,\lambda)$ is considered as the word ${T}[1] \cdot \ldots \cdot {T}[n] \in {\Delta}^+$. Thus, the columns are written horizontally rather than vertically. When translating an [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}formula over tables into an [$\textup{LCPDL}$]{}formula over words, going to the left or right involves some modulo counting: ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}$ is translated to ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}^{k+1}$, and ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}$ is translated to ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}^{k+1}$. An additional difficulty stems from the fact that we allow automata as path expressions, but it is straightforward to integrate them into the construction of an alternating two-way automaton from [@Goeller2009].
Proof of Lemma \[lem:datapdl\]
==============================
Let us first introduce some notation. Let ${\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}= \{{{T}_{{\chi}}} \mid {\chi}$ is a run of ${\mathcal{D}}\}$. For a table $T \in {{\Delta}^{++}}$, let ${\mathit{Runs}({T})}=\{{\chi}\mid {\chi}$ is run of ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that $T_{\chi}= T\}$.
A *pseudo* (${\mathcal{R}}$-)*run* of ${\mathcal{D}}$ is like an (${\mathcal{R}}$-)run $\smash{{\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}}$, but conditions 1.-3. are not checked. That is, target and source states are not necessarily matching, and $=$- and $<$-guards are ignored. Thus, every run is a pseudo run, but not vice versa. We define $T_{\chi}$ and ${\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$ in exactly the same way as for runs.
Given a (pseudo) run ${{\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ (where ${C}_j = (s_1^j,\ldots,s_n^j,{\rho}_1^j,\ldots,{\rho}_n^j)$) and $(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$, we set ${\chi}_i^j = {\rho}_i^j$ (abusing notation). Moreover, for $j \ge 1$, $\hat{{\chi}}_i^j = \hat{{\rho}}_i^j$ defines the corresponding $j$-th intermediate register assignment, which was defined in Section \[sec:algorithms\] to obtain the mapping ${\rho}_i^j$. Finally, we set $\hat{{\chi}}_i^0 = {\chi}_i^0$.
To prove Lemma \[lem:datapdl\], we will need two further lemmas:
\[lem:pathaut\] For all pseudo runs ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$, coordinates $(i,j),(i',j') \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$, and registers $r \in {\mathit{Reg}}$, the following hold:
- $((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ \bigl({\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = \hat{{\chi}}_{i'}^{j'}(r) ~\wedge~ j=0\bigr)$
- $((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{2}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ \bigl({\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = {\chi}_{i'}^{j'}(r) ~\wedge~ j=0\bigr)$
Let the pseudo ${\mathcal{R}}$-run in question be given by $\smash{{\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}}$ where $t^j = (t_1^j,\ldots,t_n^j) \in {\Delta}^n$.
To be able to perform an induction, we show a more general statement that captures both (a) and (b). To this aim, we define the automaton ${\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{0}$ in the expected manner, i.e., where the only final state is $(0,r)$. We will show, for all ${h}\in \{0,1,2\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{{h}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ \bigl({\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = {\chi}_{i'}^{j'}[{h}](r) ~\wedge~ j=0\bigr)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\chi}_{i'}^{j'}[2]$ refers to ${\chi}_{i'}^{j'}$ and ${\chi}_{i'}^{j'}[1]$ refers to $\hat{{\chi}}_{i'}^{j'}$ (recall that $\hat{{\chi}}_{i'}^0 = {\chi}_{i'}^0$). For $j' \ge 1$, we let ${\chi}_{i'}^{j'}[0](r)$ refer to the value of $r$ at position $(i',j')$ before reception. Finally, we set ${\chi}_{i'}^{0}[0] = {\chi}_{i'}^{0}[1] ( = {\chi}_{i'}^0)$.
Before we come to the actual proof of (1), we define the relation $${\longrightarrow}_{\chi}\subseteq {\mathit{Conf}}\times \{\mathit{loc},\mathit{upd},\mathit{next},\mathit{msg}\} \times {\mathit{Conf}}$$ where ${\mathit{Conf}}= {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})} \times \{0,1,2\} \times {\mathit{Reg}}$. The idea is that $\longrightarrow_{\chi}$ captures the flow of pids in ${\chi}$. We let $\longrightarrow_{\chi}$ be the least relation satisfying the following:
- $(i,j,r,0) \xrightarrow{\mathit{loc}}_{\chi}(i,j,r,1)$ if there are no $r',i'$ such that ${r'@ i' \rightarrowtail r@i}$ (in step ${C}_{j-1} {\stackrel{t^j}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_j$)
- $(i,j,r,1) \xrightarrow{\mathit{upd}}_{\chi}(i,j,r',2)$ if $r \neq r'$ and $({r' := r}) \in t_i^j$, or $r=r'$ and $({r := r''}) \not\in t_i^j$ for all $r'' \neq r$
- $(i,j,r,2) \xrightarrow{\mathit{next}}_{\chi}(i,j+1,r,0)$
- $(i,j,r,0) \xrightarrow{\mathit{msg}}_{\chi}(i',j,r',1)$ if ${r@ i \rightarrowtail r'@i'}$ or ${r'@i' \leftarrowtail r@i}$ (in step ${C}_{j-1} {\stackrel{t^j}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_j$)
Note that $(i,j,r,{h}) \xrightarrow{\theta}_{\chi}(i',j',r',{h}')$ immediately implies ${\chi}_{i}^{j}[{h}](r)={\chi}_{i'}^{j'}[{h}'](r')$. We will show that, moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(i,j,r,{h}) \xrightarrow{\theta}_{\chi}(i',j',r',{h}') ~\Longleftrightarrow~ ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\theta_{r,r'}^{{h},{h}'}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\end{aligned}$$ To prove this, we distinguish four cases:
- Suppose $\theta = \mathit{loc}$. Then, we can assume ${h}= 0$ and ${h}' = 1$. We have $$\begin{array}{rl}
& (i,j,r,0) \xrightarrow{\theta}_{\chi}(i',j',r',1)\\[0ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & r=r' ~\wedge~ (i,j)=(i',j') ~\wedge~
\text{$\neg\exists \bar{r},\bar{i}$ such that ${\bar{r}@ \bar{i} \rightarrowtail r@i}$ (in step ${C}_{j-1} {\stackrel{t^j}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_j$)}\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & r=r' ~\wedge~ ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\{\bigwedge_{\bar{r} \in {\mathit{Reg}}}\neg{\ensuremath{\langle({\mathit{msg}_{\bar{r},r}^{0,1}})^{-1}\rangle}}\}?}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\mathit{loc}_{r,r'}^{0,1}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}
\end{array}$$
- Suppose $\theta = \mathit{upd}$. We can assume ${h}= 1$ and ${h}' = 2$. We distinguish two subcases.
1. Suppose $r \neq r'$. Then, we have $$\begin{array}{rl}
& (i,j,r,1) \xrightarrow{\theta}_{\chi}(i',j',r',2)\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & (i,j) = (i',j') ~\wedge~ ({r' := r}) \in t_{i'}^{j'}\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\{{r' := r}\}?}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\\[0.7ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\mathit{update}_{r,r'}^{1,2}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}
\end{array}$$
2. Suppose $r = r'$. Then, $$\begin{array}{rl}
& (i,j,r,1) \xrightarrow{\theta}_{\chi}(i',j',r',2)\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & (i,j) = (i',j') ~\wedge~ ({r := \bar{r}}) \not\in t_{i'}^{j'} \text{ for all } \bar{r} \neq r\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\{ \bigwedge_{\bar{r} \neq r} \neg({r := \bar{r}})\}?}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\\[0.7ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\mathit{update}_{r,r'}^{1,2}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}
\end{array}$$
- Suppose $\theta = \mathit{next}$. We can assume ${h}= 2$ and ${h}' = 0$. We have $$\begin{array}{rl}
& (i,j,r,2) \xrightarrow{\theta}_{\chi}(i',j',r',0)\\[0.8ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & r = r' ~\wedge~ i=i' ~\wedge~ j' = j+1\\[0.5ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & r=r' ~\wedge~ ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\downarrow}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\\[0.7ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & ((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\mathit{next}_{r,r'}^{2,1}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}
\end{array}$$
We are now ready to prove (1).
($\Rightarrow$): First note that $((i,j),(i',j')) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{{h}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$ always implies $j=0$, since the automaton has to read ${\{\neg{{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\uparrow}}\rangle}}}\}?}$ before it can accept at all (its initial state $\iota$ is not a final state).
Consider an (accepting) execution $$\iota \xrightarrow{\pi_1} (r_1,{h}_1) \xrightarrow{\pi_2} \ldots \xrightarrow{\pi_\ell} (r_\ell,h_\ell)=({h},r)$$ of ${\mathcal{A}}_r^h$, with $\ell \ge 1$, $\pi_1 = {\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\uparrow}}\rangle}}\}?}$, and $\pi_l = (\theta_l)_{r_{l-1},r_l}^{{h}_{l-1},{h}_l}$ for all $l \in \{2,\ldots,\ell\}$, connecting $(u,0)$ with $(i,j)$. That is, $((u,0),(i,j)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot \pi_\ell]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$. We have to show ${\chi}_{u}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = {\chi}_{i}^{j}[{h}](r)$.
There are positions $(u,0)=(i_0,j_0),(i_1,j_1),\ldots,(i_\ell,j_\ell)=(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$ such that $((i_{l-1},j_{l-1}),(i_{l},j_{l})) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_l]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$ for all $l \in {[\ell]}$. By (2), we obtain $$(i_1,j_1,r_1,{h}_1) \xrightarrow{\theta_2}_{\chi}(i_2,j_2,r_2,{h}_2) \xrightarrow{\theta_3}_{\chi}\ldots \xrightarrow{\theta_\ell}_{\chi}(i_\ell,j_\ell,r_\ell,{h}_\ell)\,.$$ This implies ${\chi}_{i_1}^{j_1}[{h}_1](r_1) = {\chi}_{i_\ell}^{j_\ell}[{h}_\ell](r_\ell)$, which equals ${\chi}_{i}^{j}[{h}](r)$. Since $\pi_1 = {\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\uparrow}}\rangle}}\}?}$, we also have $(u,0)=(i_1,j_1)$ and, therefore, ${\chi}_{u}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = {\chi}_{i_1}^{j_1}[{h}_1](r_1)$. We conclude ${\chi}_{u}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = {\chi}_{i}^{j}[{h}](r)$.
($\Leftarrow$): Suppose ${\chi}_{u}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = {\chi}_{i}^{j}[{h}](r)$. We will show that $((u,0),(i,j)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{{h}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$.
By the semantics of ${\mathcal{D}}$, pid ${\chi}_{u}^{0}({\mathit{id}})$ has to be transmitted along transitions or messages. Thus, there are $\ell \ge 1$, positions $(i_1,j_1),\ldots,(i_\ell,j_\ell)=(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$, registers $r_1,\ldots,r_\ell=r$, stages $0={h}_1,\ldots,{h}_\ell={h}\in \{0,1,2\}$, and $\theta_2,\ldots,\theta_\ell \in \{\mathit{loc},\mathit{upd},\mathit{next},\mathit{msg}\}$ such that
- $((u,0),(i_1,j_1)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\uparrow}}\rangle}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$ (therefore, $(u,0)=(i_1,j_1)$), and
- $(i_{l-1},j_{l-1},r_{l-1},{h}_{l-1}) \xrightarrow{\theta_\ell}_{\chi}(i_{l},j_{l},r_{l},{h}_{l})$ for all $l \in \{2,\ldots,\ell\}$.
By (2), we have $$((i_{l-1},j_{l-1}),(i_l,j_l)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![(\theta_l)_{r_{l-1},r_l}^{{h}_{l-1},{h}_l}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$$ for all $l \in \{2,\ldots,\ell\}$. We deduce $$((u,0),(i,j)) = ((u,0),(i_l,j_l)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r_\ell}^{{h}_\ell}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} = {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{{h}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\,.$$ This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:pathaut\].
\[lem:piless\] For all $T=(n,k,\lambda) \in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$ and $i,i' \in {[n]}$, we have $$((i,0),(i',0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_<]\!]}}_{T}}
~\Longleftrightarrow~ \forall {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}: {\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) < {\chi}_{i'}^{0}({\mathit{id}})\,.$$
There are two directions to show.
($\Rightarrow$): Suppose $((i,0),(i',0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_<]\!]}}_{T}}$. Then, there are $\ell \ge 1$ and $i=i_0,\ldots,i_\ell=i'$ such that $${((i_{l-1},0),(i_{l},0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\sum_{r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}} {\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1} \cdot {\{r < r'\}?} \cdot ({\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1})^{-1}~]\!]}}_{T}}}$$ for all $l \in {[\ell]}$. Let ${\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}$. By Lemma \[lem:pathaut\], we have $\smash{{\chi}_{i_{l-1}}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) < {\chi}_{i_{l}}^{0}({\mathit{id}})}$ for all $l \in {[\ell]}$. We deduce $\smash{{\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) < {\chi}_{i'}^{0}({\mathit{id}})}$.
($\Leftarrow$): We denote the processes in question by ${u}$ and ${u'}$. Suppose that $(({u},0),({u'},0)) \not\in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_<]\!]}}_{T}}$. We are going to show that there is ${\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}$ such that ${\chi}_{{u}}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) \geq {\chi}_{{u'}}^{0}({\mathit{id}})$. Let ${\prec} = \{(i,i') \mid ((i,0),(i',0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_<]\!]}}_{T}}\}$. In particular, ${u}\not\prec {u'}$. By direction ($\Rightarrow$), we have that $\prec$ is a (strict) partial order.
Let ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ be any ring such that (i) $p_{{u}} \ge p_{{u'}}$ and (ii) for all $i,i' \in {[n]}$, $i \prec i'$ implies $p_i < p_{i'}$. Since $\prec$ is a strict partial order and ${u}\not\prec {u'}$, such a ring must exist. Now, note that there is a unique *pseudo* ${\mathcal{R}}$-run $$\smash{{\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}}$$ (where $t^j = (t_1^j,\ldots,t_n^j) \in {\Delta}^n$) such that $T_{\chi}=T$. We will show that ${\chi}$ is indeed also an ${\mathcal{R}}$-run, which concludes the proof.
Let $(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}(T)}$ and $r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}$ such that $(r < r') \in t_{i}^{j}$. We have to show that $\hat{{\chi}}_i^j(r) < \hat{{\chi}}_i^j(r')$. By Lemma \[lem:pathaut\], there are $o,o' \in {[n]}$ such that
- ${\chi}_o^0({\mathit{id}})=\hat{{\chi}}_i^j(r)$ and ${\chi}_{o'}^0({\mathit{id}})=\hat{{\chi}}_i^j(r')$, and
- $((o,0),(i,j)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} \text{ and } ((o',0),(i,j)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$.
The latter implies $$((o,0),(o',0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1} \cdot {\{r < r'\}?} \cdot ({\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1})^{-1}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\,.$$ In particular, $((o,0),(o',0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_<]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}$. We deduce $o \prec o'$. This implies ${\chi}_o^0({\mathit{id}}) < {\chi}_{o'}^0({\mathit{id}})$. We conclude that ${\chi}_i^j(r) < {\chi}_i^j(r')$.
Finally, let $(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}(T)}$ and $r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}$ such that $(r = r') \in t_{i}^{j}$. Since ${\mathit{Runs}(T)} \neq \emptyset$, there is a run that validates guard $r=r'$ at coordinate $(i,j)$. By Lemma \[lem:pathaut\], this is actually true for all pseudo runs of $T$. We deduce ${\chi}_i^j(r) = {\chi}_i^j(r')$.
Note that run condition 1. is satisfied, since $T \in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$. This concludes the proof.
We will now proceed to the proof of Lemma \[lem:datapdl\].
Recall that we have to show $L({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}) = {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$, where ${\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}{=}{\psi}_= \wedge {\psi}_< \wedge {\psi}_{\mathsf{col}}$.
($\subseteq$): Let $T=(n,k,\lambda) \in L(\psi_{\mathcal{D}})$. We will show $T \in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$ by constructing a run ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that $T_{\chi}=T$.
Again, let ${\prec} = \{(i,i') \mid ((i,0),(i',0)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi_<]\!]}}_{T}}\}$. As $T,(1,0) \models {\psi}_< {=}\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast\rangle}} {\mathsf{loop}(\pi_<)}$, we have that $\prec$ is a strict partial order. Choose any ring ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:p_1,\ldots,p_n)$ such that, for all $i,i' \in {[n]}$, $i \prec i'$ implies $p_i < p_{i'}$. There is a unique pseudo ${\mathcal{R}}$-run $${{\chi}= {{C}_0 {\stackrel{t^1}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_1 {\stackrel{t^2}{\rightsquigarrow}} \ldots {\stackrel{t^k}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_k}}$$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that $T_{\chi}=T$. Let $j \in {[k]}$. We have to show ${C}_{j-1} {\stackrel{t^j}{\rightsquigarrow}} {C}_j$ where, this time, all run conditions are checked. Condition 4. of the definition of $\rightsquigarrow$ is satisfied thanks to the definition of a pseudo run. Condition 1. is ensured by $T \in L(\psi_\mathsf{col})$. Let $i \in {[n]}$ and suppose $(r=r') \in t_i^j$. We have $T,(i,j) \models {\mathsf{loop}(({\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1})}$. By Lemma \[lem:pathaut\], we have $\hat{{\chi}}_{i}^{j}(r) = \hat{{\chi}}_{i}^{j}(r')$. Finally, suppose $(r<r') \in t_i^j$. We proceed like in the reverse direction of the proof of Lemma \[lem:piless\] to show that $\hat{{\chi}}_i^j(r) < \hat{{\chi}}_i^j(r')$.
Altogether, it follows that ${\chi}$ is a run.
($\supseteq$): Let $T=(n,k,\lambda) \in {{\Delta}^{++}}$ such that $T \not\in L(\psi_{\mathcal{D}})$. To show $T \not\in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$, we distinguish three (non-disjoint) cases.
- Suppose $T \not\in L({\psi}_{\mathsf{col}})$. Obviously, this implies $T \not\in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$.
- Suppose $T \not\in ({\psi}_=)$. Recall that $${\psi}_= ~{=}~ {\ensuremath{[({\mathord{\rightarrow}}+ {\mathord{\downarrow}})^\ast]}} \bigwedge_{r,r' \in {\mathit{Reg}}} \Bigl(r = r' ~\Rightarrow {\mathsf{loop}(({\mathcal{A}}_{r}^{1})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{A}}_{r'}^{1})}\Bigr)$$ Thus, there are a coordinate $(i,j) \in {[n]} \times {[k]_0}$ and registers $r_1,r_2 \in {\mathit{Reg}}$ such that we have $(r_1 = r_2) \in T[i,j]$ and $T,(i,j) \not\models {\mathsf{loop}(({\mathcal{A}}_{r_1}^{1})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{A}}_{r_2}^{1})}$. Towards a contradiction, suppose there is ${\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}$. By Lemma \[lem:pathaut\], there are (unique) $i_1,i_2 \in {[n]}$ such that ${\chi}_{i_1}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = \hat{{\chi}}_{i}^{j}(r_1)$ and ${\chi}_{i_2}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) = \hat{{\chi}}_{i}^{j}(r_2)$, as well as $((i_1,0),(i,j)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r_1}^{1}]\!]}}_{T}}$ and $(i_2,0),(i,j)) \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathcal{A}}_{r_2}^{1}]\!]}}_{T}}$. Since $T,(i,j) \not\models {\mathsf{loop}(({\mathcal{A}}_{r_1}^{1})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{A}}_{r_2}^{1})}$, we have that $i_1 \neq i_2$. We deduce $\hat{{\chi}}_{i}^{j}(r_1) \neq \hat{{\chi}}_{i}^{j}(r_2)$, which contradicts $(r_1 = r_2) \in T[i,j]$. Altogether, we obtain $T \not\in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$.
- Suppose $T \not\in L({\psi}_<)$ where ${\psi}_< ~{=}~ \neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\rightarrow}}^\ast\rangle}} {\mathsf{loop}(\pi_<)}$. Then, there is $i \in {[n]}$ such that $T,(i,0) \models {\mathsf{loop}(\pi_<)}$. By Lemma \[lem:piless\], we have ${\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}}) < {\chi}_{i}^{0}({\mathit{id}})$ for all runs ${\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}$. Thus, ${\mathit{Runs}(T)} = \emptyset$ and, therefore, $T \not\in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$.
This concludes the proof of Lemma \[lem:datapdl\].
Proof of Lemma \[lem:lcpdl\]
============================
We show a more general statement. First, call a local [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}formula ${\varphi}$ *good* if it does not contain any guard of the form $<$ or $\le$. Recall that we set ${\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}= \{{{T}_{{\chi}}} \mid {\chi}$ is a run of ${\mathcal{D}}\}$ and, for a table $T \in {{\Delta}^{++}}$, ${\mathit{Runs}({T})}=\{{\chi}\mid {\chi}$ is run of ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that $T_{\chi}= T\}$.
We will simultaneously show the following statements:
- For all local ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formulas ${\varphi}$:
- for all ${T}\in {\mathcal{T}_{{\mathcal{D}}}}$ and $(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}(T)}$, $$T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}
~~\Longleftrightarrow~~
{\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}\text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}.$$
- For all good local ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ formulas ${\varphi}$:
- for all runs ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ and all $(i,j) \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}$, $$T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}
~~\Longleftrightarrow~~
{\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}.$$
- For all ${\ensuremath{\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}}\xspace}({\mathcal{D}})$ path formulas $\pi$:
- for all runs ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$, we have ${{\ensuremath{[\![\tilde{\pi}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} = {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},1}}$.
We first consider local formulas. We proceed by induction on the structure of ${\varphi}$. Note that (b) is a stronger statement: when we show that (b) holds for a formula, then (a) holds for that formula, too.
- Suppose ${\varphi}= {\mathsf{m}}$. It is enough to show (b). Recall that ${\widetilde{{\mathsf{m}}}} = \neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangle}}$. We have $T_{\chi},(i,j) \models \neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangle}} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ i=1 ~\Longleftrightarrow~ {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\mathsf{m}}$.
- Suppose ${\varphi}= s \in {{S}}$. Again, it is enough to show (b). Recall that ${\widetilde{s}} = {\mathbf{goto}~s}$. By the definition of runs, the semantics of [$\textup{DataPDL}^{\ominus}$]{}, and $T_{\chi}$, we have that $T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\mathbf{goto}~s} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ {\chi},1,(i,j) \models s$.
- Consider $\neg{\varphi}$. Then, ${\varphi}$ is a good formula. Recall that ${\widetilde{\neg{\varphi}}} = \neg{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}$. We have $T_{\chi},(i,j) \models \neg{\widetilde{{\varphi}}} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ T_{\chi},(i,j) \not\models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}} ~\Longleftrightarrow~ \text{(by I.H.(b)) } {\chi},1,(i,j) \not\models {\varphi}~\Longleftrightarrow~ {\chi},1,(i,j) \models \neg{\varphi}$.
- Suppose ${\varphi}= ({\varphi}_1 \wedge {\varphi}_2)$.
- We have $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \wedge {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \text{ and } T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(a)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} &
\bigl({\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}\bigr) \text{ and }\\[0.5ex]
& \bigl({\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_2 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}\bigr)\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \wedge {\varphi}_2 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}
\end{array}$$
- Suppose ${\varphi}_1$ and ${\varphi}_2$ are good. We have $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \wedge {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \text{ and } T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(b)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} & {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \text{ and } {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_2\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \wedge {\varphi}_2
\end{array}$$
- Consider ${\varphi}= ({\varphi}_1 \Rightarrow {\varphi}_2)$. Then, ${\varphi}_1$ is good.
- There are two directions to show:
- We have $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \Rightarrow {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\Longrightarrow & T,(i,j) \not\models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \text{ or } T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(b),(a)}}{\Longrightarrow}} &
\bigl({\chi},1,(i,j) \not\models {\varphi}_1 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}\bigr) \text{ or }\\[0.5ex]
& \bigl({\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_2 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}\bigr)\\[1ex]
\Longrightarrow & {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \Rightarrow {\varphi}_2 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}
\end{array}$$
- We have $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T,(i,j) \not\models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \Rightarrow {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\Longrightarrow & T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \text{ and } T,(i,j) \not\models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(b),(a)}}{\Longrightarrow}} &
\bigl({\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \text{ for all } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}\bigr) \text{ and }\\[0.5ex]
& \bigl({\chi},1,(i,j) \not\models {\varphi}_2 \text{ for some } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}\bigr)\\[1ex]
\Longrightarrow & {\chi},1,(i,j) \not\models {\varphi}_1 \Rightarrow {\varphi}_2 \text{ for some } {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}
\end{array}$$
- Here, we require that both ${\varphi}_1$ and ${\varphi}_2$ are good. Then, $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \Rightarrow {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & T_{\chi},(i,j) \not\models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_1}} \text{ or } T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}_2}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(b)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} & {\chi},1,(i,j) \not\models {\varphi}_1 \text{ or } {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_2\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & {\chi},1,(i,j) \models {\varphi}_1 \Rightarrow {\varphi}_2
\end{array}$$
- Consider formula ${\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{\varphi}$. Let $x=(i,j)$. For a set $A \subseteq {\mathit{Pos}(T)} \times {\mathit{Pos}(T)}$, let $A(x) = \{x' \in {\mathit{Pos}(T)} \mid (x,x') \in A\}$.
- We have $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T,x \models {\ensuremath{[{\widetilde{\pi}}]}}{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & \forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{\pi}}]\!]}}_{T}}(x): T,x' \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(a)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} &
\forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{\pi}}]\!]}}_{T}}(x): \forall {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}: {\chi},1,x' \models {\varphi}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & \forall {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}: \forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{\pi}}]\!]}}_{T_\chi}}(x): {\chi},1,x' \models {\varphi}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(c)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} &
\forall {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}: \forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{\chi,1}}(x): {\chi},1,x' \models {\varphi}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow &
\forall {\chi}\in {\mathit{Runs}(T)}: {\chi},1,x \models {\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{\varphi}\\[1ex]
\end{array}$$
- Suppose ${\varphi}$ is good. We have $$\begin{array}{cl}
& T_{\chi},x \models {\ensuremath{[{\widetilde{\pi}}]}}{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow & \forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{\pi}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}(x): T_{\chi},x' \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(b)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} &
\forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{\pi}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}(x): {\chi},1,x' \models {\varphi}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(c)}}{\Longleftrightarrow}} &
\forall x' \in {{\ensuremath{[\![\pi]\!]}}_{{\chi},1}}(x): {\chi},1,x' \models {\varphi}\\[1ex]
\Longleftrightarrow &
{\chi},1,x \models {\ensuremath{[\pi]}}{\varphi}\end{array}$$
- Suppose ${\varphi}= {\langle \pi_1 \rangler_1 \le \langle \pi_2 \rangler_2}$. Then, $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are both unambiguous. By I.H.(c), ${\widetilde{\pi_1}}$ and ${\widetilde{\pi_2}}$ are unambiguous (wrt. symbolic runs). We show (a):
[rl]{} & $T,(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\langle \pi_1 \rangler_1 \le \langle \pi_2 \rangler_2}}}$\
$\Longleftrightarrow$ &
----------------------- --
$\Longleftrightarrow$
----------------------- --
------------------------------------------ --
$\stackrel{(\ast)}{\Longleftrightarrow}$
------------------------------------------ --
----------------------- --
$\Longleftrightarrow$
----------------------- --
---------------------------------------------- --
$\stackrel{(\ast\ast)}{\Longleftrightarrow}$
---------------------------------------------- --
[rl]{} $\Longleftrightarrow$ &\
$(\ast)$ & by I.H.(c), and Lemmas \[lem:pathaut\] and \[lem:piless\]\
$(\ast\ast)$ & by I.H.(c), Lemmas \[lem:pathaut\] and \[lem:piless\], and the fact that $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ are unambiguous,\
&the coordinates are uniquely determined by $T$, $(i,j)$, and ${\varphi}$
- The case ${\varphi}= {\langle \pi_1 \rangler_1 < \langle \pi_2 \rangler_2}$ is simpler than the previous one. We just have to adapt accordingly.
- Consider the case ${\varphi}= \bigl({\langle \pi_1 \rangler_1 \neq \langle \pi_2 \rangler_2}\bigr)$. We show (b):
[rl]{} & $T_{\chi},(i,j) \models {\widetilde{{\langle \pi_1 \rangler_1 \neq \langle \pi_2 \rangler_2}}}$\
$\Longleftrightarrow$ &
----------------------- --
$\Longleftrightarrow$
----------------------- --
----------------------- --
$\Longleftrightarrow$
----------------------- --
----------------------- --
$\Longleftrightarrow$
----------------------- --
- The case ${\varphi}= \bigl({\langle \pi_1 \rangler_1 = \langle \pi_2 \rangler_2}\bigr)$ is almost identical. In , we just replace $\neq$ by $=$.
- Consider the path formula $\pi = {\{{\varphi}\}?}$. Note that ${\varphi}$ is good. We show (c): $$\begin{array}{cl}
& {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{{\{{\varphi}\}?}}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} = {{\ensuremath{[\![{\{{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}\}?}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\\[1ex]
= & \{(x,x) \mid x \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}: T_{\chi},x \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}\}\\[1ex]
\smash{\stackrel{\text{I.H.(b)}}{=}} & \{(x,x) \mid x \in {\mathit{Pos}({\chi})}: {\chi},1,x \models {\varphi}\}\\[1ex]
= & {{\ensuremath{[\![{\{{\varphi}\}?}]\!]}}_{{\chi},1}}
\end{array}$$
- Consider $\pi = {\mathord{\rightarrow}}$. Suppose the coordinate set of ${\chi}$ is ${[n]} \times {[k]_0}$. We show (c): $$\begin{array}{cl}
& {{\ensuremath{[\![{\widetilde{{\mathord{\rightarrow}}}}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}} = {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\rightarrow}}+ {\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\rightarrow}}\rangle}}\}?}{\mathord{\leftarrow}}^\ast{\{\neg{\ensuremath{\langle{\mathord{\leftarrow}}\rangle}}\}?}]\!]}}_{T_{\chi}}}\\[1ex]
= & \{((i,j),(i+1,j)) \mid (i,j) \in {[n-1]} \times {[k]_0}\} \cup
\{((n,j),(1,j)) \mid j \in {[k]_0}\}\\[1ex]
= & {{\ensuremath{[\![{\mathord{\rightarrow}}]\!]}}_{{\chi},1}}\\[1ex]
\end{array}$$
- The regular operations as well as ${\mathord{\uparrow}}$ and ${\mathord{\downarrow}}$ are obvious, and the case ${\mathord{\leftarrow}}$ is symmetric to ${\mathord{\rightarrow}}$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:satisf\]
=============================
Let us prove (a).
($\Rightarrow$): Suppose ${\mathcal{D}}\models \Phi = {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}$. Let $T \in L({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}})$. By Lemma \[lem:datapdl\], there is a run ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that $T_{\chi}=T$. Moreover, since ${\mathcal{D}}\models \Phi$, all runs ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ satisfy ${\chi},1,(1,0) \models {\varphi}$. This applies, in particular, to all runs ${\chi}$ such that $T_{\chi}= T$. By Lemma \[lem:lcpdl\], we have $T,(1,0) \models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}$. We conclude $L(\psi_{\mathcal{D}}\wedge \neg{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}) = \emptyset$.
($\Leftarrow$): Suppose ${\mathcal{D}}\not\models {\forall_{\!\mathit{rings}}\forall_{\!\mathit{runs}}\forall_{{\mathsf{m}}}{{\varphi}}}$. Then, there are a ring ${\mathcal{R}}=(n:\ldots)$, an ${\mathcal{R}}$-run ${\chi}$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$, and a process $m \in {[n]}$ such that ${\chi},m,(m,0) \not\models {\varphi}$. Since ${\varphi}$ cannot distinguish isomorphic rings, we can shift ${\mathcal{R}}$ until $m$ “arrives” on position $1$. Thus, there are ${\mathcal{R}}'=(n:\ldots)$ and an ${\mathcal{R}}'$-run ${\chi}'$ of ${\mathcal{D}}$ such that ${\chi}',1,(1,0) \not\models {\varphi}$. By Lemma \[lem:lcpdl\], $T_{{\chi}'},(1,0) \not\models {\widetilde{{\varphi}}}$ and, therefore, $T_{{\chi}'},(1,0) \models \neg{\widetilde{{\varphi}}}$. Due to Lemma \[lem:datapdl\], we also have $T_{{\chi}'},(1,0) \models \psi_{\mathcal{D}}$. we conclude $L({\psi}_{\mathcal{D}}\wedge \neg{\widetilde{{{\varphi}}}}) \neq \emptyset$.
Part (b) is shown in exactly the same way, restricting the height of a table and length of a run by the given bound ${b}$.
[^1]: Supported by LIA InForMel.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
42 -10 pt 10 pt 1 in 0 in 0 in 0.75 in 6.375 true in -0.3 in
psfig.sty
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
OSLO-TP 3-98\
April-1998
**Accelerated Electrons and the Unruh Effect [^1]**
Jon Magne Leinaas
[*Department of Physics\
P.O. Box 1048 Blindern\
N-0316 Oslo\
Norway*]{}
**Abstract**
Quantum effects for electrons in a storage ring are studied in a co-moving, accelerated frame. The polarization effect due to spin flip synchrotron radiation is examined by treating the electron as a simple quantum mechanical two-level system coupled to the orbital motion and to the radiation field. The excitations of the spin system are related to the Unruh effect, [[*i.e.* ]{}]{}the effect that an accelerated radiation detector is thermally excited by vacuum fluctuations. The importance of orbital fluctuations is pointed out and the vertical fluctuations are examined.
Introduction
============
The meeting at Monterey has been dedicated to the memory of John Bell, and I would like to dedicate also the present paper to his memory. The paper is based on a work which I did with him several years ago [@Bell83; @Bell87] and on a talk I gave at CERN in 1991 [^2].
The collaboration with John Bell started when, as a fellow at CERN, I discussed with him the rather exotic theoretical effect often referred to as the Unruh effect. As shown by Davies [@Davies75] and Unruh [@Unruh76], an idealized radiation detector which is accelerated through ordinary Minkowski vacuum gets heated due to interactions with the vacuum fluctuations of the radiation field. For uniform linear acceleration the excitation spectrum has a universal, thermal form, independent of details of the detector. This effect, that vacuum seems hot, as measured in an accelerated system, has by Unruh and others been related to the phenomenon of Hawking radiation from black holes [@Hawking74].
The idea came up during our discussion that a depolarization effect which was known to exist for electrons in a storage ring could have something to do with the Unruh heating. We investigated this and found that the effect indeed was related, although there were important complications due to the fact that the electrons were following a circular orbit rather than being linearly accelerated [@Bell83]. Motivated by these complications we later examined more carefully the effects of quantum fluctuations for an electron moving in a circular orbit [@Bell87].
In this paper I review the description of the polarization effects for circulating electrons, in the way discussed in our two papers. The spin excitations are studied in a co-moving, accelerated frame, which follows the classical path of the circulating electron. I first discuss the description of spin motion in the accelerated frame and then examine spin excitations produced either directly through fluctuations in the magnetic field or indirectly through fluctuations in the path. The close connection to the Unruh effect for a linearly accelerated system is demonstrated, and the polarization effect is compared to a simple two-level model with thermal excitation of the upper level. The vertical fluctuations in the path are shown to give an independent demonstration of the circular Unruh effect.
Quantum effects for accelerated electrons
=========================================
The motion of particles in accelerators can mostly be understood and described in classical terms. But there are some quantum effects which are non-negligible and which even may be important. These mainly have to do with radiation phenomena and with the radiation reaction on the accelerated particles. Therefore they are much more important for the light electron than for the much heavier proton.
The accelerated electrons emit radiation, synchrotron radiation, as it is known for particles in a magnetic field. Even for high energy electrons this process is well described by the classical radiation formula. This was explicitly demonstrated by Schwinger [@Schwinger54] who calculated the lowest order quantum correction to the radiated power. Only for extremely high energetic electrons the quantum corrections become important. The condition for this being small can be written as \_c with = , \_c= where $m$ is the electron mass, $v$ its velocity and $\rho$ is the radius of curvature of the particle orbit. The important ratio then is = ()\^2 , (1) where $a$ is the acceleration of the particle in an inertial rest frame, and $a_m$ is an acceleration parameter determined by the particle mass, a = ,\
a\_m = Thus, the important physical quantity is the acceleration $a$ rather than the energy of the electron. A typical value for the parameter $\Upsilon$ in cyclic accelerators is $10^{-6}$, which shows that quantum effects indeed are very small.[^3]
Even if synchrotron radiation is essentially a classical phenomenon for $\gamma \ll \gamma_c$, this does not mean that all quantum effects associated with this phenomenon are unimportant. The radiation reaction will excite orbital oscillations even for much smaller energies [@Sokolov71]. The radiation field then acts in two ways on the particle. Quantum fluctuations excite the oscillations, while radiation damping tends to reduce the oscillation amplitudes. Balance between these two tendencies defines a minimal, quantum limit to the beam size.
A perhaps even clearer demonstration of quantum effects for electrons in a storage ring is associated with the phenomenon of spin-flip radiation [@Sokolov63; @Derbenev73]. The asymmetry between up and down flips in the magnetic field leads to a gradual build up of transverse polarization of the electrons. Under ideal conditions the polarization approaches equilibrium as P(t) = P\_0(1-e\^[-t/t\_0]{}), with a maximum polarization P\_0= = 0.924 and a build up time t\_0 = For existing accelerators this build up time is of the order of minutes to hours.
The phenomenon of spontaneous polarization of electrons circulating in a magnetic field has been analyzed in many publications, both for ideal conditions and for the more realistic situation with particles moving in a variable magnetic field. There also exist review articles on this interesting subject [@Baier71; @Jackson76; @Montague84]. In particular the paper by J.D. Jackson focuses attention on the aspects of this phenomenon which can be described in elementary terms. My approach here is along the same line. But whereas Jackson rejects the idea of a simple description of the effect as a transition between spin energy levels caused by radiation effects, which then would lead eventually to all particles in the lowest energy level, this is in fact the picture I will use. The electron spin is treated as two-level quantum system interacting with the radiation field. But the effect of the radiation field along the accelerated orbit of the electrons is different from the effect on an electron sitting at rest. Transitions also to the upper energy level are induced by the field along this orbit, and that leads to a small, but non-vanishing depolarization of the electron beam. I will consider the ideal case of electrons moving in a rotationally invariant magnetic field. A stable, classical circular orbit is produced by a radial gradient in the magnetic field. This corresponds to the situation of a weak focussing machine.
Hamiltonian for the accelerated frame
=====================================
When we introduce a co-moving frame for the description of the spin motion of the electron, it is of interest to note that this frame is uniquely defined only up to a (time-dependent) rotation. There are in fact three different co-moving frames which are characterized by simple properties, in one way or the other. The first one, which I denote the L-frame is the one which is obtained from the fixed lab frame by a pure boost. This frame is non-rotational as seen from the lab. The other one is the frame which rotates with the frequency of the orbiting particle. In this frame, which I denote the O-frame, the accelerating field is stationary. Finally there is a frame, denoted the C-frame, which is non-rotational when viewed along the particle orbit. The fact that this is different from the L-frame is a relativistic effect and gives rise to Thomas precession of the spin vector.
The relative rotational frequencies of these three frames are listed in Table 1 for an electron following a circular path in a magnetic field. Both the magnetic field $B$ and the frequencies refer to co-moving frames.
------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
$frames$ $rotational\; freq.$ $spin \; precession$
\[2mm\] $C$ 0 $g\frac{e}{2mc}B$
\[2mm\] $O$ $\frac{e}{mc}B$ $(g-2)\frac{e}{2mc}B$
\[2mm\] $L$ $(1-\frac{1}{\gamma})\frac{e}{mc}B$ $((g-2)+\frac{2}{\gamma})\frac{e}{2mc}B$
\[2mm\]
------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
: [*Rotation frequencies of three different co-moving frames and the spin precession frequencies in these frames for an electron orbiting in a constant magnetic field $B$*]{}
Also the spin precession frequencies in the three different frames are shown. This has the simplest in the C-frame. Since this frame is non-rotational along the orbit, all spin precession in this frame is due to coupling between the magnetic moment of the particle and the external magnetic field. Thus, the precession frequency is proportional to the gyromagnetic factor $g$, as shown in the table. In the O-frame on the other hand the precession frequency is proportional to $g-2$. This demonstrates the well-known fact that for $g=2$ the spin precesses exactly with the frequency of the orbital motion. Finally, in the L-frame there is a further correction due to the relative rotation of the L- and the O-frame. This correction is identical to the rotation frequency of the orbital motion, and this is smaller than the frequency associated with the Thomas precession by a factor of $1/\gamma$.
Even if the spin motion is simplest in the C-frame, I shall in the following apply the O-frame for the quantum description. The reason for this is that the external fields are stationary in this frame and therefore give rise to a time-independent Hamiltonian. This frame will be extended to a local accelerated coordinate system to allow for fluctuations in the particle about the circular path, which then is assumed to be the classical, stable orbit of the electrons. This coordinate system will necessary contain coordinate singularities at some distance from the orbit. But I will assume fluctuations away from the stable orbit to be small, so that linearized equations are sufficient. I will also assume velocities in this frame to be small, so that a non-relativistic approximation can be applied.
The Hamiltonian, which governs the time evolution in the accelerated frame is not identical to that of the inertial rest frame, but it can be expressed in a simple way in terms of observables from this frame, H’=H- J\_z+ K\_x Here $H$ is the Dirac Hamiltonian, $J_z$ is the generator of rotations in the plane of the electron orbit and $K_x$ is a boost operator. The coordinates in the O-frame then are chosen with the particle acceleration in the negative $x$-direction and with the orbit velocity in the positive $y$-direction. The additional terms in the expression for $H'$ are fairly easy to understand. The presence of the generator of rotations is related to the fact that the coordinate axes of the O-frame rotate along the orbit and the presence of the boost operator accounts for the continuous jumping between inertial frames when the particle is accelerated. For the three operators included in $H'$ we have the following expressions, H=c + mc\^2 +e+(i - ) J\_z=()\_z + \_z K\_x=- (xH +Hx) where a term for the anomalous magnetic moment, $\kappa ={\frac{1}{2}}(g-2)$, has been introduced in the expression for $H$. All the potentials and fields in these expressions refer to the inertial rest frame of the classical orbit. The notation $\vec{\pi} = \vec{p}-\frac{e}{c} \vec{A}$ has been used for the mechanical moment of the electron.
When the fluctuations around the classically stable orbit are assumed to be small, then a non-relativistic approximation makes sense. A Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation, where we keep only the leading terms, gives a Hamiltonian which then can be split into a spin-independent and a spin dependent term in the following way, H = H\_[orb]{} + H\_[spin]{} H\_[orb]{} = (1-)( + e) - axm + \_x - ( )\_z + ... H\_[spin]{} =- - \_z + ( )\_x + ...
The Hamiltonian in the accelerated frame includes some complications compared to that of the inertial frame. However, if we consider the orbital motion only to linear order in the deviation from the stable orbit, the main difference in the expressions for $H_{orb}$ is the presence of the centrifugal and Coriolis terms. For the orbital motion the spin effects only give rise to a small perturbation. But also for the spin motion the effect of the fluctuations in the orbit is small, since the spin precession mainly is determined by the strong magnetic field along the classical orbit. In principle one could then determine the particle motion in the following way: One first solves for the orbital motion, neglecting the spin, and then one determines the spin motion, treating the orbital fluctuations and the quantum fields as perturbations. However, when calculating the polarization of the particle beam, one can simplify this approach somewhat, since it is only the fluctuations in the particle orbit which are driven by the coupling to the radiation field which are important.
Spin transitions
================
The spin Hamiltonian can be written in the form H\_[spin]{}= = \_0 + with $\vec{\omega}_0$ giving rise to the classical part of the precession, \_0=-g\_0 - = - (g-2) B\_0 and $\delta \vec{\omega}$ as the fluctuation part, = -\[g - g\_0 - (g-2) \] In the last two expressions $\vec{k}$ is the unit vector orthogonal to the plane of motion and $\vec{i}$ a unit vector in the $x$-direction. $\vec{B}_0=B_0 \vec{k}$ is the external magnetic field on the classical orbit, and $\delta \vec{B}$ accounts for the fluctuations in the magnetic field. This can be separated into two parts, = \_q + \_[c]{} where $\vec{B}_q$ denotes the quantum field along the classical orbit and $\delta \vec{B}_{c}$ is the variation in the external field due to fluctuations in the orbit.
The spin motion now can be determined by time dependent perturbation theory. $\vec{\omega}_0$ then defines the unperturbed part of the spin Hamiltonian and $\delta \vec{\omega}$ the perturbation. To first order, the transition probabilities per unit time between the levels of the unperturbed Hamiltonian are given by \_ &=& \_[T]{} |\_[-T/2]{}\^[T/2]{} e\^[i\_0 ]{} \_ ()|0>|\^2\
&=& \_[-]{}\^[+]{}de\^[i\_0 ]{}<0|\_(/2) \_(-/2)|0> $|0>$ in this equation denotes the state of the combined system of radiation field and orbit variables, unperturbed by the spin. $\delta \omega
_\pm$ is a linear combination of the $x$- and $y$-component of $\delta
\vec{\omega}$, \_= \_x i \_y The same notation will be used for other variables in the following.
A useful substitution rule which can be used in the expression for $\delta \omega _\pm$ is the following one, F i\_0 F \[subs\] The difference between these two expressions only gives rise to end effects in the integral for the transition amplitude, and for large $T$ this is suppressed in $\Gamma_\pm$ due to the prefactor $1/T$. This substitution rule now can be used to eliminate the orbital variables in the expression for $\delta \omega_\pm$, which can be written in the form \_= - \[gB\_[q]{} + g B\_[c]{} 2iv\_0 \] \[deltaomega\] With the stable orbit in the symmetry plane of the magnetic field, $\delta
B_{c\pm}$ gets contribution only from the gradient in the z-direction. This implies that (to lowest order) $\delta \omega_\pm$ only depends on the vertical fluctuations in the particle orbit. These fluctuations in turn are determined by coupling to the radiation field in the following way, -(- )+\^2 z = E\_[qz]{} where a radiation reaction term has been introduced and where non-linear terms have been neglected. The restoring electric force in the z direction can be related to the gradient in the magnetic field, \^2 = n n = = $\rho$ is the radius of the (classical) electron orbit, and $n$ the fall-off parameter of the magnetic field.
By use of the substitution rule eq.(\[subs\]) now can be solved for z, z = \[\^2 - \_0\^2 i\_0\]\^[-1]{} E\_[qz]{} + = ( + \_0\^2) $\Lambda$ here denotes a term which is suppressed for large $T$. When the expression for $z$ is inserted in eq.(\[deltaomega\]), this gives (for $v\approx c$), \_= - \[gB\_[q]{} + (2+f\_(g)) E\_[qz]{}\] \[deltaomega2\] with $f_\pm (g)$ as a resonance term, f\_(g) = This term blows up when the frequency of the free oscillations in the z-direction is close to the classical spin precession frequency, but it tends rapidly to zero away from the resonance.
The new expression for $\delta \omega_\pm$ (\[deltaomega2\]) now only depends on the free quantum fields, and the transition probabilities can be expressed in terms of correlation functions of these fields along the particle orbit, \_= \_[-]{}\^[+]{}de\^[i\_0]{} <0|\_(/2)\_(-/2)|0> \[gamma\] Now $|0>$ refers to the vacuum state of the radiation field. To calculate these probabilities now is straightforward. The fields in the co-moving frame most conveniently are expressed in terms of lab frame fields and the correlation functions of these are found by expressing the field operators in terms of creation and annihilation operators. To leading order in $1/\gamma$ the relevant fourier integrals can be calculated analytically.
The polarization is determined by the population of the two spin levels, and this in turn is found by the standard argument of equilibrium between transitions up and down. We have, P= In Fig.1 the polarization is shown as a function of $\gamma$. Except for values close to the resonance with the vertical motion, the standard result for the polarization is found, $P = 0.924$. The effect of the resonance is mainly to depolarize the beam, but an interesting detail is the coherent effect which gives a maximum value of $P=0.992$ close to the resonance. Thus, at least in principle it is possible to exceed the limiting value of 0.924.
Quantum fluctuations and the Unruh effect
=========================================
The expression for the transition probabilities $\Gamma_\pm$ now makes it possible to see the close relation between the polarization effect and the Unruh effect [@Unruh76]. Let me rewrite it in the form \_= \_[-]{}\^[+]{} e\^[i\_0]{}C\_() \[gamma2\] with C\_+() = <D\^(0) D()> \[C+\] C\_-() = <D() D\^(0)> \[C-\] I have here introduced the new notation $D=(1/2)\delta \omega_+,
D^\dagger=(1/2)\delta \omega_-$. The operator $D$ then is a linear combination of electric and magnetic fields in the co-moving frame, D() = (x()) + (x()), \[D(tau)\] where $x(\tau)$ is the space-time orbit of the particle. The expression (\[gamma2\]) is similar to that which defines transitions in a point detector in the case of the Unruh effect. The main difference is that the world line of the detector then corresponds to linear acceleration rather than to circular motion as in the present case. However, the excitations of the accelerated systems in the two cases can be understood qualitatively in the same way. The correlation functions $C_\pm$ gives a measure of vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field along the orbit $x(\tau)$, and these fluctuations give rise to excitations in the detector when $C_+$ includes a spectral component which coincides with the excitation energy.
To see this more clearly let me first discuss the simplest case, namely with a two level detector at rest. The transitions between the levels are given by the same set of equations, (\[gamma2\]-\[D(tau)\]), but now simply with x() = (,0) Since $D(\tau)$ is a linear combination of electromagnetic fields it can be decomposed in the form D() = d\^3k \_[r]{}\[c\_r()e\^[-ikx]{}a\_r() + d\_r()e\^[+ikx]{}a\_r\^()\] where $a_r(\vec{k})$ and $a_r^\dagger(\vec{k})$ are photon annihilation and creation operators and $c_r(\vec{k})$ and $d_r(\vec{k})$ fourier coefficients. According to eq.(\[gamma2\]) only the positive frequency parts of this operator are relevant for the transitions. Positive frequency then is measured relative to the proper time along the orbit $x(\tau)$. But with the detector at rest this coincides with positive frquencies measured in the lab frame. And, as is well known, the positive frequency part of lab frame fields only contains annihilation operators. This is simply because all excitations in the lab frame have positive energy. So the relevant component of $D(\tau)$ is \_[-]{}\^[+]{}de\^[i\_0]{}D() = 2d\_k\_0\^2\_[r]{}c\_r() e\^[i ]{}a\_r() which only annihilates photons with the same energy as the energy splitting of the two-level system. As a consequence of this the probability for transitions up in energy is zero, since the $D$ operator acts on the vacuum state. However, transitions down may be different from zero, since in this case it is instead $D^\dagger$ which acts on the vacuum state. Thus, the vacuum fluctuations only induce transitions to lower energies. This clearly is related to energy conservation in the combined system of detector and radiation field.
If the two-level system moves with constant velocity the picture is the same, since the sign of the zero component of the photon momentum $k$ is the same in all inertial frames. The only way to have a non-zero probability for excitations to higher energies is to include other states than the vacuum state in the one which the operator $D$ acts on. In particular the probability is non-zero for states with temperature $T\neq 0$.
However, for accelerated motion this is no longer the case. $x(\tau)$ then is no longer a linear function of $\tau$ and both functions $e^{-ikx(\tau)}$ and $e^{+ikx(\tau)}$ will in general have positive frequency parts in terms of the variable $\tau$. In addition, for the electromagnetic field, there will be a $\tau$-dependent Lorentz transformation connecting the fields in the co-moving frame with the lab frame fields. The net effect is to introduce a mixing between the positive and negative frequency parts, so that both the anihilation and the creation parts of the operator $D$ will have positive frequency components in terms of the time variable $\tau$. As a consequence of this there will be in general non-vanishing probabilities for excitations both up and down in energy for the accelerated system, even with the quantum field in the vacuum state.
For uniform linear acceleration along the z-axis, the accelerated path $x(\tau)$ is described by t= (), z= (), x=y=0, The trajectory $x(\tau)$ in this case depends only on one free parameter, which is the rest frame acceleration $a$. An interesting symmetry which is present for this motion corresponds to a shift in the $\tau$-parameter in the imaginary direction, x() = x(+ i ) This symmetry, together with general symmetries from field theory, related to PCT-invariance[@Sewell82; @Hughes85; @Bell85], gives a simple relation between the correlation functions corresponding to transitions up and down in energy, C\_+() = C\_-(-i) This relation is similar to one which is present for correlation functions at non-zero temperature, and it leads to a similar result for the ratio between probabilities for transitions up and down, \_+ &=& \_[-]{}\^[+]{} de\^[i\_0]{}C\_- (-i)\
&=& \_[-]{}\^[+]{} de\^[i\_0(+i)]{}C\_- ()\
&=&(-) \_- If the ratio between the two transition probabilities now is interpreted as a Boltzmann factor, then there is a simple linear relation between the temperature associated with this factor and the acceleration $a$, kT\_a = \[Unruh\] $T_a$ then is the Unruh temperature for the accelerated system and $k$ the Boltzmann constant. The derivation shows that the thermal property of the excitation spectrum depends only on general properties of the quantum fields and on special properties of the accelerated trajectory $x(\tau)$. Details of the accelerated system is not important.
In the case of electron polarization one may consider the question whether linearly accelerated electrons could be used to detect the Unruh effect. An additional magnetic field along the electron path could provide the necessary splitting of the spin energy levels. In principle this should give a cleaner demonstration of the heating by acceleration effect than the polarization effect for circulating electrons. However, as discussed in ref.[@Bell83] the time needed to reach equilibrium is far too long to make this effect relevant for the motion of electrons in linear accelerators. For electrons in cyclic accelerators much larger accelerations can be obtained and correspondingly much smaller time constants for the approach to equilibrium.
Unruh effect for circulating electrons
======================================
Let me now consider the electron polarization for circulating electrons from the point of view of the Unruh effect. One main difference between circular motion and linear acceleration is that the former depends on two independent parameters, which we may take to be $a$ and $\gamma$. However, for ultrarelativistic electrons the quantum fluctuations affecting the spin motion in the co-moving frame essentially only depend on $a$. If we disregard all complications related to the circular motion and simply assume the temperature formula (\[Unruh\]) to be valid, we find the following. In the non-rotational C-frame the energy splitting of the spin system is for $\gamma\gg1$, E = \_0 = g This gives a Boltzmann factor (-) = \[Boltzmann\] and the polarization is P(g) = For the physical value $g=2$ this gives $P=0.996$ as compared with the previously cited correct value $P=0.924$.
It is of interest to notice the similarities and the differences in the $g$-dependence of the correct function $P(g)$ and the function obtained from the simple temperature formula. The two functions are displayed as curve A and B in Fig.2. The main difference between these two curves is a shift along the $g$-axis. Such a shift may loosely be associated with an angular velocity present in the system which couples to the spin. Thus, if we assume the spin excitations to have a thermal form in the rotating O-frame rather than in the C-frame, this would shift the polarization curve with two units along the $g$-axis. The correct curve is located somewhere inbetween, and there seems not to be a simple explanation for this. One should also note some important differences in the details of the two curves.
In the temperature formula given above we have made the simple assumption that the spin system can be considered as a thermally excited two-level system, independent of the other degrees of freedom of the electron. This may be a too simple model even if the Unruh temperature formula, in some approximate meaning, should be valid. After all the fluctuations in the path are important for the polarization effect, as I have previously pointed out. In order to estimate the effect of these fluctuations, we may simply leave out the two terms in (\[deltaomega\]) associated with fluctuations in the path and keep only the term which accounts for the direct coupling of the magnetic moment to the quantum fluctuations of the magnetic field. The resulting function is displayed as curve C in Fig.2. Now the shift relative to the thermal curve has disappeared and the form is also quite similar in the two cases. The new curve can in fact be approximated well by a formula like (\[Boltzmann\]), but with a temperature somewhat higher than the Unruh temperature, $T_{eff}\approx 1.3 T_a$.
Since the orbital fluctuations are important for the polarization effect, a better comparison with the Unruh effect would be obtained by treating the orbital motion together with the spin motion. However, as already pointed out, the electron spin is not so important for the orbital motion. As a final point I will therefore consider the vertical motion without taking into account the effects of the spin.
The (Heisenberg) equation of motion for the vertical oscillations can be written as + 2 + \^2z = E\_[qz]{} In this equation $\Gamma=(e^2a^2)/(3mc^5)$ and only the most important part of the radiation damping term has been kept. Making use of the fact that the damping is small, $\Gamma \ll \Omega$, one can solve the equation to find an (approximate) expression for $z(\tau )$ in terms of the quantum field $E_{qz}$. For the fluctuation in the $z$-coordinate one finds the following expression <z\^2> = ()\^2 \_[-]{}\^[+]{} de\^[-||]{} This shows that the fluctuations in the vertical direction are determined by the correlation function of the z-component of the electric field along the classical orbit. The vertical fluctuations in fact can be interpreted as being due to the circular Unruh effect in a similar way as the polarization effect. The mean energy associated with the fluctuations is for large $\gamma$, \_[vert]{} = m\^2<z\^2> = It is proportional to the acceleration $a$, but with a different prefactor as compared with the linear Unruh effect. It corresponds to a somewhat higher temperature T\_[eff]{} 1.5 T\_a To linear order the excitation spectrum in this case in fact has a thermal form, and there is no complication with rotating frames. So in this respect the vertical orbit excitations give a simpler demonstration of the Unruh heating in the circular case than the depolarization of the electrons do. But the fluctuations are small and to measure them may be much more difficult task.
Concluding remarks
==================
The quantum effects for electrons in a storage ring have here been studied within a simple idealized model for a cyclic accelerator. The electron spin has been treated, in the co-moving accelerated frame of the classical orbit, as a two-level system coupled linearly to the quantum fields and to the orbital fluctuations. In this description the external magnetic field along the orbit defines the (unperturbed) spin levels of the electrons, and the radiation field causes transitions between these two levels. The radiation field acts both directly on the spin, through the coupling to the magnetic moment, and also indirectly, through the fluctuations it introduces in the particle orbit. The equilibrium polarization calculated in this way agrees with the classical results known from the literature. However, a resonance between the spin and orbital fluctuations gives an effect which mainly is depolarizing, but close to the resonance leads to a small increase in the polarization.
In a more realistic description of a cyclic accelerator there will be several modifications of this picture. In the case of a strong focussing machine the magnetic field will no longer be uniform along the orbit. The unperturbed part of the spin Hamiltonian then will be time dependent in the co-moving frame, and as a consequence of this the perturbations cannot be described in terms of transitions between stationary spin levels. There may be other perturbations in the magnetic field that cause a coupling between vertical and horizontal oscillations. Also non-linear effects may be important. This will in general lead to a much richer structure of spin-orbit resonances than in the idealized model where only one resonance is present. All these effects certainly have to be taken into account when one wants to model the spin behaviour in a real accelerator [@Mane87; @Kewisch89; @Hand89]. Nevertheless, to understand the main aspects of the quantum effects for the accelerated electrons, the simple idealized model used here may be of interest.
As discussed in this paper, the expression for the spin flip probabilities can be reduced to a form where they are determined only by vacuum correlation functions of the electromagnetic fields along the classical orbit. Expressed in this way there is a clear similarity between the polarization effect and the Unruh effect for a linearly accelerated two-level system. But for circular motion the correlation functions do not have a truly thermal form. And for the circulating electrons there are complications due to the rotations of frames along the orbit and due to coupling between the spin and orbital fluctuations. However, when the effects of the orbital fluctuations are supressed we obtain a polarization curve which is well approximated by the curve obteined from a thermally excited two-level system.
A more careful comparison between the polarization effect and the Unruh effect would mean to include the orbital motion in the description. Since the fluctuations in the orbital motion can be treated as being independent of the spin, it is meaningful to examine the vertical fluctuations separately. Also these flutuations are determined by vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field along the classical orbit. The result for the vertical fluctuations is that they do have a thermal excitation spectrum, but the temperature is slightly higher than the Unruh temperature determined from the acceleration alone.
[99]{}
J.S. Bell and J.M. Leinaas, .
J.S. Bell and J.M. Leinaas, .
P.C.W. Davies, .
W.G. Unruh, .
S. Hawking, , .
J. Schwinger, .
T.Himel and J.Siegrist, [*AIP Conf. Proc. (USA)*]{} no.130, p.602 (1985).
R.J. Noble, .
M. Jacob and T.T. Wu, .
M. Bell and J.S. Bell, and [**24**]{} (1988) 1, .
A.A. Sokolov and I.M. Ternov, [*Synchrotron radiation*]{} (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 1968).
A.A. Sokolov and I.M. Ternov, \[\].
Ya.S. Derbenev and A.M. Kondratenko, \[\].
V.N. Baier, \[\].
J.D. Jackson, .
B.W. Montague, .
G. Sewell, .
R.J. Hughes, .
J.S. Bell, R.J. Hughes and J.M. Leinaas, .
S.R. Mane, and .
J. Kewisch, R.Rossmanith and T. Limberg, .
L.N. Hand and A. Skuja, .
[^1]: To appear in the Proceedings of the Advanced ICFA Beam Dynamics Workshop on Quantum Aspects of Beam Physics, Monterey January 4-9, 1998, ed. Pisin Chen.
[^2]: I am indebted to Pisin Chen for his invitation to include this paper in the proceedings from the Monterey workshop. A written version of the talk at CERN has been planned to be published, but has been long delayed.
[^3]: There have been some studies also of the quantum regime $\Upsilon>1$ in connection with linear accelerators at extremely high energies [@Himel85; @Noble87; @Jacob87; @Bell88].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Piero Molino
- Huaixiu Zheng
- 'Yi-Chia Wang'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'COTA: Improving the Speed and Accuracy of Customer Support through Ranking and Deep Networks'
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010178.10010179</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Natural language processing</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010257</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Machine learning</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10010147.10010257.10010293.10010294</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Computing methodologies Neural networks</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
A general lattice Boltzmann (LB) model is proposed for solving nonlinear partial differential equations with the form $\partial_t
\phi+\sum_{k=1}^{m} \alpha_k \partial_x^k \Pi_k (\phi)=0$, where $\alpha_k$ are constant coefficients, and $\Pi_k (\phi)$ are the known differential functions of $\phi$, $1\leq k\leq m \leq 6$. The model can be applied to the common nonlinear evolutionary equations, such as (m)KdV equation, KdV-Burgers equation, K($m,n$) equation, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, and Kawahara equation, etc. Unlike the existing LB models, the correct constraints on moments of equilibrium distribution function in the proposed model are given by choosing suitable *auxiliary-moments*, and how to exactly recover the macroscopic equations through Chapman-Enskog expansion is discussed in this paper. Detailed simulations of these equations are performed, and it is found that the numerical results agree well with the analytical solutions and the numerical solutions reported in previous studies.
author:
- Baochang Shi
- Nanzhong He
- Zhaoli Guo
title: 'Lattice Boltzmann Model for High-Order Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations'
---
\[sec:level1\]Introduction
==========================
The lattice Boltzmann method (LBM) is a promising technique for simulating fluid flows and modeling complex physics in fluids [@bsv; @qso; @cd]. Compared with the conventional computational fluid dynamics approaches, the LBM is easy for programming, intrinsically parallel, and it is also easy to include complicated boundary conditions such as those in porous media. Up to now, the most widely used LBM is the so-called lattice Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (LBGK) model. However, the LBGK model may suffer from numerical instability when it is used to simulate the fluid with small viscosity. A lot of work has been done to improve the stability of LB model, among which the multi-relaxation-time LBM [@Higuera; @humieres; @ll] and entropic LBM [@Karlin; @Ansumali; @Chikatamarla; @Boghosian; @Keating] have attracted much attention in recent years. It should be noted that the LBM also shows potentials to simulate the nonlinear systems, such as the reaction-diffusion equation [@dcd; @bs; @ys1], convection-diffusion equation (CDE) [@sooy; @gsw; @hlg; @sddc], Burgers equation [@ys2], KdV-like equation [@ChaiShiZheng], Poisson equation [@ChaiShi], etc. Recently, the LB models have been extended to solve CDEs on rectangular or irregular lattices [@se; @sman] and anisotropic dispersion equations [@zbc; @rsm; @g], among which the model proposed by Ginzburg [@g] is generic.
Except for solving real-valued nonlinear systems, the LB and LB-like models have been successful in solving complex-valued nonlinear systems. Since the middle of 1990s, several types of quantum lattice gases and quantum LBM have been proposed based on quantum-computing ideas to model some real and complex mathematical-physical equations, such as the Schrödinger equation, Gross-Pitaevskii equation, Burgers equation, KdV equation [@m; @sb; @succi; @bt; @yb; @yepez; @vyv; @vvy; @ps1; @ps2], etc. We refer the readers to a recent paper [@ps2] for a detailed review. On the other hand, recently the classical LB model has been used to model complex-valued equations. In Ref. [@zfdg] the LBM was applied to one-dimensional (1D) nonlinear Schrödinger equation (NLSE) following the idea of quantum lattice-gas model [@bt; @yb] to treat the reaction term. In Ref. [@shi], motivated by the work in Ref. [@zfdg], the LBM for $n$-dimensional ($n$D) CDE with a source term was directly applied to some nonlinear complex equations, including the NLSE, coupled NLSEs, Klein-Gordon equation and coupled Klein-Gordon-Schrödinger equations, by adopting a complex-valued distribution function and relaxation time. In Ref. [@ShiGuo], a general LB model for a class of $n$D nonlinear CDEs was presented by properly selecting equilibrium distribution function. The model in Ref. [@ShiGuo] can be applied to both real and complex-valued nonlinear evolutionary equations. Following the idea in Ref. [@ShiGuo], a LB model for 1D nonlinear Dirac equation was given in Ref. [@ShiGuo2], which is of second-order accuracy in both space and time, and the order of accuracy is near 3.0 at lower grid resolution. The studies in Refs. [@zfdg; @shi; @ShiGuo; @ShiGuo2] show that the LBM may be an effective numerical solver for real and complex-valued nonlinear systems.
Most of the existing LB models are used for solving partial differential equations (PDEs) with order lower than or equal to three, while many efficient conventional numerical methods for solving higher-order PDEs have been proposed, such as the pseudo-spectral method [@Lopez], local discontinuous Galerkin (LDG) method [@XuShu; @XuShuRev], finite different scheme [@Ceballos], finite volume method [@Cueto], radial basis function method [@Uddin], among them LDG method has attracted much attention due to its good nature, such as flexibility and high parallel efficiency (see a recent review article [@XuShuRev] and references therein for details). Although some higher-order LB schemes have been proposed, they are mainly limited to solve lower-order PDEs [@YanGW; @CamasTsai; @MaCF1] and 1D special problems [@MaCF2]. Furthermore, the efficient numerical analysis of these schemes are still needed. Therefore, it is important to research and develop the LB model for solving higher-order PDEs.
In this paper, by extending the idea in Ref. [@ShiGuo] a general LBGK model is proposed for solving a class of nonlinear partial differential equations (NPDEs) with order up to six. In order to exactly recover the macroscopic NPDE, the correct constraints on moments of equilibrium distribution function in the proposed model are given by introducing suitable *auxiliary-moments*. The proposed model can be used to solve many common nonlinear evolutionary equations, such as (m)KdV equation, KdV-Burgers equation, K($m,n$) equation, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, and Kawahara equation, etc. Numerical results show that the LBGK model can also be used to simulate higher-order NPDEs.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, the LBGK model for NPDE is presented, and how to exactly recover the macroscopic equation from the model is discussed. In Sec. III, the equilibrium distribution and auxiliary-moment functions for NPDEs with different orders are given. Numerical tests of the LBGK model are made in Sec. IV, and finally a brief summary is given in Sec. V.
Multi-Scale Lattice Boltzmann Equations
=======================================
LBGK Model
----------
The 1D NPDE considered in this paper can be written as $$\partial_t \phi+\sum_{k=1}^{m} \alpha_k \partial_x^k \Pi_k (\phi)=0,
\label{NPDE}$$ where $\phi$ is a scalar function of position [*x*]{} and time [*t*]{}, $\alpha_1=1$, $\alpha_k$ are constant coefficients, and $\Pi_k
(\phi)$ are known differential functions of $\phi$, $1\leq k\leq m
\leq 6$.
Our LBGK model is based on the D1Q*b* lattice [@qso] with *b* velocity directions in 1D space. The evolution equation of the distribution function in the model reads $$f_j(x+c_j \Delta t,t+\Delta t)= f_j(x,t)
-\frac{1}{\tau}[f_j(x,t)-f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}(x,t)],
\label{LBE}$$ where $\{c_j,j=0,\ldots,b-1\}\subseteq\{0,c,-c,2c,-2c,3c,-3c\}$ is the set of discrete velocity directions, $c=\Delta x/\Delta t$, $\Delta x$ and $\Delta t$ are lattice spacing and time step, respectively, $\tau$ is the dimensionless relaxation time, and $f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}(x,t)$ is the equilibrium distribution function (EDF).
To solve Eq. (\[NPDE\]) using Eq. (\[LBE\]), we must give appropriate EDF $f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}(x,t)$. By applying the idea in Ref. [@ShiGuo] to the higher-order NPDE (\[NPDE\]), the following constrains on $f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}$ are given $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j f_j=\sum_j f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}=\phi,\sum_j c_j
f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}=\Pi_1,\nonumber\\ \sum_j c_j^k
f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}=\Pi_{k0}+\beta_k\Pi_k,k=2,\ldots,m \label{moments}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_k$ are parameters, and $\Pi_{k0}$ are *auxiliary-moment* (AM) functions for correctly recovering Eq. (\[NPDE\]), which are determined later, $k=2,\ldots,m$.
Multi-Scale Lattice Boltzmann Equations
---------------------------------------
To derive the macroscopic equation (\[NPDE\]), the Chapman-Enskog (C-E) expansion in time and space is applied: $$f_j=\sum_{k=0}^6 \epsilon^k f_j^{(k)},\partial_t=\sum_{k=1}^6
\epsilon^k\partial_{t_{k}},\partial_x=\epsilon\partial_{x_1},
\label{CE}$$ where $\epsilon$ is a small expansion parameter. Using the first formula in Eq. (\[moments\]) and Eq. (\[CE\]), we have $$\sum_j f_j^{(k)}=0, k \geq 1. \label{Neq}$$
By applying Taylor expansion to Eq. (\[LBE\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
D_j f_j + \frac{\Delta t}{2}D_j^2 f_j + \cdots +\frac{\Delta
t^5}{720}D_j^6 f_j+\ldots = -\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t} (f_j -
f_j^{\texttt{eq}}), \label{Taylor}\end{aligned}$$ where $D_j=\partial_t+c_j\partial_x$. Denote $D_{1j}=\partial_{t_1}+c_j\partial_{x_1}$. Similar to Ref. [@YanGW], substituting Eq. (\[CE\]) into Eq. (\[Taylor\]) and treating the terms in order of $\epsilon^k$ separately gives $$\begin{aligned}
f_j^{(0)}=f_j^{\mathrm{eq}},\\
D_{1j} f_j^{(0)} = -\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t}f_j^{(1)},\label{Oeps1}\\
\partial_{t_2} f_j^{(0)} + \tau_2 \Delta t D_{1j}^2 f_j^{(0)}= -\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t} f_j^{(2)},\label{Oeps2}\\
\partial_{t_3} f_j^{(0)} + 2\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_2} D_{1j} f_j^{(0)}+\tau_3\Delta t^2D_{1j}^3 f_j^{(0)}= -\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t}
f_j^{(3)},\label{Oeps3}\\
\partial_{t_4} f_j^{(0)} + 2\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_3} D_{1j} f_j^{(0)}+ 3\tau_3 \Delta t^2\partial_{t_2} D_{1j}^2 f_j^{(0)}
+\tau_2\Delta t \partial_{t_2}^2 f_j^{(0)}+\tau_4\Delta t^3D_{1j}^4 f_j^{(0)}= -\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t} f_j^{(4)},\label{Oeps4}\\
\partial_{t_5} f_j^{(0)} + 2\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_4} D_{1j} f_j^{(0)}+ 3\tau_3 \Delta t^2\partial_{t_2}^2 D_{1j}
f_j^{(0)}+3\tau_3 \Delta t^2\partial_{t_3} D_{1j}^2
f_j^{(0)}\nonumber\\+ 2\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_2} \partial_{t_3}
f_j^{(0)}+ 4\tau_4\Delta t^3\partial_{t_2} D_{1j}^3 f_j^{(0)}+
\tau_5\Delta t^4D_{1j}^5 f_j^{(0)}= -\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t} f_j^{(5)},\label{Oeps5}\\
\partial_{t_6} f_j^{(0)} + 2\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_5} D_{1j} f_j^{(0)}+ 6\tau_3 \Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{t_3}D_{1j} f_j^{(0)}+3\tau_3 \Delta
t^2\partial_{t_4} D_{1j}^2 f_j^{(0)}+ 2\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_2}
\partial_{t_4} f_j^{(0)}+ 6\tau_4\Delta t^3\partial_{t_2}^2 D_{1j}^2
f_j^{(0)} \nonumber\\ +\tau_3 \Delta t^2\partial_{t_2}^3 f_j^{(0)}
+\tau_2 \Delta t\partial_{t_3}^2 f_j^{(0)}+4\tau_4\Delta
t^3\partial_{t_3} D_{1j}^3 f_j^{(0)}+5\tau_5\Delta t^4\partial_{t_2}
D_{1j}^4 f_j^{(0)}+\tau_6\Delta t^5D_{1j}^6 f_j^{(0)}=
-\frac{1}{\tau \Delta t} f_j^{(6)}, \label{Oeps6}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_2=&-&\tau+\frac{1}{2},\nonumber\\
\tau_3=&&\tau^2-\tau+\frac{1}{6},\nonumber\\
\tau_4=&-&\tau^3+\frac{3}{2}\tau^2-\frac{7}{12}\tau+\frac{1}{24},\nonumber\\
\tau_5=&&\tau^4-2\tau^3+\frac{5}{4}\tau^2-\frac{1}{4}\tau+\frac{1}{120},\nonumber\\
\tau_6=&-&\tau^5+\frac{5}{2}\tau^4-\frac{13}{6}\tau^3+\frac{3}{4}\tau^2-\frac{31}{360}\tau+\frac{1}{720}.\label{taus}\end{aligned}$$
Recovery of the Third-Order NPDE
--------------------------------
Since general LB models for the second-order NPDE have been developed [@g; @ShiGuo], we only discuss how to recover NPDEs with orders higher than two in this paper. Summing Eqs. (\[Oeps1\]) and (\[Oeps2\]) over $j$, and using Eqs. (\[moments\]) and (\[Neq\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j D_{1j} f_j^{(0)} =\partial_{t_1} \phi +
\partial_{x_1}\Pi_1(\phi)= 0,\label{Oeps1E}\\
\partial_{t_2} \phi +\tau_2\Delta t
\sum_j D_{1j}^2 f_j^{(0)}= 0. \label{Oeps2E0}\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. (\[moments\]) and (\[Oeps1E\]), and taking $\Pi_{20}$ as in Ref. [@ShiGuo] such that $\partial_{t_1}\Pi_1+\partial_{x_1}\Pi_{20}=0$, that is $\Pi_{20}=\int
\partial_{\phi} \Pi_1
\partial_{\phi} \Pi_1 d\phi$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j D_{1j}^2 f_j^{(0)} =\partial_{t_1}^2 \phi +
2\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}\Pi_1+\partial_{x_1}^2(\Pi_{20}+\beta_2\Pi_2)
=\partial_{x_1}(\partial_{t_1}\Pi_1+\partial_{x_1}\Pi_{20})+\beta_2\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_{2}=\beta_2\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_{2},
\label{Q2}\end{aligned}$$ then it follows from Eqs. (\[Oeps2E0\]) and (\[Q2\]) that $$\partial_{t_2} \phi +\alpha_2\partial
_{x_1}^2 \Pi_2=0, \label{Oeps2E}$$ with $\alpha_2=\Delta t \tau_2 \beta_2$.
Summing Eq. (\[Oeps3\]) over $j$, and using Eqs. (\[moments\]), (\[Neq\]), (\[Oeps1E\]) and (\[Q2\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t_3} \phi +\tau_3\Delta t^2 \sum_j D_{1j}^3 f_j^{(0)}= 0,
\label{Oeps3E0}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j D_{1j}^3 f_j^{(0)} &=& \partial_{t_1}^3 \phi +
3\partial_{t_1}^2\partial_{x_1}\Pi_1+3\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}^2(\Pi_{20}+\beta_2\Pi_2)+\partial_{x_1}^3(\Pi_{30}+\beta_3\Pi_3)
\nonumber\\&=&
2\partial_{t_1}^2\partial_{x_1}\Pi_1+3\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}^2(\Pi_{20}+\beta_2\Pi_2)+\partial_{x_1}^3(\Pi_{30}+\beta_3\Pi_3)
\nonumber\\&=&\partial_{x_1}^2(\partial_{t_1}(\Pi_{20}+3\beta_2\Pi_2)+\partial_{x_1}\Pi_{30})+\beta_3\partial_{x_1}^3\Pi_{3}.
\label{Q3}\end{aligned}$$
If we take $\Pi_{30}$ such that $\partial_{t_1}(\Pi_{20}+3\beta_2\Pi_2)+\partial_{x_1}\Pi_{30}=0$, that is, $$\Pi_{30}=\int\partial_\phi(\Pi_{20}+3\beta_2\Pi_2)\partial_\phi\Pi_1
d\phi=\int\left[(\partial_\phi
\Pi_1)^3+3\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2\partial_\phi\Pi_1\right] d\phi,$$ then from Eqs. (\[Oeps3E0\]) and (\[Q3\]), we have $$\partial_{t_3}\phi+\alpha_3\partial_{x_1}^3\Pi_{3}=0,
\label{Oeps3E}$$ with $\alpha_3=\Delta
t^2\tau_3\beta_3$.
Combining Eqs. (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Oeps2E\]) and (\[Oeps3E\]), the third-order NPDE is exactly recovered to order $O(\epsilon^3)$
$$\partial_t \phi+\partial_x \Pi_1 (\phi)+ \alpha_2 \partial_x^2 \Pi_2 (\phi)+ \alpha_3 \partial_x^3 \Pi_3 (\phi)=0,
\label{NPDE3}$$
with $\alpha_2=\Delta t \tau_2\beta_2,\alpha_3=\Delta t^2
\tau_3\beta_3$.
*Remark 1.* Note that there are no additional assumptions on the present model for the third-order NPDEs with the form of Eq. (\[NPDE\]), and if we select $\Pi_{20}$ and $\Pi_{30}$ above the third-order NPDEs are exactly recovered. The present model with a D1Q4 or D1Q5 lattice can be used to simulate the third-order NPDE (\[NPDE\]) which contains some KdV-type equations.
Recovery of the Fourth-Order NPDE
---------------------------------
Summing Eq. (\[Oeps4\]) over $j$, and using Eqs. (\[moments\]), (\[Neq\]), (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Q2\]) and (\[Q3\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t_4} \phi +3\tau_3\Delta t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2(\beta_2\Pi_2)+\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_2}^2 \phi+\tau_4\Delta t^3 \sum_j D_{1j}^4 f_j^{(0)}= 0.
\label{Oeps4E0}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j D_{1j}^4 f_j^{(0)} &=& \partial_{t_1}^4 \phi
+4\partial_{t_1}^3\partial_{x_1}\Pi_1
+6\partial_{t_1}^2\partial_{x_1}^2(\Pi_{20}+\beta_2\Pi_2)+4\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}^3(\Pi_{30}+\beta_3\Pi_3)+\partial_{x_1}^4(\Pi_{40}+\beta_4\Pi_4)
\nonumber\\&=&3\partial_{t_1}^3\partial_{x_1}\Pi_1
+6\partial_{t_1}^2\partial_{x_1}^2(\Pi_{20}+\beta_2\Pi_2)+4\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}^3(\Pi_{30}+\beta_3\Pi_3)+\partial_{x_1}^4(\Pi_{40}+\beta_4\Pi_4)
\nonumber\\&=&
\partial_{t_1}^2\partial_{x_1}^2(3\Pi_{20}+6\beta_2\Pi_2)+4\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}^3(\Pi_{30}+\beta_3\Pi_3)+\partial_{x_1}^4(\Pi_{40}+\beta_4\Pi_4)
\nonumber\\&=&
\partial_{t_1}^2\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_{20}+\partial_{t_1}\partial_{x_1}^3(2\Pi_{30}+4\beta_3\Pi_3)+\partial_{x_1}^4(\Pi_{40}+\beta_4\Pi_4)
\nonumber\\&=&
\partial_{x_1}^3(\partial_{t_1}(2\Pi_{30}-\tilde{\Pi}_{30}+4\beta_3\Pi_3)+\partial_{x_1}\Pi_{40})+\beta_4\partial_{x_1}^4\Pi_4,
\label{Q4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\Pi}_{30}$ satisfies that $\partial_{t_1}\Pi_{20}+\partial_{x_1}\tilde{\Pi}_{30}=0$, that is, $\tilde{\Pi}_{30}=\int\partial_\phi\Pi_{20}\partial_\phi\Pi_1
d\phi$.
If we take $\Pi_{40}$ such that $\partial_{t_1}(2\Pi_{30}-\tilde{\Pi}_{30}+4\beta_3\Pi_3)+\partial_{x_1}\Pi_{40}=0$, that is, $$\Pi_{40}=\int\partial_\phi(2\Pi_{30}-\tilde{\Pi}_{30}+4\beta_3\Pi_3)\partial_\phi\Pi_1
d\phi=\int\left[(\partial_\phi
\Pi_1)^4+6\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^2+4\beta_3\partial_\phi\Pi_3\partial_\phi\Pi_1\right]
d\phi,$$ then from Eqs. (\[Oeps4E0\]) and (\[Q4\]) we have $$\partial_{t_4}\phi+3\tau_3\beta_2\Delta t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2+\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_2}^2 \phi+\alpha_4\partial_{x_1}^4\Pi_{4}=0,
\label{Oeps4E1}$$ with $\alpha_4=\Delta
t^3\tau_4\beta_4$.
Note that there are two additional terms $3\tau_3\beta_2\Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2$ and $\tau_2\Delta
t\partial_{t_2}^2 \phi$ in Eq. (\[Oeps4E1\]) should be removed when correctly recovering Eq. (\[NPDE\]). From Eq. (\[Oeps2E\]), we have $$3\tau_3\beta_2\Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2+\tau_2\Delta
t\partial_{t_2}^2 \phi=(3\beta_2\tau_3\Delta
t^2-\alpha_2\tau_2\Delta
t)\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2=(3\tau_3-\tau_2^2)\beta_2\Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2.$$
If $\Pi_2=\phi$, then it follows from Eq. (\[Oeps2E\]) that $$3\tau_3\beta_2\Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2+\tau_2\Delta
t\partial_{t_2}^2 \phi=-\tau_2(3\tau_3-\tau_2^2)\beta_2^2\Delta
t^3\partial_{x_1}^4\phi.$$
Combining above expression and Eq. (\[Q4\]), we modify $\Pi_{40}$ as $$\Pi_{40}=\int\left[(\partial_\phi
\Pi_1)^4+6\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^2+4\beta_3\partial_\phi\Pi_3\partial_\phi\Pi_1
+A_{40}\right] d\phi, \label{Pi4}$$ where $A_{40}=\frac{\tau_2(3\tau_3-\tau_2^2)\beta_2^2}{\tau_4}$, and Eq. (\[Oeps4E1\]) becomes
$$\partial_{t_4}\phi+\alpha_4\partial_{x_1}^4\Pi_{4}=0,
\label{Oeps4E}$$
with $\alpha_4=\Delta t^3\tau_4\beta_4$.
Therefore, when $\Pi_2=\phi$, combining Eqs. (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Oeps2E\]), (\[Oeps3E\]) and (\[Oeps4E\]), the fourth-order NPDE is exactly recovered to order $O(\epsilon^4)$ $$\partial_t \phi+\partial_x \Pi_1 (\phi)+ \alpha_2 \partial_x^2 \Pi_2 (\phi)+ \alpha_3 \partial_x^3 \Pi_3 (\phi)+ \alpha_4 \partial_x^4 \Pi_4 (\phi)=0,
\label{NPDE4}$$ with $\alpha_2=\Delta t \tau_2\beta_2,\alpha_3=\Delta t^2
\tau_3\beta_3,\alpha_4=\Delta t^3 \tau_4\beta_4$.
*Remark 2.* If $\alpha_2=0$ or $\Pi_2=0$, then we take $\beta_2=0$ which leads to $A_{40}$=0. For this case, the modification of $\Pi_{40}$ is not needed, and the fourth-order NPDE is exactly recovered.
*Remark 3.* The present model with a D1Q5 lattice can be used to simulate the fourth-order NPDEs with the form as Eq. (\[NPDE\]) which contains some Kuramoto-Sivashinsky-type equations. Recently, following the idea in Ref. [@ChaiShiZheng] two similar LBGK models with order $O(\epsilon^4)$ were given in Refs. [@MaCF1] and [@MaCF2], one for solving a class of three-order NPDEs which were first solved by the LBGK model in Ref. [@ChaiShiZheng], and the other for the generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation. It can be easily found that the models in Refs. [@MaCF1] and [@MaCF2] do not satisfy the moments conditions (\[moments\]) for $m=4$. In fact, the so-called *amending-function* [@MaCF1; @MaCF2] with order $O(\Delta
t^2)$ implies that there is a stronger assumption on the nonlinear terms in EDF of the models. In addition, no comparisons were given to show the *higher-order* LBGK model in Ref. [@MaCF1] superior to some lower-order LBGK models.
Recovery of the Fifth-Order NPDE
--------------------------------
Summing Eq. (\[Oeps5\]) over $j$, and using Eqs. (\[moments\]), (\[Neq\]), (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Q2\]), and (\[Q3\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t_5} \phi +3\tau_3\Delta t^2\partial_{t_3}\partial_{x_1}^2(\beta_2\Pi_2)+2\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_2}\partial_{t_3} \phi
+4\tau_4\Delta t^3\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^3(\beta_3
\Pi_3)+\tau_5\Delta t^4 \sum_j D_{1j}^5 f_j^{(0)}= 0.
\label{Oeps5E0}\end{aligned}$$
Using the similar procedure as Eq. (\[Q4\]), we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j D_{1j}^5 f_j^{(0)} = \beta_5\partial_{x_1}^5\Pi_5, \label{Q5}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\Pi_{50}=\int\left[(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^5+10\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^3+10\beta_3\partial_\phi\Pi_3(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^2
+5\beta_4\partial_\phi\Pi_4\partial_\phi \Pi_1\right] d\phi,
\label{Pi50}$$ and Eq. (\[Oeps5E0\]) becomes $$\partial_{t_5} \phi +3\tau_3\beta_2\Delta t^2\partial_{t_3}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2
+2\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_2}\partial_{t_3}
\phi+4\tau_4\beta_3\Delta t^3\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^3
\Pi_3+\alpha_5\partial_{x_1}^5\Pi_5= 0, \label{Oeps5E1}$$ with $\alpha_5=\Delta t^4\tau_5\beta_5$.
If $\Pi_2=\Pi_3=\phi$, we can modify $\Pi_{50}$ as $$\Pi_{50}=\int\left[(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^5+10\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^3+10\beta_3\partial_\phi\Pi_3(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^2+
5\beta_4\partial_\phi\Pi_4\partial_\phi \Pi_1+A_{50}\right] d\phi,
\label{Pi5}$$ where $A_{50}=\frac{(4\tau_2\tau_4+3\tau_3^2-2\tau_2^2\tau_3)\beta_2\beta_3}{\tau_5}$, and Eq. (\[Oeps5E1\]) becomes
$$\partial_{t_5} \phi +\alpha_5\partial_{x_1}^5\Pi_5= 0. \label{Oeps5E}$$
Combining Eqs. (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Oeps2E\]), (\[Oeps3E\]), (\[Oeps4E\]) and (\[Oeps5E\]), the fifth-order NPDE is exactly recovered to order $O(\epsilon^5)$
$$\partial_t \phi+\partial_x \Pi_1 (\phi)+ \sum_{k=2}^5\alpha_k \partial_x^k \Pi_k (\phi)=0,
\label{NPDE5}$$
with $\alpha_k=\Delta t^{k-1} \tau_k\beta_k, k=2,\ldots,5$.
*Remark 4.* If $\alpha_2=0$ or $\alpha_3=0$, then $\beta_2=0$ or $\beta_3=0$ which leads to $A_{50}=0$. For this case, the modification of $\Pi_{50}$ is not needed, and the fifth-order NPDE is exactly recovered. The present model with a D1Q6 or D1Q7 lattice can be used to simulate the fifth-order NPDE (\[NPDE\]) ($m=5$) which contains some Kawahara-like equations.
Recovery of the Sixth-Order NPDE
--------------------------------
Summing Eq. (\[Oeps6\]) over $j$, and using Eqs. (\[moments\]), (\[Neq\]), (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Q2\]), (\[Q3\]), and (\[Q4\]), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t_6} \phi +3\tau_3\Delta t^2\partial_{t_4}\partial_{x_1}^2(\beta_2\Pi_2)+2\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_2}\partial_{t_4} \phi+
6\tau_4\Delta
t^3\partial_{t_2}^2\partial_{x_1}^2(\beta_2\Pi_2)+\tau_3\Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}^3 \phi+\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_3}^2\phi
\nonumber\\+4\tau_4 \Delta t^3
\partial_{t_3}\partial_{x_1}^3(\beta_3\Pi_3)+5\tau_5 \Delta t^4
\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^4(\beta_4\Pi_4) +\tau_6\Delta t^5
\sum_j D_{1j}^6 f_j^{(0)}= 0. \label{Oeps6E0}\end{aligned}$$
Using the similar procedure as Eq. (\[Q4\]), we can obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j D_{1j}^6 f_j^{(0)} = \beta_6\partial_{x_1}^6\Pi_6, \label{Q6}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\Pi_{60}=\int\left[(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^6+15\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^4+20\beta_3\partial_\phi\Pi_3(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^3
+15\beta_4\partial_\phi\Pi_4(\partial_\phi
\Pi_1)^2+6\beta_5\partial_\phi\Pi_{5}\partial_\phi\Pi_1\right]
d\phi, \label{Pi60}$$ and Eq. (\[Oeps6E0\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{t_6} \phi +3\tau_3\beta_2\Delta t^2\partial_{t_4}\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2+2\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_2}\partial_{t_4} \phi+
6\tau_4\beta_2\Delta
t^3\partial_{t_2}^2\partial_{x_1}^2\Pi_2+\tau_3\Delta
t^2\partial_{t_2}^3 \phi+\tau_2\Delta t\partial_{t_3}^2\phi
\nonumber\\+4\tau_4 \beta_3\Delta t^3
\partial_{t_3}\partial_{x_1}^3\Pi_3+5\tau_5\beta_4 \Delta t^4
\partial_{t_2}\partial_{x_1}^4\Pi_4 +\alpha_6 \partial_{x_1}^6 \Pi_6= 0, \label{Oeps6E1}\end{aligned}$$ with $\alpha_6=\Delta t^5\tau_6\beta_6$.
If $\Pi_2=\Pi_3=\Pi_4=\phi$, we can modify $\Pi_{60}$ as $$\Pi_{60}=\int\left[(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^6+15\beta_2\partial_\phi\Pi_2(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^4+20\beta_3\partial_\phi\Pi_3(\partial_\phi\Pi_1)^3
+15\beta_4\partial_\phi\Pi_4(\partial_\phi
\Pi_1)^2+6\beta_5\partial_\phi\Pi_{5}\partial_\phi
\Pi_1+A_{60}\right] d\phi, \label{Pi6}$$ where $A_{60}=\frac{(5\tau_2\tau_5+3\tau_3\tau_4-2\tau_2^2\tau_4)\beta_2\beta_4+(4\tau_4-\tau_2\tau_3)\tau_3\beta_3^2
+(\tau_2\tau_3-6\tau_4)\tau_2^2\beta_2^3}{\tau_6}$, and Eq. (\[Oeps6E1\]) becomes
$$\partial_{t_6} \phi +\alpha_6\partial_{x_1}^6\Pi_6= 0. \label{Oeps6E}$$
Combining Eqs. (\[Oeps1E\]), (\[Oeps2E\]), (\[Oeps3E\]), (\[Oeps4E\]), (\[Oeps5E\]), and (\[Oeps6E\]) the sixth-order NPDE is exactly recovered to order $O(\epsilon^6)$
$$\partial_t \phi+\partial_x \Pi_1 (\phi)+ \sum_{k=2}^6\alpha_k \partial_x^k \Pi_k (\phi)=0,
\label{NPDE6}$$
with $\alpha_k=\Delta t^{k-1} \tau_k\beta_k, k=2,\ldots,6$.
*Remark 5.* If $\alpha_2=0$ and $\Pi_3=\phi$, then the sixth-order NPDE is exactly recovered. The present model with a D1Q7 lattice can be used to simulate six-order NPDE (\[NPDE\]) ($m=6$) which also contains some Kawahara-like equations.
Equilibrium Distribution Functions and Auxiliary Moments
========================================================
For a given NPDE of order $m$, $\Pi_{k0}$ can be obtained from the related formula in above section ($2\leq k\leq m$), and the number of discrete velocity directions is at least equal to $m+1$. So we can use a D1Q5 LBGK model to solve the NPDE of order less than or equal to 4, and a D1Q7 one to solve the NPDE of order less than or equal to 6. A D1Q4 or D1Q6 one without the rest velocity can also be used to the NPDE of order 3 or 5. In this section we give only the EDFs and AMs for the LBGK models with D1Q5 and D1Q7 lattice, respectively.
Equilibrium Distribution Functions for LBGK Model with D1Q5 Lattice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Denoting $\bar{\Pi}_0=\phi,\bar{\Pi}_1=\Pi_1/c,\bar{\Pi}_k=(\Pi_{k0}+\beta_k\Pi_k)/c^k,k=2,3,4$, the moments conditions (\[moments\]) for $m=4$ are rewriten as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j e_j^k
f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}=\bar{\Pi}_k,k=0,\ldots,4 \label{moments5}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4\}=\{0,1,-1,2,-2\}$. Let
$$\vec{\mathbf{\Pi}}=[\bar{\Pi}_0,\bar{\Pi}_1,\ldots,\bar{\Pi}_4]^{T},
\vec{\mathbf{f}}^{\mathrm{eq}}=[f_0^{\mathrm{eq}},f_1^{\mathrm{eq}},\ldots,f_4^{\mathrm{eq}}]^{T}.$$
From Eq. (\[moments5\]), we have
$$\mathbf{M}_5 \vec{\mathbf{f}}^{\mathrm{eq}}=\vec{\Pi},$$
where $$\mathbf{M}_5=\left[
\begin{array} {rrrrr}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 2 & -2 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 4 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 8 & -8 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 16 & 16 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$
It is easy to find the inverse of $\mathbf{M}_5$
$$\mathbf{M}_5^{-1}=\frac{1}{24}\left[
\begin{array} {rrrrr}
24 & 0 & -30 & 0 & 6 \\
0 & 16 & 16 & -4 & -4 \\
0 & -16 & 16 & 4 & -4 \\
0 & -2 & -1 & 2 & 1 \\
0 & 2 & -1 & -2 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$
thus $$\vec{\mathbf{f}}^{\mathrm{eq}}=\mathbf{M}_5^{-1}\vec{\Pi}.$$ Therefore, the EDFs of the LBGK model with D1Q5 lattice can be obtained as follows $$\begin{aligned}
f_0^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[4\phi-5\bar{\Pi}_2+\bar{\Pi}_4 \right]/4,\nonumber\\
f_1^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[4(\bar{\Pi}_1+\bar{\Pi}_2)-\bar{\Pi}_3-\bar{\Pi}_4\right]/6,\nonumber\\
f_2^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[4(-\bar{\Pi}_1+\bar{\Pi}_2)+\bar{\Pi}_3-\bar{\Pi}_4\right]/6,\nonumber\\
f_3^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[-2(\bar{\Pi}_1-\bar{\Pi}_3)-\bar{\Pi}_2+\bar{\Pi}_4\right]/24,\nonumber\\
f_4^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[2(\bar{\Pi}_1-\bar{\Pi}_3)-\bar{\Pi}_2+\bar{\Pi}_4\right]/24,\label{EDF5}.\end{aligned}$$
Equilibrium Distribution Functions for LBGK with D1Q7 Lattice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, denoting $\bar{\Pi}_0=\phi,\bar{\Pi}_1=\Pi_1/c,\bar{\Pi}_k=(\Pi_{k0}+\beta_k\Pi_k)/c^k,k=2,\ldots,6$, the moments conditions (\[moments\]) for $m=6$ are rewriten as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_j e_j^k
f_j^{\mathrm{eq}}=\bar{\Pi}_k,k=0,\ldots,6 \label{moments7}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4,e_5,e_6\}=\{0,1,-1,2,-2,3,-3\}$. Let $$\vec{\mathbf{\Pi}}=[\bar{\Pi}_0,\bar{\Pi}_1,\ldots,\bar{\Pi}_6]^{T},
\vec{\mathbf{f}}^{\mathrm{eq}}=[f_0^{\mathrm{eq}},f_1^{\mathrm{eq}},\ldots,f_6^{\mathrm{eq}}]^{T}.$$ From Eq. (\[moments7\]), we have $$\mathbf{M}_7 \vec{\mathbf{f}}^{\mathrm{eq}}=\vec{\Pi},$$ where $$\mathbf{M}_7=\left[
\begin{array} {rrrrrrr}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 2 & -2 & 3 & -3 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 4 & 9 & 9 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 8 & -8 & 27 & -27 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 16 & 16 & 81 & 81 \\
0 & 1 & -1 & 32 & -32 & 243 & -243 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 64 & 64 & 729 & 729 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$
It is easy to find the inverse of $\mathbf{M}_7$
$$\mathbf{M}_7^{-1}=\frac{1}{720}\left[
\begin{array} {rrrrrrr}
720 & 0 & -980 & 0 & 280 & 0 & -20 \\
0 & 540 & 540 & -195 & -195 & 15 & 15 \\
0 & -540 & 540 & 195 & -195 & -15 & 15 \\
0 & -108 & -54 & 120 & 60 & -12 & -6 \\
0 & 108 & -54 & -120 & 60 & 12 & -6 \\
0 & 12 & 4 & -15 & -5 & 3 & 1 \\
0 & -12 & 4 & 15 & -5 & -3 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right],$$
thus $$\vec{\mathbf{f}}^{\mathrm{eq}}=\mathbf{M}_7^{-1}\vec{\Pi}.$$ Therefore, the EDFs of the LBGK model with D1Q7 lattice can be obtained as follows $$\begin{aligned}
f_0^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[36\phi-49\bar{\Pi}_2+14\bar{\Pi}_4-\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/36,\nonumber\\
f_1^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[36(\bar{\Pi}_1+\bar{\Pi}_2)-13(\bar{\Pi}_3+\bar{\Pi}_4)+\bar{\Pi}_5+\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/48,\nonumber\\
f_2^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[36(-\bar{\Pi}_1+\bar{\Pi}_2)+13(\bar{\Pi}_3-\bar{\Pi}_4)-\bar{\Pi}_5+\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/48,\nonumber\\
f_3^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[-18\bar{\Pi}_1-9\bar{\Pi}_2+20\bar{\Pi}_3+10\bar{\Pi}_4-2\bar{\Pi}_5-\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/120,\nonumber\\
f_4^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[ 18\bar{\Pi}_1-9\bar{\Pi}_2-20\bar{\Pi}_3+10\bar{\Pi}_4+2\bar{\Pi}_5-\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/120,\nonumber\\
f_5^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[ 12\bar{\Pi}_1+4\bar{\Pi}_2-15\bar{\Pi}_3- 5\bar{\Pi}_4+3\bar{\Pi}_5+\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/720,\nonumber\\
f_6^{\mathrm{eq}}&=&\left[-12\bar{\Pi}_1+4\bar{\Pi}_2+15\bar{\Pi}_3-
5\bar{\Pi}_4-3\bar{\Pi}_5+\bar{\Pi}_6\right]/720, \label{EDF7}\end{aligned}$$
Auxiliary Moments
-----------------
For a given NPDE of order $m$, $\Pi_k (1\leq k \leq m)$ are known, and $\Pi_{k0} (2\leq k \leq m)$ can be obtained by using the formula in Sec. II., then we can obtain the EDFs of related LBGK model with suitable lattice, and the LBGK model is derived. For example, the EDFs of D1Q5 or D1Q7 LBGK model can be computed by Eq. (\[EDF5\]), or Eq. (\[EDF7\]). In simulations in the present work, two classes of concrete NPDEs are considered, and the related AMs of these NPDEs are given below.
\(1) Sixth-order NPDEs
$$u_t + \alpha u u_x + \beta u^n u_x + \sum_{k=2}^6\alpha_k
\partial_x^k u=0, \label{Eq_order6}$$
where $\alpha, \beta, n$ and $\alpha_k (2\leq k\leq 6)$ are constants, and $n\geq 0$. Equation (\[Eq\_order6\]) contains many well-known equations, such as the KdV-Burgers equation, (m)KdV equation, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, Kawahara equation, and some of their extensions.
We can use a LBGK model with D1Q7 lattice to solve Eq. (\[Eq\_order6\]), and the first seven moments are needed. Since $\Pi_1=\frac{\alpha}{2}u^2+\frac{\beta}{n+1}u^{n+1},\Pi_k=u,k\geq
2$, we have $\Pi'_1=\alpha u+\beta u^n,\Pi'_k=1,k\geq 2$. Equation (\[Eq\_order6\]) can be exactly recovered by using the LBGK model proposed above, and the exact expressions of AM functions $\Pi_{k0}
(2\leq k\leq 6)$ can be obtained as follows by using the formula in Sec. II.
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{20}&=&\int (\Pi'_1)^2 du,\nonumber\\
\Pi_{30}&=&\int \left[(\Pi'_1)^3+3\beta_2\Pi'_2\Pi'_1 \right]du=\int
(\Pi'_1)^3 du+3\beta_2 \Pi_1,\nonumber\\
\Pi_{40}&=&\int
\left[(\Pi'_1)^4+6\beta_2\Pi'_2(\Pi'_1)^2+4\beta_3\Pi'_3\Pi'_1+A_{40}
\right]du=\int(\Pi'_1)^4 du
+6\beta_2\Pi_{20}+4\beta_3\Pi_1+A_{40}u ,\nonumber\\
\Pi_{50}&=&\int
\left[(\Pi'_1)^5+10\beta_2\Pi'_2(\Pi'_1)^3+10\beta_3\Pi'_3(\Pi'_1)^2+5\beta_4\Pi'_4\Pi'_1+A_{50}
\right]du\nonumber\\&=&\int\left[(\Pi'_1)^5
+10\beta_2(\Pi'_1)^3 \right]du +10\beta_3\Pi_{20}+5\beta_4\Pi_1+A_{50}u ,\nonumber\\
\Pi_{60}&=&\int
\left[(\Pi'_1)^6+15\beta_2\Pi'_2(\Pi'_1)^4+20\beta_3\Pi'_3(\Pi'_1)^3+15\beta_4\Pi'_4(\Pi'_1)^2+6\beta_5\Pi'_5\Pi'_1+A_{60}
\right]du\nonumber\\&=&\int\left[(\Pi'_1)^6+15\beta_2(\Pi'_1)^4+20\beta_3(\Pi'_1)^3
\right]du +15\beta_4\Pi_{20}+6\beta_5\Pi_1+A_{60}u ,\label{Pi30t60}\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_k&=&\Delta t^{k-1}\tau_k \beta_k, 2\leq k\leq 6,\nonumber\\
A_{40}&=&\frac{\tau_2(3\tau_3-\tau_2^2)\beta_2^2}{\tau_4},\label{A40}\nonumber\\
A_{50}&=&\frac{(4\tau_2\tau_4+3\tau_3^2-2\tau_2^2\tau_3)\beta_2\beta_3}{\tau_5},\label{A50}\nonumber\\
A_{60}&=&\frac{(5\tau_2\tau_5+3\tau_3\tau_4-2\tau_2^2\tau_4)\beta_2\beta_4+(4\tau_4-\tau_2\tau_3)\tau_3\beta_3^2
+(\tau_2\tau_3-6\tau_4)\tau_2^2\beta_2^3}{\tau_6},\label{A60}\end{aligned}$$ and it is easily obtained that $$\int(\Pi'_1)^k du= \sum_{j=0}^{k} \int C_k^j (\alpha u)^{k-j}(\beta u^n)^{j} du
=u\left[\sum_{j=0}^{k}\frac{1}{jn+k+1-j} C_k^j (\alpha u)^{k-j}(\beta u^n)^{j}\right],2\leq k \leq 6.\label{intPi1k}\\$$ For $k=2, 3, 4$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int(\Pi'_1)^2 du &=& u\left[\frac{1}{3}(\alpha u)^2+\frac{2}{n+2}(\alpha u)(\beta u^n)+\frac{1}{2n+1}(\beta u^n)^2\right],\label{intPi12}\nonumber\\
\int(\Pi'_1)^3 du &=& u\left[\frac{1}{4}(\alpha u)^3+\frac{3}{n+3}(\alpha u)^2(\beta u^n)+\frac{3}{2n+2}(\alpha u)(\beta u^n)^2+\frac{1}{3n+1}(\beta u^n)^3\right],\label{intPi13}\nonumber\\
\int(\Pi'_1)^4 du &=& u\left[\frac{1}{5}(\alpha
u)^4+\frac{4}{n+4}(\alpha u)^3(\beta u^n)+\frac{6}{2n+3}(\alpha
u)^2(\beta u^n)^2 +\frac{4}{3n+2}(\alpha u)(\beta
u^n)^3+\frac{1}{4n+1}(\beta u^n)^4\right].\label{intPi14}\end{aligned}$$
\(2) Third-order NPDEs
$$u_t + \alpha u u_x + \beta u^n u_x + \alpha_2 (u^p)_{xx} + \alpha_3
(u^q)_{xxx}=0, \label{Eq_order3}$$
where $\alpha, \beta$, $\alpha_2$, $\alpha_3$, $n$, $p$ and $q$ are constants, and $n\geq 0$, $p\geq 1$, and $q\geq 1$. Eq. (\[Eq\_order3\]) contains also many well-known equations, such as the KdV-Burgers equation, (m)KdV equation, and K($p,q$) equation.
We can use a LBGK model with D1Q4 or D1Q5 lattice to solve Eq. (\[Eq\_order3\]), and if the C-E expansion to order $O(\epsilon^3)$ is used, we need only to give the first four moments, while for the C-E expansion to order $O(\epsilon^4)$, the first five moments are needed. Since $\Pi_1=\frac{\alpha}{2}u^2+\frac{\beta}{n+1}u^{n+1},\Pi_2=u^p$ and $\Pi_3=u^q$, we can exactly recover Eq. (\[Eq\_order3\]) by using the LBGK model proposed above, and the exact expressions of AM functions $\Pi_{20}$, $\Pi_{30}$ and $\Pi_{40}$ can be obtained as follows by using the formula in Sec. II.
$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{20}&=&\int (\Pi'_1)^2 du,\nonumber\\
\Pi_{30}&=&\int \left[(\Pi'_1)^3+3\beta_2\Pi'_2\Pi'_1 \right]du=\int
\left[(\Pi'_1)^3+3\beta_2 p u^{p-1}(\alpha u+\beta u^n)
\right]du\nonumber\\&=& \int
(\Pi'_1)^3 du+3\beta_2 p u^p\left[\frac{\alpha u}{p+1}+\frac{\beta u^n}{p+n}\right],\nonumber\\
\Pi_{40}&=&\int
\left[(\Pi'_1)^4+6\beta_2\Pi'_2(\Pi'_1)^2+4\beta_3\Pi'_3\Pi'_1+A_{40}
\right]du\nonumber\\&=&\int(\Pi'_1)^4 du +6\beta_2 p
u^p\left[\frac{(\alpha u)^2}{p+2}+\frac{2(\alpha u)(\beta
u^n)}{p+n+1}+\frac{(\beta u^n)^2}{p+2n}\right] +4\beta_3 q
u^q\left[\frac{\alpha u}{q+1}+\frac{\beta u^n}{q+n}\right]+
A_{40}u ,\label{3Pi20t40}\end{aligned}$$
where $A_{40}$, $\int (\Pi'_1)^2 du$, $\int (\Pi'_1)^3 du$, and $\int (\Pi'_1)^4 du$ can be computed by Eqs. (\[A40\]) and (\[intPi14\]).
Simulation Results
==================
To test the LBGK model proposed above, three classes of NPDEs with exact solutions are simulated, including four Kuramoto-Sivashinsky-like equations, three Kawahara-like equations and two KdV-like equations. In all simulations, if not specified, we use the nonequilibrium extrapolation scheme proposed by Guo [*et al.*]{} [@gzs] to treat the exact boundary condition, and the initial and boundary conditions of the test problems with analytical solutions are determined by their analytical solutions. The D1Q5 and D1Q7 LBGK models are used to simulate the test problems. The following global relative error is used to measure the accuracy: $$E=\frac{\sum_{j}
|\phi(\mathbf{x}_j,t)-\phi^*(\mathbf{x}_j,t)|}{\sum_{j}
|\phi^*(\mathbf{x}_j,t)|}\,,$$ where $\phi$ and $\phi^*$ are the numerical solution and analytical one, respectively, and the summation is taken over all grid points.
The first four test problems are the fourth-order Kuramoto-Sivashinsky-type equations, and three of them were simulated by the LBGK model in Ref. [@MaCF2]. We use the D1Q5 LBGK model to simulate them and compare the proposed model with that in Ref. [@MaCF2].
*Example 4.1.* The Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation [@XuShu] $$u_t + uu_x + u_{xx} + u_{xxxx} =0\label{KSE1},$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)= b+
\frac{15}{19}\sqrt{\frac{11}{19}}\left(-9\tanh(k(x-bt-x_0))+11\tanh^3(k(x-bt-x_0))\right),\label{SKSE1}\end{aligned}$$ where $b, k, x_0$ are parameters.
In simulations, we set $b=5, k=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{11}{19}}$, and $x_0=-12$ as in Ref. [@MaCF2] for comparison. The simulation is conducted in $[-30,30]$ with $\Delta x=0.1, \Delta t=0.01, 0.001$, and $0.0001$, corresponding to $c=10, 100$, and 1000, respectively. The errors are listed in Table I for different times, where $\tau_{opt}$ is the optimal one corresponding to the minimal error. We also present the regular shock profile wave propagation for Eq. (\[KSE1\]) with Eq. (\[SKSE1\]) in Fig. 1. From the table it can be seen that the errors of our model are smaller than those of the model in Ref. [@MaCF2], and the accuracy of our model for $\Delta t=0.01$ is much better than that of the model in Ref. [@MaCF2]. When $\Delta t$ is small enough, the effect of truncated errors of the model in Ref. [@MaCF2] can be ignored, thus the difference between the present model and that in Ref. [@MaCF2] is less.
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Present Model Model in Ref. [@MaCF2]
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,5.99)$ $(100,1.989)$ $(1000,1.27)$ $(10,3.346)$ $(100,1.998)$ $(1000,1.2705)$
(1) $9.6476\times 10^{-3}$ $2.9926\times 10^{-3}$ $6.0570\times 10^{-4}$ $2.6571\times 10^{-2}$ $3.2655\times 10^{-3}$ $6.5581\times 10^{-4}$
(2) $1.2962\times 10^{-2}$ $4.2992\times 10^{-3}$ $8.7427\times 10^{-4}$ $3.7065\times 10^{-2}$ $5.3215\times 10^{-3}$ $1.1121\times 10^{-3}$
(3) $1.7247\times 10^{-2}$ $5.5078\times 10^{-3}$ $1.1185\times 10^{-3}$ $5.0615\times 10^{-2}$ $7.1611\times 10^{-3}$ $1.5426\times 10^{-3}$
(4) $2.2122\times 10^{-2}$ $6.8650\times 10^{-3}$ $1.3738\times 10^{-3}$ $8.0887\times 10^{-2}$ $8.9284\times 10^{-3}$ $1.9441\times 10^{-3}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
{width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"}
*Example 4.2.* The Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation [@XuShu] $$u_t + uu_x - u_{xx} + u_{xxxx} =0,\label{KSE2}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)= b+
\frac{15}{19\sqrt{19}}\left(-3\tanh(k(x-bt-x_0))+\tanh^3(k(x-bt-x_0))\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $b, k, x_0$ are parameters.
In simulations, we set $b=5, k=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{19}}$, and $x_0=-25$ as in Ref. [@MaCF2] for comparison. The simulation is conducted in $[-50,50]$ with $\Delta x=0.1, \Delta t=0.01, 0.001$ and $0.0001$. The errors are listed in Table II. for different times, and the regular shock profile wave propagation for Eq. (\[KSE2\]) is shown in Fig. 2. From the table it can be seen that the errors of our model are much smaller than those of the model in Ref. [@MaCF2].
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Present Model Model in Ref. [@MaCF2]
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,4.569)$ $(100,2.076)$ $(1000,1.277)$ $(10,4.0)$ $(100,2.063)$ $(1000,1.277)$
(1) $2.8486\times 10^{-5}$ $1.5343\times 10^{-6}$ $2.7448\times 10^{-7}$ $1.2313\times 10^{-3}$ $5.6085\times 10^{-5}$ $7.6750\times 10^{-6}$
(2) $3.1775\times 10^{-5}$ $1.6534\times 10^{-6}$ $2.9535\times 10^{-7}$ $1.5818\times 10^{-3}$ $6.9643\times 10^{-5}$ $9.3058\times 10^{-6}$
(3) $3.3937\times 10^{-5}$ $1.7189\times 10^{-6}$ $3.0741\times 10^{-7}$ $1.9018\times 10^{-3}$ $8.1373\times 10^{-5}$ $1.0640\times 10^{-5}$
(4) $3.4934\times 10^{-5}$ $1.8264\times 10^{-6}$ $4.2625\times 10^{-7}$ $2.1886\times 10^{-3}$ $9.1494\times 10^{-5}$ $1.1661\times 10^{-5}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
{width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"}
*Example 4.3.* The generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation [@XuShu] $$u_t + uu_x + u_{xx} +\sigma u_{xxx} + u_{xxxx} =0,\label{GKSE1}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)=
b+9-15\left(\tanh(k(x-bt-x_0))+\tanh^2(k(x-bt-x_0))-\tanh^3(k(x-bt-x_0))\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma, b, k, x_0$ are parameters.
In simulations, we set $\sigma=4, b=6, k=\frac{1}{2}$, and $x_0=-10$ as in Ref. [@MaCF2] for comparison. The simulation is performed in $[-30,30]$ with $\Delta x=0.1, \Delta t=0.01, 0.001$ and $0.0001$. Table III gives the errors of numerical solution at different times. We also present the solitary wave propagation for Eq. (\[GKSE1\]) is shown in Fig. 3. From the table it can be seen that the errors of our model for the smallest $\Delta t$ are larger than those of the model in Ref. [@MaCF2], while the accuracy and stability of the present model for larger $\Delta t$ are better than those of the model in Ref. [@MaCF2]. It is noted that the accuracy of both models for Eq. (\[GKSE1\]) is much larger than for Eqs. (\[KSE1\]) and (\[KSE2\]).
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Present Model Model in Ref. [@MaCF2]
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,7.082)$ $(100,9.89)$ $(1000,1.267)$ $(10,3.47)$ $(100,1.975)$ $(1000,1.267486)$
(1) $4.1701\times 10^{-1}$ $5.2017\times 10^{-2}$ $5.1020\times 10^{-2}$ $9.7859\times 10^{-1}$ $1.3802\times 10^{-1}$ $2.6054\times 10^{-2}$
(2) $1.2376\times 10^{-0}$ $6.9440\times 10^{-2}$ $5.6700\times 10^{-2}$ - $1.4077\times 10^{-1}$ $2.8329\times 10^{-2}$
(3) $2.5757\times 10^{-0}$ $9.7967\times 10^{-2}$ $5.1337\times 10^{-2}$ - $1.7050\times 10^{-1}$ $2.6802\times 10^{-2}$
(4) $3.4682\times 10^{-0}$ $1.6776\times 10^{-1}$ $6.5639\times 10^{-2}$ - $3.1488\times 10^{-1}$ $3.5225\times 10^{-2}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
{width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"}
*Example 4.4.* The generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation [@zhangzhang] $$u_t + 3u^3u_x + a u_{xx} -b u_{xxx} + u_{xxxx} =0,\label{GKSE2}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)=
\frac{\sqrt{3}b}{2\sqrt{2}}\tanh\left[\frac{\sqrt{3}b}{4\sqrt{2}}\left(x-x_0-\frac{29b^3}{144}t\right)+\frac{C}{2}\right]+\frac{b}{6},\end{aligned}$$ where $a, b, C$ are constants.
In simulations, we set $a=1, b=1$, and $C=1$. The simulation is performed in $[-30,30]$ with $x_0=0, \Delta x=0.1, \Delta t=0.01,
0.001$ and $0.0001$, and both D1Q5 and D1Q7 LBGK models are used. Table IV gives the errors of numerical solution at different times, and the regular shock profile wave propagation for Eq. (\[GKSE2\]) is shown in Fig. 4. From the table It found that the numerical solutions are agree well with the analytic ones, and the accuracy of D1q7 model is much better than that of D1Q5 one for smaller $\Delta
t$.
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
D1Q5 Model D1Q7 Model
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,3.32)$ $(100,2.0)$ $(1000,1.27)$ $(10,4.14)$ $(100,2.31)$ $(1000,1.40)$
(1) $1.4921\times 10^{-3}$ $3.7819\times 10^{-4}$ $7.5629\times 10^{-5}$ $1.3234\times 10^{-3}$ $8.7735\times 10^{-5}$ $4.2032\times 10^{-6}$
(2) $3.1612\times 10^{-3}$ $7.8311\times 10^{-4}$ $1.5509\times 10^{-4}$ $2.6053\times 10^{-3}$ $1.5272\times 10^{-4}$ $6.9690\times 10^{-6}$
(3) $5.0988\times 10^{-3}$ $1.2215\times 10^{-3}$ $2.4006\times 10^{-4}$ $4.1570\times 10^{-3}$ $2.2473\times 10^{-4}$ $1.0021\times 10^{-5}$
(4) $7.2939\times 10^{-3}$ $1.6930\times 10^{-3}$ $3.3080\times 10^{-4}$ $6.0013\times 10^{-3}$ $3.0868\times 10^{-4}$ $1.3604\times 10^{-5}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
{width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"} {width="6.5cm" height="4.5cm"}
The next three test problems are the fifth-order Kawahara-like equations. We use the D1Q7 LBGK model to simulate them. Since the first six constraints on moments are enough for exactly recovering the fifth-order NPDEs in C-E expansion, it is interesting to compare the present *exact* model with C-E expansion to order $O(\epsilon^6)$ with one to order $O(\epsilon^5)$. We denote scheme 1 and scheme 2 for the model of order $O(\epsilon^6)$ and that of order $O(\epsilon^5) $, respectively. For simplification, we only take $\bar{\Pi}_6=0$ in Eq. (\[EDF7\]) for scheme 2 in simulations.
*Example 4.5.* The Kawahara equation [@Wazwaz1] $$u_t + \alpha u u_x + \beta u_{xxx} + \gamma u_{xxxxx}
=0,\label{KAE}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
%u(x,t)=A\left(11-70\tanh^2\left[B(x-Ct)\right]+35\tanh^4\left[B(x-Ct)\right]\right),
u(x,t)=A\mathrm{sech}^4[B(x-Ct)],\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma $ are constants, and $A=-\frac{105\beta^2}{169\alpha\gamma},B=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{-\frac{\beta}{13\gamma}},C=-\frac{36\beta^2}{169\gamma}$.
In simulations, we set $ \alpha=\beta=-\gamma=1 $. The simulation is conducted in $[-30,30]$ with $\Delta x=0.1, \Delta t=0.01, 0.001$ and $0.0001$. Table V. gives the errors of numerical solution for different times. From the table it is found that there is little difference between accuracy of two schemes, which implies that the accuracy of higher-order model may not be better than that of lower-order one.
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Scheme l Scheme 2
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,3.37)$ $(100,2.53)$ $(1000,2.02)$ $(10,3.35)$ $(100,2.55)$ $(1000,2.04)$
(1) $6.0101\times 10^{-3}$ $2.6928\times 10^{-3}$ $1.5361\times 10^{-3}$ $5.9364\times 10^{-3}$ $2.7372\times 10^{-3}$ $1.5750\times 10^{-3}$
(2) $1.0877\times 10^{-2}$ $5.2590\times 10^{-3}$ $3.0032\times 10^{-3}$ $1.0698\times 10^{-2}$ $5.3477\times 10^{-3}$ $3.0827\times 10^{-3}$
(3) $1.5605\times 10^{-2}$ $7.5403\times 10^{-3}$ $4.2350\times 10^{-3}$ $1.5369\times 10^{-2}$ $7.6869\times 10^{-3}$ $4.3599\times 10^{-3}$
(4) $2.0197\times 10^{-2}$ $9.4960\times 10^{-3}$ $5.3288\times 10^{-3}$ $2.0035\times 10^{-2}$ $9.7447\times 10^{-3}$ $5.4829\times 10^{-3}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
*Example 4.6.* The modified Kawahara equation [@Wazwaz2] $$u_t + a u^2 u_x + b u_{xxx} - k u_{xxxxx} =0,\label{MKAE}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)= A\mathrm{sech}^2\left[B\left(x-Ct\right)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $a, b, k$ are constants, and $A=-\frac{3b}{\sqrt{10ak}},B=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{b}{5k}},C=\frac{4b^2}{25k}$.
In simulations, we set $a=b=k=1$. The simulation is conducted in $[-30,30]$ with $\Delta x=0.1, \Delta t=0.01, 0.001$ and $0.0001$. Table VI. gives the errors of numerical solution for different times. From the table it is also found that there is little difference between accuracy of two schemes.
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Scheme l Scheme 2
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,4.54)$ $(100,2.53)$ $(1000,2.04)$ $(10,4.04)$ $(100,2.56)$ $(1000,2.04)$
(1) $1.9295\times 10^{-2}$ $7.1698\times 10^{-3}$ $4.4255\times 10^{-3}$ $1.6850\times 10^{-2}$ $7.3109\times 10^{-3}$ $4.4254\times 10^{-3}$
(2) $3.8260\times 10^{-2}$ $1.3214\times 10^{-2}$ $7.7342\times 10^{-3}$ $3.2649\times 10^{-2}$ $1.3549\times 10^{-2}$ $7.7745\times 10^{-3}$
(3) $5.7488\times 10^{-2}$ $1.7575\times 10^{-2}$ $1.0046\times 10^{-2}$ $4.7022\times 10^{-2}$ $1.8137\times 10^{-2}$ $1.0211\times 10^{-2}$
(4) $7.4409\times 10^{-2}$ $2.1032\times 10^{-2}$ $1.1886\times 10^{-2}$ $6.0945\times 10^{-2}$ $2.2855\times 10^{-2}$ $1.2424\times 10^{-2}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
*Example 4.7.* The Korteweg-de Vries-Kawahara equation [@Ceballos] $$u_t + uu_x + u_x + u_{xxx} - u_{xxxxx} =0,\label{KdVK}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)=
\frac{105}{169}\mathrm{sech}^4\left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{13}}(x-\frac{205}{169}t-x_0)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $x_0$ is a parameter.
In simulations, we set $x_0=20$ as in Ref. [@Ceballos]. The simulation is conducted in $[0,200]$ with $\Delta x=0.1, \Delta
t=0.01, 0.001$ and $0.0001$. Table VII. gives the errors of numerical solution for different times. It can be found that the numerical solutions obtained by LBGK model are in good agreement with the analytic ones. From the table it is still found that there is little difference between accuracy of two schemes.
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
Scheme l Scheme 2
$(c,\tau_{opt})$ $(10,5.01)$ $(100,3.31)$ $(1000,2.28)$ $(10,4.64)$ $(100,2.95)$ $(1000,2.18)$
(1) $9.8169\times 10^{-3}$ $4.6248\times 10^{-3}$ $2.0662\times 10^{-3}$ $9.0008\times 10^{-3}$ $3.6976\times 10^{-3}$ $1.8557\times 10^{-3}$
(2) $1.8335\times 10^{-2}$ $8.9484\times 10^{-3}$ $4.0584\times 10^{-3}$ $1.6575\times 10^{-2}$ $7.1666\times 10^{-3}$ $3.6371\times 10^{-3}$
(3) $2.6841\times 10^{-2}$ $1.3201\times 10^{-2}$ $6.1428\times 10^{-3}$ $2.3973\times 10^{-2}$ $1.0468\times 10^{-2}$ $5.2117\times 10^{-3}$
(4) $3.5872\times 10^{-2}$ $1.8257\times 10^{-2}$ $7.9304\times 10^{-3}$ $3.1522\times 10^{-2}$ $1.4085\times 10^{-2}$ $6.6671\times 10^{-3}$
----- ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ -- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
The last two test problems are the third-order KdV-type equations. We use the D1Q5 LBGK model to simulate them. Similar to the above three test problems, we also compare the present *exact* model with C-E expansion to order $O(\epsilon^4)$ with one to order $O(\epsilon^3)$, and denote scheme 1 and scheme 2 for the model of order $O(\epsilon^4)$ and that of order $O(\epsilon^3)$, respectively. For simplification, we only take $\bar{\Pi}_4=0$ in Eq. (\[EDF5\]) for scheme 2 in simulations.
*Example 4.8.* The KdV Burgers equation [@ChaiShiZheng] $$u_t + \alpha uu_x - \gamma u_{xx}+ \delta u_{xxx} =0,\label{KdVB}$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)= 2\xi \left(1-\frac{1}{[1+e^{2\nu(x-\xi t)}]^{2}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu=-\frac{\gamma}{10\delta}$ and $\xi=\frac{6\gamma^2}{25\delta}$.
In simulations, we set $\alpha=1,\gamma=9\times
10^{-4},\delta=2\times 10^{-5}$, and the simulation is conducted in $[-4,4]$ with $\Delta x=\Delta t=0.01$ as in Refs. [@ChaiShiZheng] and [@MaCF1]. Table VIII. gives the errors of numerical solution for different times. From the table it is found that the errors of schemes 1 and 2 are much smaller than those of the model in Ref. [@MaCF1], and scheme 1 is better that scheme 2, but there is little difference between our schemes. The numerical results show that the model in Ref. [@MaCF1] is not exact, even for the constraints on lower-order moments.
$\tau_{opt}$ $t=10$ $t=50$ $t=150$ $t=250$ $t=300$
-------------- ----- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --
$0.97$ (1) $2.4300\times 10^{-6}$ $4.2738\times 10^{-6}$ $4.0518\times 10^{-6}$ $3.4676\times 10^{-6}$ $3.3242\times 10^{-6}$
$0.96$ (2) $4.9172\times 10^{-6}$ $7.1775\times 10^{-6}$ $6.1615\times 10^{-6}$ $5.2459\times 10^{-6}$ $4.9383\times 10^{-6}$
$0.968$ (3) $1.0416\times 10^{-5}$ $1.8801\times 10^{-5}$ $1.7409\times 10^{-5}$ $1.4877\times 10^{-5}$ $1.3901\times 10^{-5}$
*Example 4.9.* The K($n,n$)-Burgers equation [@Wazwaz3] $$u_t + a (u^n)_x + b (u^n)_{xxx} +k u_{xx} =0,$$ with the exact solution $$\begin{aligned}
u(x,t)= \left[A(1+\tanh(Bx+Ct))\right]^{-\frac{1}{n-1}}, b>0,n>1,a<0\end{aligned}$$ where $a,b,k,n$ are constants, and $A=\frac{1}{2k}\sqrt{-ab}, B=-\frac{n-1}{2n}\sqrt{-\frac{a}{b}}, C=\frac{ak(n-1)}{2bn}$.
In simulations, we set $a=-1,b=1,k=-1,n=2$. The simulation is conducted in $[-1,1]$ with $\Delta x=0.01, \Delta t=0.001$. Table IX. gives the errors of numerical solution for different times. From the table it is found that the errors of schemes 1 are much smaller than those of scheme 2, which implies that for this problem the accuracy of higher-order model is much better than that of lower-order one.
$\tau_{opt}$ $t=1$ $t=2$ $t=3$ $t=4$
-------------- ---------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --
$37.77$ Scheme 1 $1.8629\times 10^{-3}$ $9.1678\times 10^{-4}$ $9.2998\times 10^{-4}$ $7.1608\times 10^{-4}$
$31.52$ Scheme 2 $2.6472\times 10^{-2}$ $1.0947\times 10^{-2}$ $6.1720\times 10^{-3}$ $3.3151\times 10^{-3}$
Conclusion
==========
In the present work, we have developed a unified LBGK model for 1D higher-order NPDEs. Through C-E expansion a given NPDE can be exactly recovered to required order of small parameter $\epsilon$ by choosing correct auxiliary moments. Unlike traditional numerical methods which solve for macroscopic variables, the model has the advantages of standard LBGK model, which are borrowed from kinetic theory, such as linearity of the convection operator in velocity space, simplicity and symmetry of scheme, ease in coding and intrinsical parallelism [@cd]. Detailed numerical tests of the proposed model are carried out for different types of NPDEs, including the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky type equations, Kawahara type equations, and KdV type equations. It is found that the simulation results agree well with the analytical and numerical solutions reported in previous studies, which shows that the LBM has potentials in simulating higher-order NPDEs. However, perhaps due to the effects of nonlinearity and higher order differentials, the LBGK model for solving higher order NPDEs is sensitive to the key parameters, such as $\Delta x, \Delta t$ and $\tau$, and it does not seems so efficient as that for solving lower order ones, such as that for NCDEs [@ShiGuo].
Note that the proposed model can be directly applied to derive the LBGK model for high-order NPDEs in higher dimensional space by treating moments as tensors, and the LBGK model for NPDEs with order larger than six can be easily derived by using the idea in this paper. Nevertheless, some important issues, such as how to improve the accuracy and stability of the LB models need further studies.
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 60773195 and No. 50606012).
R. Benzi, S. Succi, and M. Vergassola, The lattice Boltzmann equation: theory and applications, Phys. Rep. [**222**]{}, 145-197 (1992). Y. H. Qian, S. Succi, and S. A. Orszag, Recent advances in lattice Boltzmann computing, Annu. Rev. Comput. Phys. [**3**]{}, 195-242 (1995). S. Chen and G. D. Doolen, Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid flows, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**30**]{}, 329-364 (1998).
F. J. Higuera, S. Succi, and R. Benzi, Lattice gas dynamics with enhanced collisions, Europhys. Lett. [**9**]{}, 345-349 (1989) D. d’Humières, Generalized lattice Boltzmann equations, in Rarefied Gas Dynamics: Theory and Simulations, edited by B. D. Shizgal and D. P. Weaver, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Vol. 159 (AIAA, Washington, DC, 1992), pp. 450-458. P. Lallemand and L.-S. Luo, Theory of the lattice Boltzmann method: Dispersion, dissipation, isotropy, Galilean invariance, and stability, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 6546-6562 (2000).
I. V. Karlin, A. Ferrante, and H. C. Ottinger, Perfect entropy functions of the Lattice Boltzmann method, Europhys. Lett. [**47**]{}, 182-188 (1999). S. Ansumali, I. V. Karlin, and H. C. Ottinger, Minimal entropic kinetic models for hydrodynamics, Europhys. Lett. [**63**]{}, 798-804 (2003) S. S. Chikatamarla, S. Ansumali, and I. V. Karlin, Entropic lattice Boltzmann models for hydrodynamics in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 010201 (2006).
B. M. Boghosian, J. Yepez, P. V. Coveney, and A. Wagner, Entropic lattice Boltzmann methods, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A [**457**]{}, 717-766 (2001). B. Keating, G. Vahala, J. Yepez, et al., Entropic lattice Boltzmann representations required to recover Navier-Stokes flows, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 036712 (2007)
S. P. Dawson, S. Y. Chen, and G. D. Doolen, Lattice Boltzmann computations for reaction-diffusion equations, J. Chem. Phys. [**98**]{}, 1514-1523 (1993). R. Blaak and P. M. Sloot, Lattice dependence of reaction-diffusion in lattice Boltzmann modeling, Comput. Phys. Comm. [**129**]{}, 256-266 (2000). X. M. Yu and B. C. Shi, A lattice Boltzmann model for reaction dynamical systems with time delay, Appl. Math. Comput. [**181**]{}, 958-965 (2006).
M. R. Swift, E. Orlandini, W. R. Osborn, and J. M. Yeomans, Lattice Boltzmann simulations of liquid-gas and binary fluid systems, Phys. Rew. E [**54**]{}, 5041-5052 (1996).
Z. L. Guo, B. C. Shi, and N. C. Wang, Fully Lagrangian and lattice Boltzmann methods for the advection-diffusion equation, J. Sci. Comput. [**14(3)**]{}, 291-300 (1999). X. Y. He, N. Li, and B. Goldstein, Lattice Boltzmann simulation of diffusion-convection systems with surface chemical reaction, Mol. Simulat. [**25**]{}, 145-156 (2000). B. C. Shi, B. Deng, R. Du, and X. W. Chen, A new scheme for source term in LBGK model for convection-diffusion equation, Comput. Math. Appl. [**55**]{}, 1568-1575 (2008). X. M. Yu and B. C. Shi, A lattice Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook model for a class of the generalized Burgers equations, Chin. Phys. [**15**]{}, 1441-1149 (2006). Z. H. Chai, B. C. Shi and L. Zheng, A unified lattice Boltzmann model for some nonlinear partial differential equations, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [**36**]{}, 874-882 (2008). Z. H. Chai and B. C. Shi, A novel lattice Boltzmann model for the Poisson equation, Appl. Math. Model. [**32**]{}, 2050-2058 (2008). R. G. M. van der Sman and M. H. Ernst, Convection-diffusion lattice Boltzmann scheme for irregular lattices, J. Comput. Phys. [**160**]{}, 766-782 (2000). R. G. M. van der Sman, Galilean invariant lattice Boltzmann scheme for natural convection on square and rectangular lattices, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 026705 (2006). X. X. Zhang, A. G. Bengough, J. W. Crawford, and I. M. Young, A lattice BGK model for advection and anisotropic dispersion equation, Adv. Water Resour. [**25**]{}, 1-8 (2002). I. Rasin, S. Succi, and W. Miller, A multi-relaxation lattice kinetic method for passive scalar diffusion, J. Comput. Phys. [**206**]{}, 453-462 (2005). I. Ginzburg, Equilibrium-type and link-type lattice Boltzmann models for generic advection and anisotropic-dispersion equation, Adv. Water Resour. [**28**]{}, 1171-1195 (2005).
D. A. Meyer, From quantum cellular automata to quantum lattice gases, J. Stat. Phys. [**85**]{}, 551-574 (1996). S. Succi and R. Benzi, Lattice Boltzmann equation for quantum mechanics, Physica D [**69**]{}, 327-332 (1993). S. Succi, Numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation using discrete kinetic theory, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 1969-1975 (1996). B. Boghosian and W. Taylor IV, Quantum lattice-gas models for the many-body Schrödinger equation, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C [**8**]{}, 705-716 (1997). J. Yepez and B. Boghosian, An efficient and accurate quantum lattice-gas model for the many-body Schrodinger wave equation, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**146**]{}, 280-294 (2002). J. Yepez, Quantum lattice-gas model for the Burgers equation, J. Stat. Phys. [**107**]{}, 203-224 (2002). G. Vahala, J. Yepez, and L. Vahala, Quantum lattice gas representation of some classical solitons, Phys. Lett. A [**310**]{}, 187-196 (2003). G. Vahala, L. Vahala, and J. Yepez, Quantum lattice representations for vector solitons in external potentials, Physica A [**362**]{}, 215-221 (2006). S. Palpacelli and S. Succi, Numerical validation of the quantum lattice Boltzmann scheme in two and three dimensions, Phys. Rev. E [**75**]{}, 066704 (2007); Quantum lattice Boltzmann simulation of expanding Bose-Einstein condensates in random potentials, Phys. Rev. E [**77**]{}, 066708 (2008). S. Palpacelli and S. Succi, The quantum lattice Boltzmann equation: Recent developments, Commun. Comput. Phys. [**4**]{}, 980-1007 (2008). L. H. Zhong, S. D. Feng, P. Dong, and S. T. Gao, Lattice Boltzmann schemes for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 036704 (2006). B. C. Shi, Lattice Boltzmann simulation of some nonlinear complex equations, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. [**4487**]{}, 818-825 (2007). B. C. Shi and Z. L. Guo, Lattice Boltzmann model for nonlinear convection-diffusion equations, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 016701 (2009) . B. C. Shi and Z. L. Guo, Lattice Boltzmann model for the one-dimensional nonlinear Dirac equation, Phys. Rev. E [**79**]{}, 066704 (2009).
M.A. Lopez-Marcos, Numerical analysis of pseudospectral method for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, IMA J. Numer. Anal. [**14**]{}, 223-242 (1994). Y. Xu and C.-W. Shu, Local discontinuous Galerkin methods for the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations and the Ito-type coupled KdV equations, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. [**195**]{}, 3430 (2006). Y. Xu and C.-W. Shu, Local discontinuous Galerkin methods for high-order time-dependent partial differential equations, Commun. Comput. Phys. [**7**]{}, 1-46 (2010). J. C. Ceballos, M. Sepúlveda, and O. P. V. Villagrán, The Korteweg-de Vries-Kawahara equation in a bounded domain and some numerical results, Appl. Math. Comput. [**190**]{}, 912-936 (2007). L. Cueto-Felgueroso and J. Peraire, A time-adaptive finite volume method for the Cahn-Hilliard and Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations, J. Comput. Phys. [**227**]{}, 9985-10017 (2008). Marjan Uddin, S. Haq and Siraj-ul-Islam, A mesh-free numerical method for solution of the family of Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equations, Appl. Math. Comput. [**212**]{}, 458-469 (2009).
J. Y. Zhang and G. W. Yan, Lattice Boltzmann method for one and two-dimensional Burgers equation, Physica A [**387**]{}, 4771-4786 (2008). B. Servan-Camas and F. T.-C. Tsai, Lattice Boltzmann method with two relaxation times for advection-diffusion equation: Third order analysis and stability analysis, Adv. Water Resour. [**31**]{}, 1113-1126 (2008) H. L. Lai and C. F. Ma, A higher order lattice BGK model for simulating some nonlinear partial differential equations, Sci. China Ser. G [**52**]{}, 1053-1061 (2009). H. L. Lai and C. F. Ma, Lattice Boltzmann method for the generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation, Physica A [**388**]{}, 1405-1412 (2009).
Z. L. Guo, C. G. Zheng, and B. C. Shi, Non-equilibrium extrapolation method for velocity and pressure boundary conditions in the lattice Boltzmann method, Chin. Phys. [**11**]{}, 366-374 (2002). J. W. Zhang and J. G. Zhang, Exact solutions of the generalized Kuramoto-Sivashinsky type equations with the dispersive effects (in Chinese), Math. Pract. Theor., [**31**]{}, 427-429 (2001) A.-M. Wazwaz, New solitary wave solutions to the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky and the Kawahara equations, Appl. Math. Comput. [**182**]{}, 1642-1650 (2006). A.-M. Wazwaz, New solitary wave solutions to the modified Kawahara equation, Phys. Lett. A [**360**]{}, 588-592 (2007). A.-M. Wazwaz, The tanh method for compact and noncompact solutions for variants of the KdV-Burger and the K(*n*,*n*)-Burger equations, Physica D, [**213**]{}, 147-151 (2006).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Dynamical systems can be prone to severe fluctuations due to the presence of chaotic dynamics. This paper explains for a toy chaotic economic model how such a system can be regulated by the application of relatively weak control to keep the system confined to a bounded region of the phase space, even in the presence of strong external disturbances. Since the control here is weaker than the disturbance, the system cannot be controlled to a particular trajectory, but under certain circumstances it can be partially controlled to avoid extreme values. Partial control depends on the existence of a certain set called a “safe sets”. We describe the safe set and how it varies with parameters, sometimes continuously and sometimes discontinuously.'
author:
- 'Suddhasattwa Das,'
- James A Yorke
bibliography:
- 'Bibliography-Partial\_control.bib'
date:
-
-
title:
-
- 'Avoiding extremes using Partial Control.'
---
Partial control, chaotic systems, safe sets
93Cxx
Introduction
============
Partial control ([@PartialControl_1], [@PartialControl_2], [@PredPrey]) concerns a situation in which there is a map $f:\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ and a compact region $Q \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ in which the dynamics of $x_{n+1} = f(x_n)$ are chaotic and for almost every initial point $x_0$, the trajectory $f^n(x_0)$ eventually leaves $Q$.
A bounded disturbance $\xi_n$ and a bounded feedback control $u_n$ are added to $f$, and the goal of the controller is to keep the trajectory of $x_{n+1} = f(x_n) + \xi_n + u_n$ confined to $Q$. Here $u_n$ is chosen with knowledge of $f(x_n) + \xi_n$. We view $\xi_n$ as the cumulative result of ongoing disturbances over the time interval $(n, n+1]$, the time since the last control input, and these ongoing disturbances are observed by the controller as they occur so that the controller is ready to respond at the end of that interval with the response $u_n$. The control goal is easy to achieve if the control bound ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is larger than the disturbance bound ${\beta}$ but we investigate situations in which ${\mathfrak{U}}<{\beta}$. In our case it is impossible to select an unstable trajectory and choose the control so that that trajectory is followed. The strategies of choosing $u_n$ depend on the bounds ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$ and this paper investigates how the strategy depends on these bounds in the case where f is a one-dimensional piecewise expanding map.
The subject of controlling chaotic systems has been dealt with in several papers in the past so it is important to clarify how partial control is different. In [@Controlling_chaos], the authors demonstrate that chaotic systems can be controlled by making small time-dependent perturbations to a chaotic system so as to steer the state to a nearby periodic trajectory. Their method is applicable to systems whose dynamics is not known. In contrast, the method of partial control requires an explicit knowledge of the map f and aims at preventing only escape from $Q$ rather than targeting some reference trajectory. We begin with a specific discrete time example to illustrate the nature of this general control-problem [@PartialControl_1], [@PartialControl_2]. Then we investigate how the problem changes as the parameters change.
In [@PredPrey], a method of partial control was proposed to sustain a 3-species predator-prey system with chaotic dynamics. The amount of control needed to avoid the extinction of a species was demonstrated to be smaller than that needed by classical control methods, even in the case where $\xi_n$ is chosen purposefully to drive the trajectory from $Q$. In [@ControlFreq], the authors demonstrated that the use of partial control leads allows one to apply the control after larger time intervals. They investigated the minimum control frequency needed for partial control in a 1D tent map and the Henon map.
The requirement that the trajectory must stay in a specified region has been discussed in the control literature as **set invariance**. The central question that Bertsekas and others ([@Reachability1],[@Reachability2],[@Reachability3]) investigate is “under what conditions can the state of the uncertain system be forced to stay in a specified region of the state space for all times by using feedback control” ([@Reachability1]) . This is also our question, but in a discrete-time setting. They require the control vector to be of lower dimension than that of the state vector since in their framework it would be trivial to control the trajectory if the dimensions were equal. We however set the dimensions equal and in this paper both are a single variable, that is, one dimensional. The problem is not trivial here because the bound on the control is smaller than the bound on the disturbance.
Our main example uses a one-dimensional tent map and for motivational purposes, we think of it as an economic model. Any one-dimensional model of the growth rate $x$ of an economy and its dynamics is simplistic. It is likely that any model of any dimension could be called too simplistic – because world economies are truly complicated. However the model is complicated enough to introduce complicated phenomena including dangers of economic crashes as the world has recently seen. We have also seen that the world economy appears to be unstable, amplifying the effects of some disturbances, and our model incorporates that sensitivity. This paper is not aimed at saving the world economy but rather at introducing into the control literature a control strategy that we believe the control community might find valuable. One can argue that the controls available to governments are small compared with the disturbances and our model addresses that problem of having controls that are weaker than the disturbances. The strategy is to respond to the disturbance by driving that trajectory to a maximal “safe” set. This set is not invariant, and not even connected, despite the one dimensionality of the problem.
A toy example
=============
The 1-dimensional map we will use as an example is shown in Fig.(\[fig:Toy\_economic\_map\]). It is called an asymmetric tent map and is described below. $$\label{eqn:tent_map}
f(x)=\begin{cases}
1.3x, & \mbox{for } 0\leq x\leq 0.7\\
0.91-3(x-0.7), & \mbox{for } 0.7\leq x\leq 1
\end{cases}$$ Tent maps can be used to model a variety of physical, biological, and engineering applications, but here we restrict attention to an economic growth model. Here $x$ is scaled so that $x=0$ corresponds to the zero growth rate (during a severe depression in the economy) and $x=1$ corresponds to some unreachable growth rate. The growth rate in year $n$ is $x_n$.
The dynamics, is (without external disturbances and control), $$\label{eqn:basic_map}
x_{n+1}=f(x_n)$$
![**Asymmetric tent map.** The piecewise linear and expanding map $f$ from Eqn \[eqn:tent\_map\] has slopes $1.3$ and $-3$[]{data-label="fig:Toy_economic_map"}](Toy_economic_model_map)
Sometimes, allowing an economy to grow too fast can lead to a crash in the economy. That feature is seen in Fig. (\[fig:Iterates\]), values of $x_n$ near $0.7$ are followed by $x_{n+1}$ near $0.91$, in turn leading to a crash with $x_{n+2}$ near $0.28$. Subsequent recovery is slow. Without any control, the quantity x has repeated crashes.
![**A chaotic trajectory.** The first 200 iterates of the asymmetric tent map (Eqn. \[eqn:tent\_map\]) are shown. Notice that whenever $x_n$ is near $0.7$, $x_{n+1}$ is below the red line at $0.5$ which denotes our threshold for an economic “crash”. These crashes have been indicated as red lines. []{data-label="fig:Iterates"}](Toy_economic_model_iterates.png)
**Perturbed map.** In the presence of strong perturbations, the trajectory can fluctuate even more wildly. We add an external perturbation $\xi_n \in \mathbb{R}$, hence : $$\label{Eqn:perturb}
x_{n+1}=f(x_n)+\xi_n, \mbox{ where } |\xi_n|\leq {\beta}$$ Any perturbation satisfying $|\xi_n|\leq {\beta}$ will be called an **admissible perturbation**, where ${\beta}>0$ is a fixed bound.
A perturbed trajectory with ${\beta}=0.05$ plotted in Fig.(\[fig:Disturbed\_iterates\]) shows how disturbances can lead to crashing and prolonged depression in the economy. The average of $x$ dropped from $0.65$ in Fig. (\[fig:Iterates\]) to $0.59$ in Fig. (\[fig:Disturbed\_iterates\]), because of disturbances. We shall somewhat arbitrarily say that the event of the growth rate falling below $0.5$ will be called a ***crash***. Thus we have a target region $Q = [0.5, 1]$ to which we want to confine the trajectory $(x_n)$. It is a compact (bounded, closed) set. The general problem in $\mathbb{R}^n$ of keeping a chaotic trajectory in a closed, bound set $Q$ in the presence of disturbances stronger than control is described in \[1\], \[2\]. ‘
![**Perturbed iterates.** The first 200 iterates of the perturbed trajectory (Eqns. \[Eqn:perturb\], \[eqn:tent\_map\]) are shown, with the perturbation bound ${\beta}=0.05$. The average value of $x$ is $0.59$. Each $\xi_n$ is chosen to be $\pm{\beta}$ so as to exacerbate the crashes.[]{data-label="fig:Disturbed_iterates"}](Toy_economic_model_disturbed_iterates.png)
**The perturbed and controlled map.** Knowing the perturbed value $f(x_n)+\xi_n$, we choose a control $u_n$ satisfying $|u_n|\leq {\mathfrak{U}}$ where ${\mathfrak{U}}>0$ is a constant. Such a control input is called an **admissible control**. The primary goal of the control is to choose admissible $u_n$ , given admissible $\xi_n$, so that $x_{n+1}= f(x_n)+\xi_n+u_n \in [0.5,1]$. The resulting dynamics is : $$\label{eqn:control}
x_{n+1}=f(x_n)+\xi_n+u_n, \mbox{ where }|\xi_n|\leq {\beta}, \mbox{ and } u_n\leq {\mathfrak{U}}$$ Each $u_n$ is chosen with knowledge of the perturbed value $f(x_n)+\xi_n$, subject to the constraint $|u_n|\leq {\mathfrak{U}}$ where ${\mathfrak{U}}>0$ is a constant. Such a control input is called an **admissible control**. The primary goal is to create a control strategy so that $(x_{n+1})$ always remains in $[0.5,1]$.
Systems with both state and control constraints have been dealt with in [@GutCwi1], [@GutCwi2] and [@GutCwi3] in a spirit similar to ours, but for conventional discrete time control systems. The dependence of their control strategy on the state and not the perturbation meant that their methods are not applicable to ours. The application of control *after* a perturbation is also not a new concept. For example, event-based control strategies (see ([@EventCtrl]) apply control only when triggered by an event, an event being a subset of the phase space. Event based control strategies are effective in some discrete dynamical systems which are not being monitored in continuous time. In [@MinAttent], the authors use this strategy for designing *minimum attention* control systems.
![**Partially controlled trajectory.** The first 200 iterates of a partially controlled trajectory (Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\]) are shown, with the perturbation bound ${\beta}=0.05$ and the control bound ${\mathfrak{U}}=0.04<{\beta}$. The average value of $x$ now is $0.72$. By applying an admissible control bounded by ${\mathfrak{U}}$ to the same system, the trajectory can be kept above $0.57$ for all times by choosing each $u_n$ so that $x_{n+1}$ is in the green colored set $S=I_1\cup I_2\cup I_3$. Fig. \[fig:Safeness\_demo\] explains why this strategy can be employed to keep $x_n$ in $S$ for all $n$.[]{data-label="fig:Controlled_iterates"}](Toy_economic_model_controlled_iterates.png)
**The crash avoidance strategy.** In Figure \[fig:Controlled\_iterates\], a strategy for choosing admissible $u_n$ is used that guarantees that the trajectory can be kept in $Q$ for some initial points in $Q$. Simply put, there is a compact set $S$ for which if $x$ is in $S$, then no matter how the admissible $\xi$ is chosen, there is an admissible $u$ (depending on $x$ and $\xi$) such that $f(x) + \xi + u \in S$. In Fig. \[fig:Controlled\_iterates\], the set $S$ is the union of three intervals (shown in green).
We call such a set $S$ a **safe set** if it has the following property : for each $x\in S$ and admissible $\xi$, there is a $u$ such that $f(x) + \xi + u \in S$. The choice of $u$ depends on $x$ and $\xi$.
There is a largest safe set, the **maximal safe set**, and it has the following properties (S1) and (S2), with (S2) actually being stronger than (S1).
(S1) If $x\in Q-S$, then there is an admissible $\xi$ such that there is no admissible $u$ for which that $f(x) + \xi + u \in S$.
(S2) If $x_0\in Q-S$, then there is a strategy for choosing admissible $\xi_n$ as a function of $x_n$ such that no matter how $u_n$ is chosen, the trajectory can be eventually driven out of $Q$. That is, for some $N$, $x_N \notin Q$.\
\
In Figure \[fig:Controlled\_iterates\], the safe set is the union of the three intervals $I_1\approx [0.57, 0.61]$, $I_2\approx[0.74, 0.75]$ and $I_3\approx[0.80, 0.81]$. $S=I_1\cup I_2\cup I_3$. As mentioned earlier, the strategy is to choose each $u_n$ so that $x_{n+1}$ lies in the safe set. The surprising consequence of being a safe set is that if $x_n\in S$, no matter what admissible $\xi_n$ occur, an admissible $u_n$ can be chosen so that $x_{n+1}= f(x_n)+\xi_n+u_n$ is again in the safe set. This set $S$ is the largest set in $[0.5,1]$ with this property. The sequence of indices $\{i_n\}$ such that $x_n\in I_{i_n}$ is primarily determined by the disturbance $\xi_n$. If $f(x_n)+\xi_n$ is within distance $0.04$ from only one of the three intervals, then $u_n$ has to be chosen so that $x_{n+1}$ is in that same interval.
![**The safe set and its dynamics.** The colored blocks represent intervals in $[0.5,1]$. The safe set $S$ for Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\], where ${\mathfrak{U}}=0.04$ and ${\beta}=0.05$ has components $I_1\approx[0.5748, 0.6142]$, $I_2\approx[0.7372, 0.7543]$, $I_3\approx[0.8019, 0.8084]$. Their images under $f$ are $f(I_1)=f(I_2)\approx[0.7472, 0.7984]$, $f(I_3)\approx[0.5848, 0.6042]$, as indicated in the figure by arrows. Let $J_i=f(I_i)+{\beta}$ denote the interval $f(I_i)$ thickened by ${\beta}$. Therefore, for all $x_n\in S$ and all admissible $\xi_n$, $f(x_n)+\xi_n$ must be in either $J_1=J_2\approx[0.6972, 0.8484]$ or $J_3\approx[0.5348, 0.6542]$. All the points in this set are within distance ${\mathfrak{U}}(=0.04)$ of $S$. \[Note that $S+{\mathfrak{U}}$ $\approx$ $[0.5348, 0.6542]\cup[0.6972, 0.8484]$. Hence, there exists admissible $u_n$ so that $f(x_n)+u_n+\xi_n$ is back in the safe set.[]{data-label="fig:Safeness_demo"}](Safeness_demonstration,u=0_04,n=0_05)
**Unsafe points.** Points not in the maximum safe set are points from where it is possible for admissible perturbations to drive the trajectory below $0.5$ in a finite number of steps, no matter what admissible controls are chosen. In Fig. \[fig:Iterates\], it is noted in effect that the point $x=0.7$ cannot be in the safe set and hence is an unsafe point. Conversely, the safe set $S$ denotes the set of growth rates $x$ of the economy from which it is always possible to avoid crashes. $S$ depends on the parameters ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$ as well as on the threshold set for crashes, $0.5$. This paper investigates how the safe set changes as $u$ and $\delta$ are changed. In [@ContTimeInvThm], Nagumo provided a necessary and sufficient condition for a set to be a safe-set for continuous time control systems in terms a certain differential property of the boundary of the safe set, called *tangent cone*. In our partial control problem, we also look at geometric properties of the boundary of the safe set in Theorem \[thm:bifur\_1\] and provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the safe set to be a continuous or discontinuous function of the parameters.
**Maximum safe set.** The safe set may not exist for some values of the bounds ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$. However, if it exists, there is a maximum (largest) safe set in $Q=[0.5,1]$. It is the collection of all safe starting points, and is necessarily a compact set.
Maximum safe sets represent the subset of the phase space in which the controlled trajectory will ultimately reside. In [@PartialControl_2], the authors defined the *asymptotic safe set* to be that subset of the safe set which is invariant under the control law. In classical control theory, **controlled invariant / viable set** is defined as the set to which it is possible to return after the application of control. This concept is the analog of safe sets in classical control theory where control is stronger than perturbation. In [@SetInvSurvey], it is discussed how the control law is highly dependent on the geometry of this set. There is an analog of asymptotic safe sets in the field of system engineering, called the *domain of attraction* or *stability domain*, whose theoretic/computational determination is of fundamental importance in these fields (see for example, [@AsympStab]). Set-invariance also finds applications in the qualitative analysis of biological systems, as in [@InvSetBio] and [@PredPrey]. In [@Kolmanovski], the largest invariant set under state and control constraints is used to improve a control-compensator performance.
Safe set as a function of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$
========================================================
Fig(\[fig:Safeset\_eg\]) shows the safe sets at three values of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$ for Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\]. The safe set is composed of intervals and depends on the parameters ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$. As seen from the figures, the number of components can vary, as can the measure (sum of sizes of the components).
[0.3]{} ![**Examples of safe sets.** The safe sets for the Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\] are shown, for three choices of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$. The safe sets $S$ are marked in green, with the number of components of $S$ labeled.[]{data-label="fig:Safeset_eg"}](Economic_model-safe_set-u=0_08,n=0_1 "fig:")
[0.3]{} ![**Examples of safe sets.** The safe sets for the Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\] are shown, for three choices of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$. The safe sets $S$ are marked in green, with the number of components of $S$ labeled.[]{data-label="fig:Safeset_eg"}](Economic_model-safe_set-u=0_04,n=0_05 "fig:")
[0.3]{} ![**Examples of safe sets.** The safe sets for the Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\] are shown, for three choices of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$. The safe sets $S$ are marked in green, with the number of components of $S$ labeled.[]{data-label="fig:Safeset_eg"}](Economic_model-safe_set-u=0_008,n=0_01 "fig:")
Fig. \[fig:Measure\] shows a plot of the measure of the safe set as functions of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$, with $0<{\mathfrak{U}}<{\beta}$. The number of components has also been marked for some regions. The measure (sum of lengths of components) has been indicated by color.
![**Size of the safe set** The colored region in this plot denotes the values of $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$, ($0 < {\mathfrak{U}}< {\beta}≤ 0.2$), at which there is a safe set for the asymmetric tent map Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\]. There are no points on this plot above the diagonal ${\mathfrak{U}}={\beta}$ since the control bound $u$ is always less than the disturbance bound ${\beta}$. The blank space at the bottom of the figure denotes values of $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ for which there is no safe set. The legend on the right shows how the colors correspond to measure (i.e., sum of lengths of components) of the safe set as a function of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$. The number of components in the safe set has also been marked for certain portions of the plot.[]{data-label="fig:Measure"}](Toy_economic_model_measure_data.png)
From the plot, some of the observations that can be made are : (i) For every value of the perturbation ${\beta}$, there is a minimum value of the control ${\mathfrak{U}}$, denoted as $u_{min}({\beta})$ for which $S$ is nonempty. (ii) Some portions of the graph of $u_{min}$ seem to be straight lines with slope $1$. (iii) There are certain boundaries in the plot across which the number of components increase on decreasing ${\mathfrak{U}}$ or increasing ${\beta}$.
Fig. \[fig:n\_profile\] shows how the maximal safe set varies with ${\mathfrak{U}}$ for fixed ${\beta}=0.05$. The safe set has $2$ components for ${\mathfrak{U}}\geq {\mathfrak{U}}^*\approx 0.45$. At ${\mathfrak{U}}={\mathfrak{U}}^*$ one of the components splits into two smaller components. At ${\mathfrak{U}}\approx 0.0357$, one of the components shrinks to a single point and below that the entire safe set vanishes.
![ **The safe set of Eqns. \[eqn:tent\_map\], \[eqn:control\], as a function of ${\mathfrak{U}}$, with ${\beta}$ fixed at $0.05$ .**[]{data-label="fig:n_profile"}](n_profile.png)
\(i) At ${\mathfrak{U}}\approx 0.45$, the distance between the two component intervals is $2{\mathfrak{U}}$, which results in one of the components splitting discontinuously into two smaller components as ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is decreased. We call such a bifurcation a **split bifurcation** in the next section.\
(ii) At ${\mathfrak{U}}\approx 0.0357$, one of the component intervals shrinks to a single point, which in general results in one or more components disappearing as ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is decreased. Here, the entire safe set actually vanishes. We call such a bifurcation a **vanishing point bifurcation** in the next section.
Continuity of Safe sets
=======================
The bifurcation theorem
-----------------------
Throughout this chapter, we investigate the system described in Eqn. \[eqn:control\] and assume that the target $Q$ is a closed, non-degenerate interval $[A, B]$, where $A < B$. $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ will denote the maximum safe set at control bound ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and perturbation bound ${\beta}$. Recall that the maximum safe set for the target set $Q$ is the set of states $x$ starting from which a trajectory can always remain in $Q$, no matter what admissible perturbations occur.
$S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ is **continuous** with respect to ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$ at $({\mathfrak{U}}_0, {\beta}_0)$ if when $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ is varied in some sufficiently small neighborhood $\mathcal{N}$ of $({\mathfrak{U}}_0, {\beta}_0)$, the number of components in $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ remains the same and the boundaries change continuously with $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$.
Note that for the asymmetric tent map (Eqn. \[eqn:tent\_map\]), $f$ is not differentiable at $0.7$ and this point is also never part of the safe set.
The following theorem, which lays down sufficient conditions for bifurcations / discontinuities in the safe set to occur, is proved in Section \[proof\_bifur\] after some definitions are introduced.
\[thm:bifur\_1\] Let the map $f$ (in Eqn. \[eqn:control\]) be continuous, piecewise expanding and piecewise $C^1$. Let $Q$ be a compact interval. Let $0<{\mathfrak{U}}<{\beta}$ be the control and perturbation bounds respectively and assume that there is a nonempty maximum safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ and that $f$ is differentiable in a neighborhood of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$. Then if a bifurcation of the safe set $S=S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ occurs at $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ then at least one of these conditions hold :\
**(B1)** A component interval of $S$ is a point.\
**(B2)** The gap between two adjacent intervals of $S$ equals $2{\mathfrak{U}}$.\
Moreover, (B1) is also sufficient for a bifurcation to occur.
If a bifurcation occurs at $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$, we say that it is a **vanishing point bifurcation** if (B1) holds and a **split bifurcation** if (B2) holds but not (B1).
Definitions and properties
--------------------------
As usual, $d(x,y)$ will be used denote the Euclidean distance between 2 points $x$ and $y$ on the real line. For a set $A\subset\mathbb{R}$, $\partial A$ denotes the boundary of $A$ , $A^C$ the complement of $A$ and $\bar{A}$ the closure of $A$.
Let $X\subset \mathbb{R}$. Then for every $u>0$, let $X+u$ denote the closed set of points that are within distance $u$ from $X$. In other words, $X+u$ is the set $\{x\in\mathbb{R}|\ \exists y\in X\ni d(x, y)\leq u\}$. An equivalent definition is $X+u = \underset{x\in X}{\cup}\bar{B}(x,u)$, where $\bar{B}(x,u)$ represents a closed ball of radius $u$ and center $x$.
Thus if $X$ is compact, then $X+u$ is a compact set.
For a given compact set $Q$, control bound ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and disturbance bound ${\beta}$, the following equation from [@PartialControl_2] gives an equivalent formulation for a set $S\subseteq Q$ to be a safe set. It is a restatement of the property that if $x\in S$, then $f(x)+\xi$ is within distance $u$ of $S$. $$\label{eqn:safe_set_1}
f(S)+{\beta}\subseteq S+{\mathfrak{U}}$$ Equation (\[eqn:safe\_set\_1\]) leads to a constructive proof of existence of the safe set, as shown in [@PartialControl_2]. It was called the **sculpting algorithm** as it produces the safe set as the limit set of an infinite sequence of diminishing compact sets. In general, iterative methods leading to invariant or optimal sets for nonlinear constraint problems often result in sets which are maximal with respect to these properties but with high geometric complexity. They were first employed in feedback-control systems in [@Reachability1], [@Reachability2] and [@Reachability3].
**Maximum safe set.** Let the parameters ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$ be fixed. Any union of safe sets corresponding to $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ is also a safe set for $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$; hence, the union of all safe sets for these parameters is the unique maximal safe set. Since the closure of a safe set is also a safe set, the maximum safe set must be a compact set if $Q$ is compact.
If $f : Q\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is continuous, $Q$ compact and $0 < {\mathfrak{U}}< {\beta}$, then a maximal safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ satisfies the stronger equation (see Appendix \[lemma:maximal\]) : $$\label{eqn:maximum_safe}
f(S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}})+{\beta}=[f(Q)+{\beta}]\cap[S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}+{\mathfrak{U}}]$$
Henceforth, the term “safe set” will be used to denote “maximum safe set".
The following definition of a safe set has already been introduced :
$S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ is **continuous** with respect to ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and ${\beta}$ at $({\mathfrak{U}}_0, {\beta}_0)$ if $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ is varied in a neighbourhood $\mathcal{N}$ of $({\mathfrak{U}}_0, {\beta}_0)$, then the number of components in $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ remains the same and the boundaries change continuously with $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$.
Proof of the bifurcation theorem {#proof_bifur}
--------------------------------
The Bifurcation Theorem \[thm:bifur\_1\] gives necessary conditions condition for bifurcations to occur. We will first prove that condition (B1) implies that a bifurcation occurs.
**Suppose (B1) occurs.** That is, one of the components of the safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ is a single point $\{p\}$. Therefore, the closed ball $\bar{B}(f(p),{\beta})$ is a subset of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}+{\mathfrak{U}}$. In fact, the component interval $I$ of $S+{\mathfrak{U}}$ which contains $\bar{B}(f(p),{\beta})$ shares a boundary point with $\bar{B}(f(p),{\beta})$. For otherwise, if $\bar{B}(f(p),{\beta})$ is in the interior of $I$, then since $f$ is continuous, by choosing a small interval $J$ around $p$, $f(J)+{\beta}\subset I$ will be satisfied. Then $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}\cup{J}$ is a larger safe set, contradicting the maximality of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$. So $I$ does share a boundary point with $\bar{B}(f(p),{\beta})$.
Now keeping ${\beta}$ fixed, if ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is decreased, for every $\delta>0$, the components of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}+({\mathfrak{U}}-\delta)$ will shrink. Since $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}-\delta,{\beta}}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$, we get that $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}-\delta,{\beta}}+({\mathfrak{U}}-\delta)$ is strictly in the interior of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}+{\mathfrak{U}}$ . Therefore, $\bar{B}(f(p),{\beta})$ cannot be a subset of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}-\delta,{\beta}}+({\mathfrak{U}}-\delta)$ and hence $p\notin S_{{\mathfrak{U}}-\delta,{\beta}}$. Therefore, the component $\{p\}$ vanishes and a bifurcation occurs.
**(B1), (B2) are necessary.** We will prove that if neither of conditions (B1) and (B2) are satisfied at some $({\mathfrak{U}}_0, {\beta}_0)$, then the safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ changes continuously with $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ for $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ near $({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$, ie , the number of components in $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ remains constant and if $x_1, x_2, \ldots$ are its boundary points, then they can be expressed as continuous functions of $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ : $x_1({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}), x_2({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}), \ldots$.
We will first track how the safe set changes when ${\beta}$ is kept fixed at ${\beta}_0$ and ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is decreased below ${\mathfrak{U}}_0$. Since ${\beta}$ will be kept constant, $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$ will be used to denote the safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$. The proof has two parts : first we establish the equations which the boundary points of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}$ satisfy and then we invoke the implicit function theorem to prove that the solutions to these equations vary continuously with ${\mathfrak{U}}$ and hence, so do the boundaries of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$.
Since $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$ is compact, it is a disjoint union of closed, bounded intervals. So condition (B1) does not hold iff all of these intervals are proper, that is, have non-zero length.
For each boundary point $x_i$, consider the closed ball $\bar{B}(f(x_i),{\beta}_0)$. By Eqn. \[eqn:safe\_set\_1\], at least one of the following two cases must be satisfied :
1. $\bar{B}(f(x_i),{\beta}_0)$ lies in the interior of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$. Then $x_i$ must be a point lying on the boundary of $Q$, otherwise, $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}$ would not have been maximal. Then if we expect $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$ to change continuously for ${\mathfrak{U}}$ near ${\mathfrak{U}}_0$, then $\bar{B}(f(x_i),{\beta}_0)$ continues to remain in the interior of $S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}$ and hence $x_i$ continues to be an element of $S_u$. Since it is still on the boundary of $Q$, $x_i({\mathfrak{U}})=x_i({\mathfrak{U}}_0)$ is always a boundary point of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$ for ${\mathfrak{U}}$ near ${\mathfrak{U}}_0$. In particular, $$\label{eqn:non_moving}
\mbox{For every } {\mathfrak{U}}\mbox{ near } {\mathfrak{U}}_0, f(x_i)=\mbox{constant}$$
2. $\bar{B}(f(x_i),{\beta}_0)$ shares a boundary point with $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$. Then $f(x_i)\pm{\beta}_0=x_{\sigma(i)}\pm {\mathfrak{U}}_0$, where $x_{\sigma(i)}$ is some boundary point of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}$ which is at distance ${\mathfrak{U}}_0$ from a boundary point of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$. If $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$ changes continuously for ${\mathfrak{U}}$ near ${\mathfrak{U}}_0$, then by the maximality of $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$, the following equation will hold : $$\label{eqn:moving}
\mbox{ For every } {\mathfrak{U}}\mbox{ near } {\mathfrak{U}}_0, f(x_i)\pm{\beta}_0=x_{\sigma(i)}\pm {\mathfrak{U}}$$
Now $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$ can have countably many boundary points but since $S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}$ is a compact set with each component having diameter $\geq 2{\mathfrak{U}}$, $S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}$ has a finite number of components. Therefore, the range of values of $\sigma(i)$ is finite and correspond to those $x_{\sigma(i)}$-s which are at a distance of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ from the boundary of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}+{\mathfrak{U}}$. Without loss of generality, let the boundary points be renumbered so that $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ are the $x_{\sigma(i)}$-s.
Therefore, from Eqns. \[eqn:non\_moving\] and \[eqn:moving\], it is clear that all the $x_i$-s are determined by the vector $X=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ alone. Define $F:\mathbb{R}^n\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n$ as : $$F(X)=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
f(x_1)\\
\vdots \\
f(x_n)
\end{array}\right)$$ Then all first $n$ equations can be collected together as : $$F(X)=MX+\Delta({\mathfrak{U}})$$ where : $M$ is an $n$-by-$n$ matrix all of whose entries are $0$ or $1$ and which has at most one non-zero entry in each row; $\Delta({\mathfrak{U}})$ is a column vector whose entries $\in\{0,\pm{\mathfrak{U}}\pm{\beta}_0\}$.
This is a $C^1$ system, which by the implicit function theorem has a $C^1$ solution iff its Jacobian with respect to $X$ is invertible at ${\mathfrak{U}}={\mathfrak{U}}_0$. But this Jacobian $=J-M$, where $J$, the Jacobian of $F$ is a diagonal matrix $\emph{diag}(J_1,\ldots,J_n)$, where $J_i=f'(x_i({\mathfrak{U}}_0))$. By Appendix \[lemma:mat\_cyc\], the factors of $det(J-M)$ are either of the form (i) $J_i$ or (ii) $J_{i_1}\ldots J_{i_k}-1$. Since by assumption, $f$ does not have a zero derivative on the safe set, $J_i\neq 0$. A factor of the form (ii) is also $\neq 0$ since $|f'|>1$ everywhere.
Therefore, there exist continuous solutions in $x_1({\mathfrak{U}}),x_2({\mathfrak{U}}),\ldots$ of the defining equation Eqn. \[eqn:safe\_set\_1\] of a safe set. When ${\mathfrak{U}}$ is decreased below ${\mathfrak{U}}_0$, the safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$ is always a subset of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0}$. Since these solutions are also the unique solutions around ${\mathfrak{U}}={\mathfrak{U}}_0$, $x_1({\mathfrak{U}}),x_2({\mathfrak{U}}),\ldots$ must the boundary points of the maximum safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$. This means that the number of components of $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$ remain fixed and change continuously. [<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}.
Now that we have proved that $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}_0}$ changes continuously as ${\mathfrak{U}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{U}}_0^-$, the proof to the Bifurcation theorem will be complete if the following two things can be proven :
(i) $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}_0}$ changes continuously as ${\mathfrak{U}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{U}}_0$.
(ii) $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ changes continuously as $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}) \rightarrow ({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$.
This will be done sequentially through the following two lemmas.
\[lem:Upper\_cont\_safe\] If $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}_0}$ changes continuously as ${\mathfrak{U}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{U}}_0^-$, then it also changes continuously as ${\mathfrak{U}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{U}}_0$.
The lemma will be proved by showing that, in fact, safe sets are always continuous with ${\mathfrak{U}}$ from above, that is, it always changes continuously as ${\mathfrak{U}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{U}}_0^+$. Since $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0}$ decreases with decreasing $\delta$, $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0}$ will decrease continuously to $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0}$ iff : $$\mbox{For every } 0<{\mathfrak{U}}<{\beta},\ S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}=\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta,{\beta}}.$$ Let $\bar{S}$ denote the set $\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta,{\beta}}$.
Since ${\beta}$ is fixed in the above equation, it will be dropped from the notation. For all $\delta>0$, $S_{\mathfrak{U}}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}$ $\Rightarrow$ $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}\subseteq\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}$.
Thus, it remains to be proven that $\bar{S}=\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$. It would be sufficient to prove that $\bar{S}$ is a safe set. For all $\delta>0$, $f(S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta})+{\beta}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}+({\mathfrak{U}}+\delta)$ and $\bar{S}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}$
$\Rightarrow$ $f(\bar{S})+{\beta}\subseteq \underset{\delta>0}{\cap}[S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}+({\mathfrak{U}}+\delta)]=\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta}+{\mathfrak{U}}$ by Appendix \[lem:u\_lemma\].
$\Rightarrow$ $\bar{S}$ is a safe set for parameters $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$ $\Rightarrow$ $\bar{S}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}}$, the maximum safe set at parameters $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$.[<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[lemma:Hauss\_simple\_cont\] $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ changes continuously as $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})\rightarrow ({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$ iff $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}_0}$ changes continuously as ${\mathfrak{U}}\rightarrow{\mathfrak{U}}_0^-$.
Consider the coordinates $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}})$, which are obtained by a smooth, invertible transformation of the coordinates $({\mathfrak{U}},{\beta})$. Therefore, it will be equivalent to prove that the safe set $S$ changes continuously with these new coordinates. Continuity with respect to ${\mathfrak{U}}$ follows from Lemma \[lem:Upper\_cont\_safe\]. To prove continuity with respect to the coordinate ${\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}$, we will prove that in fact, if condition (B2) is not satisfied at $({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$, then for sufficiently small $\delta$, $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta,{\beta}+\delta}=S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$.
Let us assume that $\delta>0$. The proof for $\delta<0$ will be analogous. To prove the above identity, first note that $$\mbox{For every }0<{\mathfrak{U}}<{\beta}\mbox{ and every } \delta>0,\ S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}+\delta,{\beta}+\delta}.$$ This follows from Eqn. \[eqn:safe\_set\_1\]. So it remains to prove that if (B1) does not hold at $({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$, then for sufficiently small $\delta$, $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0+\delta}\subseteq S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0}$, or equivalently, $S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0+\delta}$ is a safe set for the parameters $({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$.
Consider any $x\in S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0+\delta}$, which shall be abbreviated as $S(\delta)$ for ease of notation. By definition, the closed ball $\bar{B}(f(x),{\beta}_0+\delta)\subset S(\delta)+({\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta)$. Then the smaller ball $\bar{B}(f(x),{\beta}_0)$ must be at a distance of at least $\delta$ from the boundary of $S(\delta)+({\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta)$. Since (B2) is not satisfied at $({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$, for every sufficiently small $\delta$, $S(\delta)+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$ is precisely the set of points in the interior of $S(\delta)+({\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta)$ which are at a distance of at least $\delta$ from the boundary of $S(\delta)+({\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta)$.\
$\Rightarrow$ $\bar{B}(f(x),{\beta}_0)\subset S(\delta)+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$, $\Rightarrow$ $f(S(\delta))+{\beta}_0\subseteq S(\delta)+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$, $\Rightarrow$ $S(\delta)=S_{{\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0+\delta}$ is a safe set corresponding to the parameters $({\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0)$. [<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
This concludes the proof of the Bifurcation theorem. [<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
Evolution of the safe set for the given example
-----------------------------------------------
The Bifurcation Theorem \[thm:bifur\_1\] says that for non-bifurcation points, the boundary points of the maximum safe set changes continuously. In this section, we will use the main example of the asymmetric tent map (Eqn. \[eqn:tent\_map\]) to illustrative that the boundary points are the smooth solutions to a system of differential equation. The main theorem is stated here as claim and we proceed to prove it for the specific case under consideration. We will re-visit the case shown in Fig. (\[fig:Safeset\_eg\_2\]), where the safe set corresponding to ${\mathfrak{U}}=0.04$ and ${\beta}=0.05$ has the three components, $[a_1, b_1]\approx [0.5747, 0.6141]$, $[a_2, b_2]\approx [0.7371, 0.7542]$ and $[a_3, b_3]\approx [0.8019, 0.8084]$. We can make the following claim,
**Claim :** For $u$ near $0.04$, the boundary points of the safe set change continuously as functions of ${\mathfrak{U}}$, and satisfy the following : $$\left( \begin{array}{c}
\frac{da_1}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{db_1}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{da_2}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{db_3}{d{\mathfrak{U}}}
\end{array}\right)
=\frac{1}{f'(a_1)f'(a_2)f'(b_3)-1}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
f'(b_3)-f'(a_2)f'(b_3)-f'(a_1)f'(a_2) \\
f'(a_2)(f'(b_1)^{-1}(f'(a_1)f'(b_3)-1)-f'(a_1)) \\
f'(a_1)f'(b_3)-f'(a_1)f'(a_2)-1 \\
1-f'(a_1)f'(a_2)-f'(a_2)
\end{array}\right).$$ and $f(b_2)=a_2+{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}$, $f(a_3)=b_1+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}$.
**Proof :** Neither of the two bifurcation conditions (i) and (ii) of the Bifurcation Theorem 3.1 are satisfied, since\
B1 : the two gaps between adjacent intervals are $a_2-b_1\approx 0.123$, $a_3-b_2\approx 0.0477$ while $2{\mathfrak{U}}=0.08$.\
B2 : none of the component intervals is a single point.
Denote the safe set at ${\mathfrak{U}}$ by $S_{\mathfrak{U}}$, with ${\beta}$ fixed at $0.04$. According to Def. 3.3, the defining equation for a safe set is $f(S_{\mathfrak{U}})=f(Q)\cap (S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta})$. For ${\mathfrak{U}}$ near $0.04$, this relation simplifies to :
$f(S_{\mathfrak{U}})=S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}$, because at ${\mathfrak{U}}=0.04$, $S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}=[a_1+{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}, b_1-{\beta}+{\mathfrak{U}}]\cup[a_2+{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}, b_3-{\beta}+{\mathfrak{U}}]\approx[0.5847, 0.6043]\cup[0.7471, 0.7985]$ and $f(Q)\approx[0, 0.91] \supset S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}$. These relations hold for all values of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ sufficiently near $0.04$, because $f(S_{\mathfrak{U}})=S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}$ will be satisfied here and because of condition (i), $S_{\mathfrak{U}}+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}$ will have three intervals which can be explicitly written down as above as continuous functions of ${\mathfrak{U}}$.
Moreover we have : $$\label{eqn:sample_proof_system}
\left(\begin{array}{c}f(a_1)\\f(b_1)\\f(a_2)\\f(b_3)\end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c}a_2+{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}\\b_3-{\beta}+{\mathfrak{U}}\\a_3-{\beta}+{\mathfrak{U}}\\a_1+{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}\end{array}\right)$$ and $$f(b_2)=a_2+{\beta}-{\mathfrak{U}}, f(a_3)=b_1+{\mathfrak{U}}-{\beta}$$
Note that in the system of equations given above, the variables $b_2$ and $a_3$ are completely determined by the variables $(a_1, b_1, a_2, b_3)$, hence it is sufficient to consider he solution in these $4$ variables.
By the implicit function theorem, these $4$ variables, which have been represented as solutions to a set of equation, vary continuously with ${\mathfrak{U}}$ iff the Jacobian of the system of equations (\[eqn:sample\_proof\_system\]) with respect to these $4$ variables is invertible, or equivalently, the equations can be differentiated with respect to ${\mathfrak{U}}$ to obtain an ordinary differential equation (ODE). The derivative of the above system of equations with respect to $u$ gives $$\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
f'(a_1) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & f'(b_1) & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & f'(a_2) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & f'(b_3)
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\frac{da_1}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{db_1}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{da_2}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{db_3}{d{\mathfrak{U}}}
\end{array}\right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\frac{da_1}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{db_1}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{da_2}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{db_3}{d{\mathfrak{U}}}
\end{array}\right)
+
\left( \begin{array}{c}
-1 \\
1 \\
1\\
-1 \\
\end{array} \right).$$ Rearranging : $$\left( \begin{array}{cccc}
f'(a_1) & 0 & -1 & 0 \\
0 & f'(b_1) & 0 & -1 \\
0 & 0 & f'(a_2) & -1 \\
-1 & 0 & 0 & f'(b_3) \\
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{c}
\frac{d(a_1)}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{d(b_1)}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{d(a_2)}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\frac{d(b_3)}{d{\mathfrak{U}}} \\
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{c}
-1 \\
1 \\
1\\
-1 \\
\end{array} \right).$$ The matrix on the left has determinant $f'(b_1)[f'(a_1)f'(a_2)f'(b_3)-1]$, which is non-zero since $|f'|>1$ everywhere except 0.7, which is not in the safe set. As a result it can be inverted to obtain an ordinary differential equation in $(a_1, b_1, a_2, b_3)$, which the reader can verify to be the one in the claim. Therefore, under the given conditions, the safe set not only changes continuously but its boundary points also satisfy an ODE.
A closer look at the bifurcations
---------------------------------
**Split bifurcation.** According to the Bifurcation theorem (\[thm:bifur\_1\]), this situation occurs when the distance between two adjacent components of the safe set is equal to $2u$. As a result, either the safe set vanishes or a component splits into two or more components. The following lemma gives a set theoretic version of the split bifurcation condition :
\[lemma:split\_cond\] Let $X\subset\mathbb{R}$ be compact. Then no two adjacent connected components of $X$ are at distance $2{\mathfrak{U}}$ from each other iff for all sufficiently small $\delta>0$, $X+{\mathfrak{U}}-\delta=X+({\mathfrak{U}}-\delta)$.
Only a split bifurcation can lead to a splitting into 2 or more new components. In Figure 7, which shows the measure of the safe set as a contour plot, two kinds of boundaries can be seen between the different regions in the plot. It is at these boundaries that the bifurcations occur. The values of $({\mathfrak{U}}, {\beta})$ where split bifurcations occur, must be those boundaries separating regions of the plot with different components. Though they are straight lines for the tent map, is systems like the logistic map, they are generic curves. Figure 8 showed such a split occurring at the point $({\beta}=0.05; {\mathfrak{U}}=0.045)$, which is very near such a boundary.
**Vanishing point bifurcation.** In Figure 7, the vanishing point bifurcations occur are seen to be occurring along straight lines with slope 1. Theorem \[thm:shrink\_slope\_1\] below proves that this indeed is the case. For any perturbation bound ${\beta}$, there is a value $u_{min}({\beta})$ , which is the minimum of all values of ${\mathfrak{U}}$ for which the safe set exists. The following theorem states that the set of pairs of the form ($(u_{min}({\beta}),{\beta})$ form straight lines with slope 1 almost everywhere, wherever the pair is not a split bifurcation point.
\[thm:shrink\_slope\_1\] If for some ${\beta}_0>0$, $(u_{min}({\beta}_0),{\beta}_0)$ is not a split bifurcation point, then the graph of $u_{min}$ is a straight line with slope 1 near ${\beta}_0$.
Let for small $\delta$, $S_\delta$ denote the maximum safe set at ${\mathfrak{U}}:=u_{min}({\beta}_0+\delta)$, ${\beta}={\beta}_0+\delta$ and ${\mathfrak{U}}_\delta$ denote the set $u_{min}({\beta}_0+\delta)$. Therefore, $S_\delta$ is the maximum safe set at $({\mathfrak{U}}_\delta,{\beta}_0+\delta)$.
Then by assumption, $f(S_0)+{\beta}_0=S_0+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$. Taking closed $\delta>0$ balls around the quantities on both sides of this equation, we get\
$[f(S_0)+{\beta}_0]+\delta=[S_0+{\mathfrak{U}}_0]+\delta$ $\Rightarrow$ $f(S_0)+({\beta}_0+\delta)=S_0+({\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta)$.\
$\Rightarrow$ $S_0$ is also a safe set for $({\mathfrak{U}}_0+\delta,{\beta}_0+\delta)$. Therefore, for $$\label{eqn:shrink_slope_1}
\mbox{For } \forall\delta>0, u_{\min}({\beta}_0+\delta)\leq u_{min}({\beta}_0)+\delta.$$
Let $\Delta_1$ be the maximum distance between adjacent components of $S_0$ which are less than or equal to $2{\mathfrak{U}}_0$ distance apart. Then since a split bifurcation does not occur at ${\mathfrak{U}}_0,{\beta}_0$, $\Delta_1<2{\mathfrak{U}}_0$. Then $\Delta:=2{\mathfrak{U}}_0-\Delta_1>0$. So if $\exists y\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $d(y,S_0)>0.5\Delta_1={\mathfrak{U}}_0-0.5\Delta$, then $y\notin S_0+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$
**Claim.** For $\forall \delta>0$ such that $\delta<0.5\Delta$, $S_0$ is a safe set for $({\mathfrak{U}}_0-\delta,{\beta}_0-\delta)$.
**Proof.** Suppose the claim is false. Then $\exists x\in S_0$ such that $\bar{B}(f(x),{\beta}_0-\delta)$ is not a subset of $S_0+({\mathfrak{U}}_0-\delta)$. Then $\exists y=f(x)\pm({\beta}_0-\delta)\notin S_0+({\mathfrak{U}}_0-\delta)$. This implies that $d(y,S_0)>{\mathfrak{U}}_0-\delta\geq{\mathfrak{U}}_0-0.5\Delta$. We have seen that this implies that $y\notin S_0+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$.
But $y\in f(S_0)+({\beta}_0-\delta)\subset f(S_0)+{\beta}_0= S_0+{\mathfrak{U}}_0$, a contradiction. Hence the claim must be true. Therefore, it follows from this claim that, $$\label{eqn:shrink_slope_2}
\mbox{For } \forall 0<\delta<0.5\Delta, u_{\min}({\beta}_0-\delta)\leq u_{min}({\beta}_0)-\delta.$$ The constant $\Delta$ can be chosen to be constant for all points in any small neighborhood of ${\beta}_0$. Therefore, the two inequalities (\[eqn:shrink\_slope\_1\]) and (\[eqn:shrink\_slope\_2\]) together prove the claim of this theorem. [<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
A result on matrices
====================
\[lemma:mat\_cyc\] Let $D = diag(d_1,\ldots,d_n)$ be a diagonal matrix and $M$ an $n\times n$ $0 - 1$ matrix with at most one $1$ in each row. Then the factors of $det(D - M)$ are of the following form :\
(i) $d_i$\
(ii)$d_{i_1}\ldots d_{i_k}-1$.\
Moreover, a factor of the form $d_{i_1}\ldots d_{i_k}-1$ occurs iff the principal matrix of $M$ with indices $i_1,\ldots,i_k$ is a permutation matrix corresponding to the cyclic permutation $(i_1,\ldots i_k)$.
The proof will be by induction on $n$. The base case $n = 2$ can be verified by enumerating the few possibilities for the matrix $M$.
For general $n$, there can be two cases :\
(i) there exists a column in $M$ with all entries 0. Without loss of generality, this column is the first column. Then $det(D - M) = d_1 det(D'-M')$, where $D'$, $M'$ are obtained from $D$, $M$ respectively by deleting the first rows and columns. By the inductive assumption, $det(D'-M')$ has the prescribed format and hence so does $det(D - M)$.\
(ii) All columns in $M$ have a non-zero entry. Since there is at most one $1$ in each row of $M$, there are at most $n$ $1$-s in $M$. Hence $M$ is a permutation matrix. Using the cycle decomposition of permutations, the rows and columns may be permuted (without changing the determinant) so that $D-M$ is in block diagonal form. Hence, its determinant is the product of the determinant of the blocks. Hence, it is sufficient to prove the theorem for the case that $M$ is a cyclic permutation matrix. If $M$ is a cyclic permutation matrix, then $det(D-M) = det(D) - 1$ Hence in either case, $det(D - M)$ has the prescribed format.[<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
Safe sets
=========
\[lemma:maximal\] The maximal safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$ satisfies $f(S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}})+{\beta}=[f(Q)+{\beta}]\cap[S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}+{\mathfrak{U}}]$.
For the rest of the proof, let $S$ denote the maximum safe set $S_{{\mathfrak{U}},{\beta}}$. Note that since $S \subseteq Q$, $f(S)+{\beta}\subseteq [f(Q)+{\beta}]$. By the definition of a safe set, $f(S)+{\beta}\subseteq [S+{\mathfrak{U}}]$. Therefore, $f(S)+{\beta}$ must be a subset of $[f(Q)+{\beta}]\cap[S+{\mathfrak{U}}]$.
Suppose equality does not hold. Then in particular, $f(S)+{\beta}$ must be a strict subset of $[f(Q)+{\beta}]$. Since these are both compact sets, there must be a boundary $z$ of $f(S)+{\beta}$ and in the interior of $f(Q)+{\beta}$. So there is a point $y$ on the boundary of $f(S)$ at distance ${\beta}$ from $z$. Note that $y$ must lie in the interior of $f(Q)$, for if $y$ was on the boundary of $f(Q)$, then $z$ would have been on the boundary of $f(Q)+{\beta}$.
Now, $y=f(x)$ for some $x\in S$. We will prove that $x$ must be a boundary point of $S$. Take any open neighborhood $U$ of $y$ in $f(Q)$. Since $f$ is continuous, $f^{-1}(U)$ must be an open neighborhood of $x$. So if $x$ was an interior point of $S$, then by choosing $U$ small enough, $f^{-1}(U)$ could be contained inside $S$. This leads to a contradiction, because $U=f(f^{-1}(U))$ and $U$ is not a subset of the image $f(S)$.
Thus $x$ is a boundary point of $S$ and in the interior of $Q$. Since $f$ has been assumed to be piecewise expanding, (4b) if $x$ is perturbed slightly so as to increase $S$, the image $y=f(x)$ would also get perturbed slightly. Hence, $z$, the corresponding point on the boundary of $f(S)+{\beta}$ would also get perturbed slightly and still lie in the interior of $f(Q)+{\beta}$. This contradicts the maximality of $S$.[<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[lem:continuity\_intersection\] Let for $\delta>0$, $K_{\delta}$ be a decreasing sequence of compact sets satisfying $K_{\delta}\subseteq K_{\delta'}$ if $\delta<\delta'$. Let $K=\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}K_{\delta} \neq\Phi$. Then for all $\epsilon>0$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that $d_{Hauss}(K,K_{\delta})<\epsilon$.
If the contrary is true, then for all $\delta>0$, there exists $x_\delta\in K_\delta$ so that $d(K,x_{\delta})\geq\epsilon$. These $x_\delta$-s have a limit point $\bar{x}$, which satisfies $d(\bar{x},K)\geq\epsilon$. Since the $K_\delta$-s form a decreasing sequence, $\bar{x}\in K_{\delta}$ for every $\delta>0$. Therefore, $\bar{x}\in\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}K_{\delta}=K$, which contradicts the fact that $d(\bar{x},K)\geq\epsilon$.[<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
\[lem:u\_lemma\] Let for $\delta>0$, $K_{\delta}$ be a decreasing sequence of compact sets satisfying $K_{\delta}\subseteq K_{\delta'}$ if $\delta<\delta'$. Let $K=\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}K_{\delta} \neq\Phi$. Then $\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}[K_{\delta}+(u+\delta)]=K+u$.
The intersection $\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}[K_{\delta}+(u+\delta)]$ contains the set $K+u$. Let $y\in \underset{\delta>0}{\cap}[K_{\delta}+(u+\delta)]-[K+u]$. Then $d(K,y)=u+\epsilon$ for some $\epsilon>0$. By Lemma \[lem:continuity\_intersection\], for $\delta$ sufficiently small, $d_{Hauss}(K_{\delta},K)<0.5\epsilon$. So for $\delta<0.5\epsilon$, $d_{Hauss}(K_{\delta}+(u+\delta),K+u)<\epsilon$. But we have assumed that $y\in\underset{\delta>0}{\cap}[K_{\delta}+(u+\delta)]$, so $d(K+u,y)<\epsilon$ and $d(K,y)<u+\epsilon$, a contradiction.[<1.5em -1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'M.A. Garrett, J.M. Wrobel'
- 'R. Morganti'
title: |
Discovering the microJy Radio VLBI Sky via\
“Full-beam” Self-calibration
---
Introduction
============
Until recently the study of the sub-mJy and microJy radio sources at milliarcsecond resolution has been limited by the phase stability of VLBI arrays. While the technique of phase-referencing is often used to improve the stability and thus coherence time of VLBI data, the results are often non-optimal, especially in poor observing conditions or for reference-target separations that are greater than a few degrees. In this paper, we present a new calibration technique for VLBI - [*full-beam*]{} self-calibration. In this case, the self-calibration process is driven by the response of [*multiple faint sources*]{}, [*i.e.*]{} sources that serendipitously lie close to the target source, within the confines of the FWHM of a typical VLBI antenna’s primary beam. While individually these faint sources may not be strong enough for self-calibration techniques to be employed, their [*summed response*]{} will often be more than sufficient. The technique relies on being able to detect all these faint sources simultaneously, and thus requires the employment of wide-field VLBI imaging techniques. In this paper we demonstrate the feasibility of applying full-beam self-calibration techniques to (wide-field) VLBI data.
Deep, Wide-field VLBA-GBT Imaging of the Bootes Field in NOAO-N
===============================================================
We have recently completed a deep 1.4 GHz VLBA-GBT wide-field survey of a region located within the NOAO-N Boötes field. The observing programme employed both traditional external and “in-beam” phase-reference techniques (see Garrett, Wrobel & Morganti 2004, for the gory details). Applying wide-field VLBI techniques, a total of 61 sources, selected from a Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) image, were surveyed simultaneously with a range of different sensitivities and resolution. A total of 9 sources were detected over a field of 1017 arcmin$^2$ $=$ 0.28 deg$^2$. The inner few arcmins of the field reaches unprecedented VLBI noise levels of $\sim
9\mu$Jy/beam, rising to $\sim 55\mu$Jy/beam at the edge of the field. The field and the detections obtained from the full 24 hr data set are shown in Fig. 1. Each of the VLBI detections has a brightness temperature in excess of $10^5$ K and morphology that strongly suggests that their radio emission is powered by AGN processes. For a full scientific discussion of the nature of the sources, see Garrett, Wrobel & Morganti (2004).
The VLBI detection rate for sub-mJy WSRT radio sources in the Boötes field is 8$^{+4}_{-5}$%. As expected, the VLBI detection rate for mJy WSRT sources is higher, 29$^{+11}_{-12}$%. Our VLBI results suggest, that a significant fraction ($\sim 1/3$ ) of the sub-mJy AGN radio sources ($> 100$ microJy) are sufficiently compact to be detectable with VLBI.
Full-beam Self-calibration
==========================
The simultaneous detection of several sub-mJy and mJy radio sources in a single observation, suggests that their combined response may be used to self-calibrate wide-field VLBI data. We have attempted to investigate this possibility by self-calibrating a [*subset*]{} of the full Boötes VLBI data with all the sources detected in the field, excluding the bright (20 mJy) “in-beam” calibrator (the response of which was already subtracted from the data as part of the deep field analysis process). A subset of the data were selected (8 hr of the 24 hr total) with a further constraint that the uv-distance be restricted to $ < 3$M$\lambda$. This sub-set was chosen in order that the self-calibration process be tractable on reasonable time-scales, using a standard (Linux) dual-processor PC. The uv-data limit was also required in order to reduce time and bandwidth smearing effects for sources at the edge of the field. Of the 8 sources detected in the original analysis, 2 of the fainter sources could not be detected in the restricted (and thus less sensitive) 3M$\lambda$ data set. However, the remaining six sources provide a summed (CLEANed) flux density response of $\sim 20$ mJy across the field.
Combined solutions across the full 64 MHz band were obtained with a solution interval of $\sim 600$ seconds using the AIPS task, [ CALIB]{}. The source model for the self-calibration process, included all 6 maps associated with the sources detected in the field. Phase solutions were obtained (see Fig. 2, left) with good signal-to-noise. The solutions are centred around $0^{\circ}$ phase but there are clear deviations from this, reflecting changes in the phase corrections derived from the original “in-beam” calibrator (located close to the centre of the field, see Fig. 1) and those derived via the “full-beam” technique.
In Figs. 3 we present images of the brightest source (Target 55, $S_{T}
\sim 13$ mJy) in the field (excluding the $\sim 20$ mJy in-beam calibrator) made with the original “in-beam” corrections (Fig. 3, top left) and “full-beam” corrections (also Fig. 3, top right). The similarity of the maps suggest that the “full-beam” approach has worked well. We also determined phase corrections using the response of this bright source (Target 55) alone. The corresponding image is also shown in Fig. 3 (bottom left). Again this image is similar to the images obtained via the original “in-beam” calibrator and “full beam” approach.
We also made an additional “full-beam” calibrated image, but this time the response of the brightest source (Target 55) itself was excluded from the self-calibration process. The total summed flux density of the remaining 5 sources was $\sim 6.5$ mJy and the self-calibration was conducted on a data set for which the response of Target 55 had already been subtracted. The phase corrections are presented in Fig. 2 (right). These corrections are noisier than the previous solutions but are still very similar to those obtained from the response of Target 55 only. The similarity is probably due to the fact that the phase solutions are weighted towards the second brightest source in the field (Target 52) which lies very close to Target 55 - at the edge of the field, due north of the phase-centre (see Fig. 1). The solutions were copied back to the original data set (that included the response of Target 55) and the associated image is presented in Fig. 3 (bottom right). The image is similar to the other images presented in Fig. 3, suggesting that the full-beam technique has worked well.
All images of Target 55 were made with the AIPS task [APCLN]{} using the same CLEAN parameters in each case. Note that corrections for ionospheric Faraday rotation and dispersive delay were not made to this data set.
We have also made a very preliminary study of the effect of the various “in-beam” and “full-beam” corrections, on the detectability of fainter sources in the field, lying far from the original “in-beam” calibrator and Targets 55 and 52. In particular, in Fig. 4 we present images of Target 58 using the original “in-beam” calibration, and various flavours of “full-beam” calibration. Target 58 is located far from the field centre, almost $0.5^{\circ}$ away from Target 55 and 52, on the opposite side of the primary beam (see Fig. 1). The images in Fig. 4 show that Target 58 is detected using all flavours of full-beam calibration, the maps are all very similar and the 1 mJy source is detected with SNR $>$ 13.
Conclusions
===========
Our study demonstrates that at 1.4 GHz the combined response of sources detected serendipitously in deep, wide-field VLBI images will often be sufficient to permit full-beam self-calibration techniques to be employed. The implication is profound: the application of full-beam self-calibration permits VLBI observations to be conducted in any random direction on the sky, thereby enabling large-area, unbiased surveys of the faint radio source population to be conducted. In addition, the technique of full-beam calibration can also be used to improve traditional (nodding) phase reference observations where the target-calibrator separation is often several degrees and the resulting images are usually dynamic range limited. Full-beam VLBI self-calibration techniques are particularly appropriate for observations of specific (faint) sources of special interest (e.g. GRBs, SNe, SNR, low-luminosity AGN [*etc*]{}).
As the major VLBI networks upgrade to Mk5 recording systems (permitting data rates of 1 Gbps), EVN and Global VLBI observations can expect to reach 1 $\sigma$ rms noise levels of a few microJy/beam. Sources brighter than $\sim 10\mu$ Jy will be legitimate VLBI targets. Fig. 5 presents a simulated view of the faint microJy sky. Up to 10% of the faint sources presented in this figure may be detectable with VLBI and the summed response of these will enable full-beam calibration to be employed at frequencies of a few GHz and perhaps as high as 5 GHz for very deep observations. For next generation instruments like e-MERLIN, e-EVN/e-VLBI and the SKA, there will be a wealth of calibration sources available at almost all frequencies (0.1-25 GHz).
At the levels of sensitivity about to be explored by VLBI, a comprehensive census of active galaxies associated with sub-mJy radio sources will be possible, including studies of the optically faint microJy radio source population. At microJy noise levels, radio-loud active galaxies are detectable at the very earliest cosmic epochs, when the first active galaxies and their energising massive black holes began to form. In addition, hypernova such as those already detected in local starburst galaxies (e.g. Arp 220) will be detectable at cosmological distances, as will GRB after-glows. Full-beam self-calibration can play an important role in realising these prime scientific goals.
This research was supported by the European Commission’s I3 Programme “RadioNet", under contract No. 505818. NRAO is a facility of the NSF operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. The WSRT is operated by the ASTRON (Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy) with support from the Netherlands Foundation for Scientific Research (NWO).
Garrett, M. A., Wrobel, J.M. & Morganti, R. 2004, ApJ in press (see astro-ph)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Scheme uses garbage collection for heap memory management. Ideally, garbage collectors should be able to reclaim all [*dead*]{} objects, i.e. objects that will not be used in future. However, garbage collectors collect only those dead objects that are not reachable from any program variable. Dead objects that are reachable from program variables are not reclaimed.
In this paper we describe our experiments to measure the effectiveness of garbage collection in MIT/GNU Scheme. We compute the drag time of objects, i.e. the time for which an object remains in heap memory after its last use. The number of dead objects and the drag time together indicate opportunities for improving garbage collection. Our experiments reveal that up to of dead objects remain in memory. The average drag time is up to of execution time. Overall, we observe memory saving potential ranging from to .
author:
- |
[Amey Karkare$^\ast$[^1], Amitabha Sanyal and Uday Khedker]{}\
[Department of Computer Science & Engg.,\
IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India\
[{karkare,as,uday}@cse.iitb.ac.in]{}]{}
bibliography:
- 'scheme\_gc.bib'
title: 'Effectiveness of Garbage Collection in MIT/GNU Scheme'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Garbage collection is an attractive alternative to manual memory management because it frees the programmer from the responsibility of keeping track of object lifetimes. This makes programs easier to design, implement, understand and maintain. Ideally, a garbage collector should be able to reclaim all [*dead*]{} objects, i.e. objects that will not be used in future. However, this is not possible because garbage collectors conservatively approximate the [*liveness*]{} of an object by its reachability from a predefined set of variables called [*root*]{} variables (typically the set of variables on the program stack). Garbage collectors cannot distinguish between [live]{} reachable objects from [dead]{} reachable objects. Hence they collect unreachable objects only as these objects are guaranteed to be dead. This means many dead objects are left uncollected, a fact that has been confirmed by empirical studies for various languages like Haskell [@rojemo96lag] and Java [@shaham00gc; @shaham01heap; @shaham02estimating]. Our experiments for MIT/GNU Scheme reveal that up to of dead objects remain in memory, with dead objects remaining in memory for up to of execution time. Memory saving potential ranges from to .
A Motivational Example
----------------------
[c]{}
( ((x ( …))) ( loop ((y x)) ( ( y) ’() ( (…( y) …) [[;; process the head]{}]{} (loop ( y))))))
\
\
[(a) A program traversing a linked list.]{}\
\
\
\
(b)
-----------------------------------
Memory graph at the beginning of
the second iteration of the loop.
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:motiv\](a) shows a program that traverses a singly linked list. Figure \[fig:motiv\](b) shows the memory graph at the end of first iteration of the loop in the program. The object $O_1$ in the memory is unused after the first iteration of the loop. However, it cannot be collected by garbage collector as it is reachable from the variable . Similarly, object $O_2$ is unused after second iteration of the loop, $O_3$ after third iteration, and so on. All of these objects, though dead, will be garbage collected only after the variable goes out of scope (i.e. at the end of the outer [let]{} loop.) If is nullified after its last use (line 2, first iteration of loop) the objects may be collected whenever garbage collection is invoked after their last use, even though remains in scope.
Background {#sec:background}
----------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:imp-eve\] shows the important events in the life of a heap object: creation, use, and garbage collection. The interval from the time of last use to the time of garbage collection is called the [*drag*]{} time ($\delta$) and the object is called a [*dead*]{} object [@rojemo96lag; @shaham00gc; @shaham01heap; @shaham02estimating]. If an object is never used after creation, its drag time is the interval between its creation time and its collection time. A large drag time indicates that the object was reachable, and hence ignored by garbage collector, long after its last use.
The number of dead objects and the drag time is a measure of improvement opportunities in garbage collection and give us an upper bound on the number of objects that could be collected over the ones collected by garbage collector. The upper bound is for a particular execution path of program. There may be no algorithm that can collect all the dead objects.
The drag time of an object can be divided into two components: (1) $\deltarch$, the interval between the last use of the object and the time when it becomes unreachable, and (2) $\deltagc$, the interval between the time when the object becomes unreachable and the time when it is collected by garbage collector. $\deltarch$ depends upon the program but is independent of the garbage collector, whereas $\deltagc$ depends heavily upon the garbage collector—algorithm used, frequency of invocation, and time of invocation. For example, for a reference count based garbage collector, $\deltagc$ is always $0$ for all objects[^2]. For mark and sweep or copying collector, $\deltagc$ for an object depends upon the time when the garbage collector gets invoked after the object becomes unreachable. $\deltagc$ can typically be reduced by increasing the frequency of garbage collection (at the expense of slowing down the real computation).
Organization {#sec:organization}
------------
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section \[sec:experiments\], we describe our setup to carry out the experiments and the benchmark programs used for measurements. Section \[sec:results\] discusses the results of the experiments. Section \[sec:related\] describes the research done by others in related areas. Section \[sec:concl-and-future\] concludes the paper and provides directions for future work.
Experimental Setup {#sec:experiments}
==================
In our experiments we measure the value of $\deltarch$, which is the characteristic of the program only and independent of the garbage collector, and hence independent of the Scheme implementation. We approximate $\deltarch$ by $\delta$ by forcing garbage collector to be invoked at a very high frequency, thereby ensuring that $\deltagc
\equiv 0$. However, this technique does not work for incremental or generational garbage collectors, because these do not scan all objects in memory for every cycle. Therefore, even after an object has become unreachable, it may or may not be collected by next garbage collection cycle, resulting in a non-zero $\deltagc$.
We have used MIT/GNU Scheme[^3], as it uses a simple copying based garbage collector, which is neither incremental nor generational. It is also easy to modify the implementation to invoke garbage collector at a very high frequency.
We record the statistics associated with [*pairs*]{} and [*vectors*]{} only, ignoring all other constructs (e.g. [*strings*]{}) that create objects in heap. Collecting statistics for all constructs is difficult as (a) it slows down the experiments considerably, and (b) the amount of statistics generated is overwhelming—even for moderate size benchmarks, the execution goes out of memory. This restriction is not that bad because previous studies have shown that cons cells and vectors account for most of the space as well number of objects allocated in typical LISP programs \[[zorn89phd]{}, Section 3.7.1\].
We associate a structure with every object under consideration to record the creation time and the most recent use time. Whenever garbage collector collects an object, its data is written to a log file along with the garbage collection time. The log file thus generated is post-processed to generate statistics. Section \[sec:gen-data\] and Section \[sec:rep-data\] describe the process in detail.
Generating Data {#sec:gen-data}
---------------
We associate a structure () to record the creation time () and the most recent use time () with every object under consideration. The object address is used as key for . also contains a flag () to tell whether the corresponding object was collected by the current garbage collection or not. Scheme primitives and procedures are modified to update the fields of . We describe how this is done for primitives that operate on [*pairs*]{} (or lists). Similar changes are applied to primitives for [*vectors*]{} too.
- [*Creation:*]{} In Scheme, pairs are created using primitives, e.g. [cons]{}, [list]{}, [vector->list]{}, [ string->list]{}. These primitives are modified to create the (s) corresponding to the new pair(s) created, and populate the , while is set to an invalid value (-1).
- [*Use:*]{} Primitives like [car]{}, [cdr]{}, [set-car!]{}, [set-cdr!]{} including predicates like [null?]{}, [pair?]{}, [number?]{} are considered as use of their argument and are modified to update of corresponding . If an object is never used, its remains -1.
- [*Garbage collection:*]{} Garbage collector in MIT/GNU Scheme is a copying collector. Before actual garbage collection, we reset the GC flag in all s. Whenever an object is copied from working memory to free memory, corresponding is set, and its new address is copied into the key. At the end of garbage collection, all s are scanned. If is false, meaning the object was not copied to free memory, than the object is assumed to be collected by garbage collector. For all such objects, we write the data in s to a log file along with the garbage collection time. Also, at program termination, data in s of all the objects remaining in heap is written to the log file.
Scheme runtime libraries are forced to use these modified primitives. We trigger garbage collection at every . The benchmarks are run in this modified environment to generate data in the log file.
Reporting Data {#sec:rep-data}
--------------
The log files generated by running the benchmark programs are processed to generate statistics. In our experiments
- We compare the number of dead objects with the number of allocated objects.
- We compare the average drag time of objects and maximum drag time over all the objects with the total runtime of the program.
- We record the distribution of drag times of objects as a percentage of total runtime.
Potential savings in memory is estimated by measuring the space time product for dead objects as a percentage of space time product for all allocated objects.
Benchmarks {#sec:benchmarks}
----------
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Lexical analyzer generator [@silex.web]
An LALR(1) parser generator [@lalr.web]
Code in Chapter 7 of Essentials of Programming
Languages [@eopl.book]
Interpreter for pure Prolog [@prolog.web]
Sudoku [@sudoku.www] puzzle solver [@sudoku.web]
Program [@cipher.web] to decode substitution cipher [@cipher.www]
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------
: The benchmarks[]{data-label="tab:benchmarks"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our benchmark programs are described in Table \[tab:benchmarks\]. The programs range from code () from standard text-book [*Essentials of Programming Languages*]{} [@eopl.book] to the programs ( and ) by first year undergraduates. and are run with one test case each, while , , and are run with multiple test cases each. The benchmarks and test cases can be obtained from [@gc-scheme.web].
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In this section we describe the results of our experiments.
Reachable vs. Live Objects {#sec:rch-use}
--------------------------
-- --
-- --
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:graph-rch-use\] plots reachable objects and live objects against time. The difference between the two lines gives the number of reachable but dead objects. All the graphs show a significant number of dead objects.
The graphs of , and contain many [crests]{} and [troughs]{}, while the graphs for , and are relatively smooth. Our conjecture is that this is because , and use backtracking algorithms, and the troughs correspond to the transitions between successive backtracking phases. To validate our conjecture, we experimented with . We used 3 different test cases—the first test case had only one cell unfilled so that no backtracking was required by solver. The second test case had very few unfilled cells so that a little amount of backtracking was involved, while the third test case was a very hard puzzle that involved high amount of backtracking. The results are shown in Figure \[fig:sudoku-bts\]: We can see that, for the third test case, the number of crest-trough pairs is too high as compared to other cases. Also, since solver’s algorithm is mainly a backtracking algorithm with a few heuristics, runtime of the test cases increases with the level of difficulty (backtracking).
--------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------
[No backtracking]{} [Little backtracking]{} [High backtracking]{}
--------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In there is an initial burst where the reachable memory is very high. This corresponds to the phase where all the test cases are loaded into Scheme. For our experiments, we ran three interpreters corresponding to the code given in Chapter 7 of [@eopl.book]. Small crests in plot of reachable objects (and troughs in plot of live objects) in correspond to transition from one interpreter to other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To estimate the memory savings, we compute the space-time product for reachable objects and that for live objects by computing the area under respective plots (see Table \[tab:space-time-prod\]). The potential of saving ranges from to for our benchmarks.
Number of Allocated Objects vs. Dead Objects {#sec:num-tot-drag}
--------------------------------------------
[Figures in parenthesis denote the percentage of dead objects with respect to allocated objects.]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:num-tot-drag\] shows total number of objects allocated vs. number of dead objects. Even though the percentage of dead objects is very small (less than ) for and , there is still significant potential for memory savings because the drag time of these objects is large. This is described in details in next section.
Drag vs. Runtime {#sec:drag-run}
----------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table \[tab:drag-stats\], we show how drag time of objects compare with the total runtime for a given program. Note that for , , , and , the maximum drag time is very close to the total runtime. This indicates presence of objects that are created near the beginning of the program and remain unused throughout the execution.
-- --
-- --
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:graph-drag\] shows the distribution of dead times of objects as percentage of runtime of the program. In all the benchmarks, most of the dead objects are in the range of total runtime. and do not have any objects towards higher percentages. On the other hand, , and have a large number of objects that have a significant drag time of . These objects contribute significantly to the space time product (Table \[tab:space-time-prod\]). Collecting such objects will yield high memory savings.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Similar experiments have been done to measure the effectiveness of garbage collection in different language implementations, e.g. Haskell [@rojemo96lag], Java [@shaham00gc; @shaham01heap; @shaham02estimating]. Our definitions and measurement methodologies are based on the standards from previous work.
KBDB[@serrano00understanding], a heap inspector for Scheme programs, relies on user interaction to inspect heap usage at different points during the execution of program. Typically, the heap is inspected before and after evaluation of some expression to estimate the memory leaked by that expression. This approach is orthogonal to our approach of using dead object information to detect memory leak.
Conclusions and Future Work {#sec:concl-and-future}
===========================
Our experiments show that for Scheme, at any given time, there is a significant number of reachable objects that are not live. Also, a large number of such objects remain in memory for a long duration. Garbage collection for Scheme can improve significantly if such objects can be identified and made unreachable at the earliest using automatic techniques.
In, our earlier work [@khedker06heap], we have shown that for imperative languages like Java, the number of reachable dead objects can be reduced by automatically identifying and nullifying dead memory links. We are extending that work to be applicable to functional languages. The work reported in this paper is the first step towards that direction.
We are thankful to Chris Hanson, Matt Birkholz and Taylor Campbell for answering our queries related to memory management primitives in MIT/GNU Scheme.
[^1]: $^\ast$Supported by Infosys Technologies Limited, Bangalore, under Infosys Fellowship Award.
[^2]: Ignoring objects that are part of cycle.
[^3]: Release 7.7.90.+, from <http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/mit-scheme/snapshot.pkg/20050724/>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Multiple-stage adaptive architectures are conceived to face with the problem of target detection buried in noise, clutter, and intentional interference. First, a scenario where the radar system is under the electronic attack of noise-like interferers is considered. In this context, two sets of training samples are jointly exploited to devise a novel two-step estimation procedure of the interference covariance matrix. Then, this estimate is plugged in the adaptive matched filter to mitigate the deleterious effects of the noise-like jammers on radar sensitivity. Besides, a second scenario, which extends the former by including the presence of coherent jammers, is addressed. Specifically, the sparse nature of data is brought to light and the compressive sensing paradigm is applied to estimate target response and coherent jammers amplitudes. The likelihood ratio test, where the unknown parameters are replaced by previous estimates, is designed and assessed. Remarkably, the sparse approach allows for echo classification and estimation of both angles of arrival and number of the interfering sources. The performance analysis, conducted resorting to simulated data, highlights the effectiveness of the newly proposed architectures also in comparison with suitable competing architectures (when they exist).'
author:
- |
Linjie Yan, Pia Addabbo, , Chengpeng Hao, ,\
Danilo Orlando, , and Alfonso Farina, [^1]
bibliography:
- 'group\_bib.bib'
title: 'New ECCM Techniques Against Noise-like and/or Coherent Interferers'
---
Coherent Jammer, Electronic Counter-CounterMeasures, Interference Covariance Matrix, Model Order Selection, Noise-like Jammer, Radar, Signal Classification, Sparse Reconstruction, Target Detection.
Introduction {#Sec:Intro}
============
In the last decades, radar art has been significantly influenced by the advances in technology as corroborated by the last-generation processing boards capable of performing huge amounts of computations in a very short time while keeping the costs relatively low. This abundance of computation power has allowed for the development of radar systems endowed with more and more sophisticated processing schemes.
To provide a tangible example, let us focus on search radars which are primarily concerned with the detection and tracking of targets embedded in thermal noise, clutter, and, possibly, intentional interference, also known as Electronic Countermeasure (ECM) [@Richards; @antennaBased; @EW101; @ScheerMelvin]. In this context, the open literature is rich with novel contributions on adaptive detection with the result that detection architectures are evolving towards a continuous performance enhancement. Consider, for example, the space-time detection algorithms that exploit large volumes of data from sensor arrays and/or pulse trains to take advantage of temporal and spatial integration/diversity [@kelly1986adaptive; @robey1992cfar; @gini1; @DeMaio-RAO; @DeMaioInvCoinc; @RicciRao; @WLiuRao; @GCuiRaoWald; @BOR-Morgan; @addabboslim; @JunLiu00]. Another route followed by the radar community to improve the detection performance consists in using the available information about the structure of the Interference Covariance Matrix (ICM) at the design stage. As a matter of fact, special structures of the ICM are induced by the system and/or interference properties [@Liu1; @Liu2; @CP00; @JunLiu02; @JunLiu01; @DeMaioInvPersymmetry; @Hongbin1; @Cai1992; @DeMaioSymmetric; @HaoSP_HE; @fogliaPHE_SS]. As an illustration of this fact, consider those decision rules devised assuming that the ICM is centrohermitian. These algorithms allow us to reduce the number of training samples required for the ICM estimation [@GuerciPersymmetry; @Liu1; @Liu2; @Pascal; @CP00; @JunLiu02; @JunLiu01; @DeMaioInvPersymmetry; @Hongbin1; @Cai1992] by almost a half while maintaining a satisfactory detection performance. Further examples are provided in [@DeMaioSymmetric; @HaoSP_HE], where it is shown that the spectral symmetry of the clutter can be used for instance to obtain gains of about $3$ dB (in SINR, namely Signal-to-Interference plus Noise Ratio), for a Probability of Detection $P_d=0.9$ and Probability of False Alarm $P_{fa}=10^{-4}$, in comparison to conventional detectors.
In most of the above contributions, the ICM results from the superposition of two components representative of the following two interference sources
- the electronic devices generating thermal noise, which is ubiquitous;
- the specific operating environment, whose backscattering gives rise to the clutter component, which is assumed dominant with respect to thermal noise.
Additionally, conventional ICM estimation procedures exploit training samples (secondary data) collected in the proximity of the Cell Under Test (CUT).
However, radars might be potential targets of electronic attacks by an adversary force, which can use, for instance, active techniques aimed at protecting a platform from being detected and tracked by the radar [@ScheerMelvin]. This is accomplished through two approaches: masking and deception. Noncoherent Jammers or Noise-Like Jammers (NLJs) attempt to mask targets generating nondeceptive interference which blends into the thermal noise of the radar receiver. As a consequence, the radar sensitivity is degraded due to the increase of the constant false alarm rate threshold which adapts to the higher level of noise [@antennaBased; @ScheerMelvin]. In addition, this increase makes more difficult to discover that jamming is taking place [@EW101; @FarinaSkolnik].
On the other hand, the Coherent Jammers (CJs) transmit low-duty cycle signals intended to inject false information into the radar processor. Specifically, they are capable of receiving, modifying, amplifying, and retransmitting the radar’s own signal to create false targets maintaining radar’s range, Doppler, and angle far away from the true position of the platform under protection [@FarinaSkolnik; @giniGrecoDRFM; @antennaBased; @ScheerMelvin].
Against the aforementioned electronic attacks, radar designers have developed defense strategies referred to as Electronic Counter-CounterMeasure (ECCM) which can be categorized as antenna-related, transmitter-related, receiver-related, and signal-processing-related depending on the main radar subsystem where they take place [@FarinaSkolnik]. The first line of defense against jamming is represented by the radar antenna, whose beampattern can be suitably exploited and/or shaped to eliminate sidelobe false targets or to attenuate the power of NLJs entering from the antenna sidelobes. The Sidelobe Blanker (SLB) is an ECCM technique against pulsed interferences [@FarinaGini; @DeMaioFarinaGini; @PiezzoDeMaioFarina] which compares the detected signal amplitude from the main channel with that of an auxiliary channel[^2]. Specifically, when the auxiliary channel signal power is greater than that from the main channel, it is likely that the radar is under attack of a CJ from the sidelobes and, hence, the detection is blanked. In the presence of continuous or high duty cycle interferers, the SLB becomes ineffective since it would inhibit the detection of true targets for most of the time. In these situations, the Sidelobe Canceler (SLC) represents a viable ECCM against NLJs [@antennaBased; @FarinaSLC; @Reed]. It places nulls in the sidelobes of the main receiver beam along the directions of arrival of the NLJs which are adaptively estimated using auxiliary channels. Both the SLB and SLC can be jointly used to face with NLJs and CJs contemporaneously impinging on the sidelobes of the victim radar [@FARINA1995261]. Finally, it is important to mention that modern radars employ a digitally based approach to implement the SLC function. Specifically, digital samples from each channel of an electronically scanned array are weighted to adaptively shape the resulting beampattern. These techniques belong to the more general family of algorithms called Adaptive Digital Beamforming [@ScheerMelvin], which can be classified as signal-processing-related ECCM.
In this paper, we devise adaptive detection architectures with signal-processing-related ECCM capabilities against the attack of NLJs and/or CJs from the antenna sidelobes. [ At the design stage, we focus on two operating scenarios which differ for the presence of an unknown number of CJs. More precisely, in the first scenario, the target echoes compete against thermal noise, clutter, and NLJs whose number is unknown, whereas the second scenario extends the former by including prospective CJs. Note that the second scenario is more difficult than the first one, which represents the starting point for the derivations allowing to easily drive the reader towards the design of more complex systems. ]{} Both detection problems are formulated in terms of binary hypothesis tests and, following the lead of [@doubleTraining], two independent sets of secondary data are assumed available for estimation purposes.
The first set comes from the conventional radar reference window surrounding the CUT and shares the same ICM components as the CUT including the clutter component. [ The other training set can be acquired by observing that the clutter contribution is, in general, range-dependent and tied up to the transmitted waveform. Therefore, it is possible to acquire data free of clutter components and affected by the thermal noise and possible jamming signals only. For instance, for a system employing pulse-to-pulse frequency agility which transmits one pulse, clutter-free data can be collected before transmitting the pulse waveform by listening to the environment. Another example of practical interest concerns radar systems transmitting coherent pulse trains with a sufficiently high pulse repetition interval. In this case, data collected before transmitting the next pulse and at high ranges (or after the instrumental range), result free of clutter contribution. ]{} However, unlike [@doubleTraining], in this paper, we propose a novel two-step procedure to estimate the ICM components in a more effective way. Specifically, the thermal noise and NLJ components are estimated using the second data set[^3] (first step). The latter estimate replaces the corresponding ICM components of the conventional data set, which is used to estimate the remaining unknown ICM component, namely, the clutter component (second step). The number of NLJs impinging on the victim radar is unknown and, hence, is estimated resorting to either the so-called Model Order Selection (MOS) rules [@Stoica_MOS], which provide more reliable results than the Maximum Likelihood Approach (MLA) in the presence of nested hypotheses, or a heuristic ad hoc procedure based on the MLA. [ Observe that the last procedure can also be classified as a MOS rule but it does not rely on an information criterion as in [@Stoica_MOS].]{} More importantly, the herein proposed ICM estimation procedure requires a less restrictive constraint on the required volume of data with respect to that presented in [@doubleTraining] (a point better explained in Section \[Sec:NLJ-only\]). Finally, the detection problem in the presence of NLJs is solved by applying the two-step Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test (GLRT) design procedure [@robey1992cfar] where the ICM of the CUT is replaced by the new estimate. The final result consists in a multiple-stage architecture capable of taking advantage of the information carried by the additional training data set.
[ The other considered detection problem also includes the presence of multiple CJs in addition to NLJs, clutter, and thermal noise. Under this assumption, we reformulate the problem at hand in order to bring to light its sparse nature. As a consequence, compressive sensing reconstruction algorithms arise as natural choices to solve it. In the specific case, we exploit the Sparse Learning via Iterative Minimization (SLIM) [@slim], due to its trade off between low computational cost and reconstruction performance, to jointly estimate (under the alternative hypothesis) the unknown target and CJs responses. ]{} More precisely, we compute the Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT) where the ICM is replaced by the previously derived estimate, while target response and CJ amplitudes are estimated by the SLIM. The exploitation of SLIM (or, generally speaking, compressed sensing algorithms) is due to the fact that, as a byproduct, it allows for echo classification and estimation of both angles of arrival (AOA) and number of the interfering sources. In fact, if the LRT statistic is over the detection threshold, the following situations may occur:
- only CJs are present (target response is zero while CJ amplitudes are nonzero);
- only the target is present (target response is nonzero while CJ amplitudes are zero);
- simultaneous presence of the target and CJs (target response and CJ amplitudes are nonzero).
With these remarks in mind, we use the estimates provided by SLIM to build up a decision logic capable of discriminating among the above conditions which, evidently, form a multiple hypothesis test. Remarkably, this approach can be used in place of the conventional SLB since it recognizes possible CJs echoes which can be concurrent with target echoes without blanking the detection. Thus, the proposed detection architecture features SLB/SLC functionalities overcoming the limitations of the SLB.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \[Sec:ProbForm\] is devoted to problem formulation and definition of quantities used in the next derivations while the design of the detection architectures and estimation procedures are contained in Section \[Sec:DetDesign\]. In Section \[Sec:Examples\], the behavior of the proposed architectures is investigated by means of numerical examples. Finally, concluding remarks and future research tracks are given in Section \[Sec:Conclusions\]. Some derivations are confined in the appendices.
Notation and List of Acronyms {#notation-and-list-of-acronyms .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
[ The reader is referred to Table \[tab:Acronyms\] for the list of the acronyms contained in this paper.]{} Moreover, vectors and matrices are denoted by boldface lower-case and upper-case letters, respectively. Symbols $\det(\cdot)$ and $\tr(\cdot)$ denote the determinant and the trace of a square matrix, respectively. Symbols $\bI$ and $\bzero$ represent the identity matrix and the null vector or matrix of suitable dimensions, respectively. The imaginary unit is denoted by $j$. Given a vector $\boa$, $\diag(\boa)$ indicates the diagonal matrix whose $i$th diagonal element is the $i$th entry of $\boa$. For a finite set $A,\; |A|$ stands for its cardinality. As to the numerical sets, $\R$ is the set of real numbers, $\R^{N\times M}$ is the set of $(N\times M)$-dimensional real matrices (or vectors if $M=1$), $\C$ is the set of complex numbers, and $\C^{N\times M}$ is the set of $(N\times M)$-dimensional complex matrices (or vectors if $M=1$). The $(k,l)$-entry (or $l$-entry) of a generic matrix $\bA$ (or vector $\boa$) is denoted by $\bA(k,l)$ (or $\boa(l)$). We use $(\cdot)^T$ and $(\cdot)^\dag$ to denote transpose and conjugate transpose, respectively. The Clutter-to-Noise Ratio and the Jammer-to-Noise Ratio are denoted by CNR and JNR, respectively. The conditional probability of an event $A$ given the even $B$ is represented as $P(A|B)$. Finally, we write $\bx\sim\cC\cN_N(\bbm, \bM)$ if $\bx$ is a complex circular $N$-dimensional normal vector with mean $\bbm$ and positive definite covariance matrix $\bM$, whereas $\bX=[\bx_1,\ldots,\bx_M]\sim\cC\cN_{N,M}(\bbm, \bM, \bI)$ if $\bx_i\sim\cC\cN_N(\bbm, \bM)$, $\forall i=1,\ldots,M$, and are statistically independent.
Problem Formulation {#Sec:ProbForm}
===================
Consider a radar system which exploits $N$ spatial (identical) channels to sense the surrounding environment. The incoming signal is conditioned by means of a baseband down-conversion and a filtering matched to the transmitted pulse waveform. Next, the output of the matched filter is suitably sampled and the samples are organized into $N$-dimensional complex vectors representing the range bins [@Richards; @BOR-Morgan].
In what follows, we denote the vector of the returns from the CUT by $\bz\in\C^{N\times 1}$, while the conventional training set, formed by collecting the returns from the range bins surrounding the CUT [@Richards; @kelly1986adaptive], is stored in the matrix $\bZ=[\bz_1,\ldots,\bz_K]\in\C^{N\times K}$. Finally, we assume also that the system acquires an additional set of training vectors (free of the clutter component and affected by thermal noise and possible NLJs) by listening to the environment (namely, operating in passive mode) [@doubleTraining]. This second set is denoted by $\bR=[\br_1,\ldots,\br_M]\in\C^{N\times M}$.
[ As stated in Section \[Sec:Intro\], in this paper we focus our attention on two detection problems representative of two scenarios where the latter subsumes the former as a special case. This choice is dictated by the need to make the derivations easy to be followed. In fact, the scenarios differ for the presence of CJs in the CUT. ]{} Specifically, the first problem, which is the same as in [@doubleTraining], can be formulated as \[eqn:doubletraining\_Problem1\] {
[l]{}
&H\_[1,0]{}: {
[l]{} = \_T (\_T) +\
\_[k]{} = \_[k]{}, \_[m]{} = \_[m]{}, k=1,…,K, m=1,…,M,\
.\
&H\_[0,0]{}: {
[l]{} =\
\_[k]{} = \_[k]{}, \_[m]{} = \_[m]{}, k=1,…,K, m=1,…,M,\
.
. where
- $\bn$, $\bn_1,\ldots,\bn_K$, $\bbm_1,\ldots,\bbm_M$ are statistically independent random vectors distributed as follows: $[\bn,\bn_1,\ldots,\bn_K]\sim\cC\cN_{N,K}(\bzero,\bM_1,\bI)$ and $[\bbm_1,\ldots,\bbm_M]\sim\cC\cN_{N,M}(\bzero,\bM_2,\bI)$;
- $\alpha_T$ is a complex factor representative of the target response and channel effects;
- $\bv(\theta_T)=\left[1, e^{j 2\pi (d/\lambda) \sin(\theta_T)},\ldots,e^{j 2\pi (d/\lambda)(N-1)\sin(\theta_T)} \right]^T$ is the nominal steering vector with $d$ the array interelement spacing, $\lambda$ the carrier wavelength, and $\theta_T$ the nominal AOA of the target echoes measured with respect to the array broadside.
Unlike [@doubleTraining], we assume that the ICMs exhibit specific structures adhering to situations of practical value, namely $\bM_1 = \sigma^2\bI + \bM_{nj} + \bM_c$ and $\bM_2 = \sigma^2\bI + \bM_{nj}$, where $\sigma^2\bI$ is the thermal noise component due to the electronic devices with $\sigma^2>0$ the resulting power, $\bM_c$ is representative of the clutter, and $\bM_{nj}$ is the contribution raising from the presence of NLJs and can be expressed as $\bM_{nj}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_{nj}} \sigma_{nj,i}^2 \bv(\theta_{nj,i})\bv(\theta_{nj,i})^\dag$ with $N_{nj}$, $\sigma_{nj,i}^2$, and $\theta_{nj,i}$ being the number of NLJs, the power, and the AOA of the $i$th NLJ, respectively. An important remark on the relationship between the rank of $\bM_{nj}$ and $N_{nj}$ is required for further developments. [ Precisely, note that when the NLJs are angularly very close to each other, then the inner product between the resulting NLJ steering vectors is very close to $1$. It follows that the eigendecomposition of $\bM_{nj}$ leads to a situation where the maximum eigenvalue comprises most of the jammers’ energy and the associated eigenvector is representative of the direction from where such energy is transmitted. The remaining eigenvalues differ by several order of magnitude with respect to the maximum eigenvalue and, hence, they can be neglected along with the associated eigenvectors. From an alternate point of view, when an orthonormal basis for the subspace spanned by closely spaced jammer steering vectors is computed by applying the Gram-Schmidt process [@MatrixAnalysis], it turns out that, in the new reference system, there exists a dominant component which is several order of magnitude greater than the others. As a consequence, due to the finite precision of the radar processing unit, the dimension of the subspace spanned by these steering vectors (and, hence, the rank of $\bM_{nj}$) might be less than or equal to the actual number of NLJ steering vectors. ]{}
The second scenario accounts for the joint presence of NLJs and CJs in the CUT. This seemingly minor modification leads to a more general and difficult problem, which encompasses the former and can be written as \[eqn:doubletraining\_Problem2\] {
[l]{} H\_[1,1]{}: {
[l]{} = \_T (\_T) + \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[q]{}]{}\_i (\_[q,i]{}) + ,\
\_[k]{} = \_[k]{}, \_[m]{} = \_[m]{}, k=1,…,K, m=1,…,M,\
.\
H\_[0,0]{}: {
[l]{} = ,\
\_[k]{} = \_[k]{}, \_[m]{} = \_[m]{}, k=1,…,K, m=1,…,M,\
.
. where $\beta_i$ and $\theta_{q,i}$ are the magnitude and the AOA of the $i$th CJ, respectively, $N_q$ is the number of CJs attacking the radar, while the assumptions on $\bn$, $\bn_k$, and $\bbm_m$ keep unaltered. It is clear that problem reduces to when $\beta_i=0$, $\forall i=1,\ldots,N_q$.
For future reference, it is worth providing the following definitions. Specifically, the probability density functions (pdfs) of $\bZ$ and $\bR$ under all the hypotheses are[^4] \[eqn:doubletraining\_Problem7\] f(;\^2,\_[nj]{},\_c) = f(;\^2,\_[nj]{}) = , respectively. On the other hand, the pdf of $\bz$ under $H_{l,h}$, $(l,h)\in\{(0,0),(1,0),(1,1)\}$, exhibits the following expression $$\begin{gathered}
f_{lh}(\bz;l\alpha_T,h \bbeta,h\btheta_q,\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c,H_{lh}) = \frac{1}{\pi^N \det(\bM_1)}
\\
\times \exp\left\{ -\tr\left[\bM_1^{-1}\left(\bz-l\alpha_T\bv(\theta_T)-h\sum_{i=1}^{N_{q}}\beta_i \bv(\theta_{q,i})\right)
\left(\bz-l\alpha_T\bv(\theta_T)-h\sum_{i=1}^{N_{q}}\beta_i \bv(\theta_{q,i})\right)^\dag\right] \right\},
\label{eqn:pdf_z}\end{gathered}$$ where $\bbeta=[\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_{N_q}]^T$ and $\btheta_q=[\theta_{q,1},\ldots,\theta_{q,N_q}]^T$. Finally, let us denote the likelihood functions of the distribution parameters as $\cL_{Z}(\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c)=f(\bZ;\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c)$, $\cL_{R}(\sigma^2,\bM_{nj})=f(\bR;\sigma^2,\bM_{nj})$, $\cL_{z}(\alpha_T,\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c)=f_{10}(\bz;\alpha_T,0,0,\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c,H_{10})$, and $\cL'_{z}(\alpha_T,\bbeta,\btheta_q,\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c)=f_{11}(\bz;\alpha_T,\bbeta,\btheta_q,\sigma^2,\bM_{nj},\bM_c,H_{11})$.
Detection Architecture Designs {#Sec:DetDesign}
==============================
In this section, we devise adaptive decision schemes capable of operating under the attack of NLJs and/or CJs. In order to simplify the derivations, we first focus on problem where only NLJs are contaminating data and, then, we account for the presence of possible coherent interferers in addition to NLJs.
NLJ-only Attack {#Sec:NLJ-only}
---------------
[ The design is structured into two parts. In the first part, we present an innovative estimation algorithm for $\bM_1$ based upon the MLA assuming, at the design stage, that the rank of $\bM_{nj}$, $r$ say, which is representative of the effective interfering sources number, is known. The last assumption is motivated by the fact that estimating $r$ through the MLA might return erroneous results due to the presence of nested hypotheses. Thus, we first assume that $r$ is known and then we replace it with a suitable estimate. To this end, in the second part, we exploit previous results to conceive multi-stage architectures facing with the situations where $r$ is not known but bounded from above by the maximum number of NLJs that is generally known from system specifications and/or the amount of computational resources. In the detail, we estimate $r$ resorting to Information-based or heuristic ad hoc MOS rules which represent an effective means to provide reliable estimates of the number of NLJs. ]{}
Let us focus on problem and suppose that the rank of $\bM_{nj}$ is known[^5]. Unlike [@doubleTraining], the herein proposed estimation procedure exploits all the available structure information about $\bM_1$ and $\bM_2$. [ Since the maximum likelihood estimation of $\bM_1$ and $\bM_2$ through the joint pdf of $\bZ$ and $\bR$ is not an easy task at least to best of authors’ knowledge, we resort to a two-step suboptimal procedure according to the following rationale ]{}
1. use $\bR$ (the additional training set) to find the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of $\bM_2$, denoted by \_2=\^2+\_[nj]{}= \_[R]{}(\^2,\_[nj]{}), where $\widehat{\sigma}^2$ and $\widehat{\bM}_{nj}$ are the MLEs of ${\sigma}^2$ and ${\bM}_{nj}$, respectively;
2. compute the MLE of $\bM_c$ based on $\bZ$ assuming that $\bM_2$ is known, namely \_c\[\_2\]= \_[Z]{}(\^2,\_[nj]{},\_c); \[eqn:MLE\_Mc\]
3. replace $\bM_2$ in with $\widehat{\bM}_2$.
As for the first step, in Appendix \[app:M2\_estimate\], we show that the expression of $\widehat{\bM}_2$ is \_2=\_[S1]{}\_[S1]{}\^, \[eqn:M2\_estimate\] where ${\bD}=\textbf{diag}\left\{\frac{\gamma_{1,1}}{M},...,\frac{\gamma_{1,r}}{M},{\sum\limits_{i=r+1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}}/{M(N-r)},...,
{\sum\limits_{i=r+1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}}/{M(N-r)}\right\}$ with $\gamma_{1,1}\geq \gamma_{1,2}\geq...\geq\gamma_{1,N}>0$ the eigenvalues of $\bR\bR^\dag$ and $\bU_{S1} \in \C^{N\times N}$ a unitary matrix containing the corresponding eigenvectors. When $r=0$, it is not difficult to show that ${\bD}=\diag\left\{\frac{1}{MN}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i},...,\frac{1}{MN}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}\right\}$.
The estimator of $\bM_c$ described in the second step of the procedure is a function of $\bM_2$ which is assumed known. Thus, the resulting likelihood function depends on $\bM_c$ only and can be recast as (\^2,\_[nj]{},\_c)=[\_[Z]{}]{}(\_c) = . \[eqn:L\_Zdef\] In Appendix \[app:Mc\_estimate\], we prove that the MLE of $\bM_c$ for known $\bM_2$ is given by \_c\[\_2\]=\_2\^\_[S2]{}\_c\_[S2]{}\^\_2\^. In the last equation, $\widehat{\bOmega}_{c}=\diag\left\{\widehat{\lambda}_{c,1},\ldots,\widehat{\lambda}_{c,N}\right\}$, where $\widehat{\lambda}_{c,i}=\max\left\{ \frac{{\gamma}_{2,i}}{K}-1, 0 \right\}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, with $\gamma_{2,1}\geq...\geq\gamma_{2,N}\geq0$ the eigenvalues of $\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bZ\bZ^\dag\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\bU_{S2} \in \C^{N\times N}$ is the unitary matrix of the corresponding eigenvectors.
As final step of the estimation procedure, we replace $\bM_2$ with $\widehat{\bM}_2$ and compute \_1=\_2 + \_c\[\_2\]. \[eqn:M1\_estimate\] It is important to observe that this new estimation procedure (schematically summarized in Algorithm \[alg:Framwork\]) requires that $M > r$ to ensure that $\widehat{\bM}_2$ is invertible with probability $1$, instead of $M>N>r$.
$\bR\in\C^{N\times M}$, $\bZ\in\C^{N\times K}$, $r \le N_{nj}$ $\widehat{\bM}_1$ Compute the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) of $\bR$ given by $\bR = \bU_{S1}\bD_R\bV_{R}$ Compute $\bD_R\bD_R^\dag = \diag(\gamma_{1,1},...,\gamma_{1,N})$ Compute $\bD=\diag\left\{{\gamma_{1,1}}/{M},...,{\gamma_{1,r}}/{M},\frac{1}{M(N-r)}\sum_{i=r+1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i},...,
\frac{1}{M(N-r)}\sum_{i=r+1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}\right\}$ or, when $r=0$, $\bD=\diag\left\{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}}{MN},...,\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}}{MN}\right\}$ Compute $\widehat{\bM}_2=\bU_{S1} \bD \bU_{S1}^{\dag}$ Compute the SVD of $\widehat{\bM}_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bZ$ given by $\widehat{\bM}_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bZ = \bU_{S2} \bD_Z \bV_Z^\dag$ Compute $\bD_Z \bD_Z^\dag = \diag(\gamma_{2,1},...,\gamma_{2,N})$ Compute $\widehat{\bOmega}_{c}=\diag\left\{\widehat{\lambda}_{c,1},\ldots,\widehat{\lambda}_{c,N}\right\}$, $\widehat{\lambda}_{c,i}=\max\{ {\gamma}_{2,i}/{K}-1, 0 \}, \quad i=1,\ldots,N$ Compute $\widehat{\bM}_c[\widehat{\bM}_2]=\widehat{\bM}_2^{\frac{1}{2}}\bU_{S2}\widehat{\bOmega}_c\bU_{S2}^{\dag}\widehat{\bM}_2^{\frac{1}{2}}$ Return $\widehat{\bM}_1=\widehat{\bM}_2 + \widehat{\bM}_c[\widehat{\bM}_2]$
Now, we focus on the case where $r$ is unknown and should be somehow estimated from data. To this end, two different strategies are conceived.
[ The first strategy relies on a three-stage detection architecture (depicted in Figure \[fig1\]) where the first two stages (actually, the second stage consists of two sub-blocks) are devoted to the estimation of $\bM_1$ (and $\bM_2$) and incorporate the Information-based MOS rules [@Stoica_MOS].]{} More precisely, the first stage provides an estimate of $r$ and feeds the second stage which is responsible for the estimation of $\bM_2$ and $\bM_1$ according to Algorithm \[alg:Framwork\]. The third stage accomplishes the detection task.
The second approach consists in a modification of the maximum likelihood estimation of $\bM_2$ which accounts for the significant hop in the order of magnitude of the eigenvalues of $\bR\bR^\dag$ when NLJs are present (a point better explained in Subsection \[sec\_3a2\]). This discontinuity can be justified by noticing that common JNR values are in the range $[30,60]$ dB [@van1982applied]. It follows that $r$ can be estimated by detecting this hop in magnitude.
### Three-stage Detection Architectures relying on Information-based MOS Rules {#sec_3a1}
A block scheme of the proposed architectures is depicted in Figure \[fig1\]: [ the first two blocks[^6] perform the estimates of $\bM_2$ and $\bM_1$ exploiting Information-based MOS rules for selecting $r$.]{} The last block represents the final detection step. Here, it is important to note that to estimate $r$ the MLA fails because the hypotheses are nested and the likelihood function monotonically increases with $r$. Thus, focusing on the first block, the estimation of $r$ is accomplished exploiting the MOS rules which balance the growth of the likelihood function by means of a penalty term. Specifically, we consider the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and the Generalized Information Criterion (GIC) [@Stoica_MOS]. Following the lead of [@VanTrees4 Ch.7], it is possible to show that, when $r$ is known, the number of unknown parameters of the distribution of $\bR$ is $k_p(r)=r(2N-r)+1$. As a consequence, the mentioned MOS rules can be expressed as ={-2l(,r)+p(r)}, where $N_{nj}^{max}$ is the maximum number of jammers and l(,r)=-MN-M \_[i=1]{}\^r -M(N-r)-MN is[^7] the compressed log-likelihood of $\bR$ assuming that $r$ is known and $p(r)=k_p(r)\nu$ is the penalty term. Finally, factor $\nu$ takes on the following values =
2,&,\
1+, 1, &,\
M, &.
Once the estimate $\hat{r}$ is available, it can be used in place of $r$ in Appendix \[app:M2\_estimate\] to estimate $\bM_2$. The resulting estimate of $\bM_2$ is, subsequently, used to obtain $\widehat{\bM}_1$ as shown in Appendix \[app:Mc\_estimate\].
The last block of the proposed architecture implements an adaptive decision rule, devised resorting to the two-step GLRT design criteria [@robey1992cfar]. Specifically, we first compute the GLRT test assuming that $\bM_1$ is known. Then, the fully adaptive detector is obtained by replacing $\bM_1$ with a suitable estimate. According to the first step, the GLRT based on the CUT for known $\bM_1$ is the following decision rule \_[\_T]{}, \[eqn:AMF\_01\] where $f_{l0}(\bz;\ldots)$, $l=0,1$, is defined by and $\eta$ is the detection threshold[^8] value to be set according to the desired $P_{fa}$. It is not difficult to prove that is statistically equivalent to \[eqn:three stage 1\] . Finally, the adaptivity is achieved replacing $\bM_1$ in with the estimate to come up with . For future reference, we refer to the above decision rule as Improved Double-Trained Adaptive Matched Filter (IDT-AMF), whereas we call the three-stage architectures coupling the name of the MOS rule used to estimate $r$ and the acronym IDT-AMF. For instance, when BIC is part of the architecture, we refer to the latter as IDT-AMF-BIC.
### Two-Stage Architecture based upon an Ad Hoc MLE of $\bM_2$ {#sec_3a2}
In the following, we propose a modification of the previously described three-stage architectures which consists in removing the block responsible for the estimate of $r$ and incorporating this feature in the block that returns the estimates of $\bM_1$ and $\bM_2$ [ through a heuristic MOS rule]{}. To this end, let us remind that the goal of NLJs is to increase the power noise level within the victim radar making the adaptive threshold as high as possible with the result of masking the platforms under protection. This fact has some implications for the eigenvalues of the ICM which can be suitably exploited to estimate $r$. To have a clear vision of this situation, in Figure \[fig:dominantEigenvalues2J\] we plot the eigenvalues of $\bM_2$ (which is the true[^9] ICM) for $N_{nj}=2,3$ NLJs sharing JNR$=30$ dB. Inspection of the figure highlights that the presence of NLJs breaks down the eigenvalue set of $\bM_2$ introducing a dramatic drop in magnitude.
The above behavior comes in handy to estimate the model order $r$ by thresholding the difference in magnitude between consecutive eigenvalues of $\bS_2=\frac{1}{M}\bR\bR^{\dag}$, starting from the lowest values. Specifically, let $\gamma_{1,1}/M\geq\gamma_{1,2}/M\geq...\geq\gamma_{1,N}/M$ be the eigenvalues of $\bS_2$, then the estimation of $r$ is described in Algorithm \[algoXr\], where $\eta$ is a threshold whose value reflects the difference in magnitude between the eigenvalues associated with both NLJs and thermal noise and those representative of the thermal noise only.
Notice that the underlying decision problem solved by this approach is
H\_1\^[”]{}: \_m\~\_N(,\^2+\_[nj]{}), & m=1,…,M,\
H\_0\^[”]{}: \_m\~\_N(,\^2), & m=1,…,M,
where the rank of $\bM_{nj}$ is unknown. It turns out that, under $H_0^{''}$, the unknown parameter is $\sigma^2$, which must be estimated in order to set the detection threshold. To this end, several strategies are possible. For instance, a lookup table can be filled up [*off-line*]{} by measuring the thermal noise power under different operating conditions. Then, each entry of this table could be used when the system is in operation. An alternate approach might consist in scheduling a collection of noisy samples when the antenna is disengaged and exploiting such samples to estimate the noise power.
Finally, once $r$ has been estimated, $\widehat{\bM}_2$ can be obtained as described in Appendix \[app:M2\_estimate\] and the IDT-AMF is applied. In the following, we call this architecture Eigenvalue-based IDT-AMF and we use the abbreviation IDT-AMF-EIG.
$\eta$, $\gamma_{1,1}/M\geq \gamma_{1,2}/M\geq...\gamma_{1,N}/M>0$ $\widehat{r}$ Set $i=N-1$, $\hat{r}=0$ Compute $\Delta_i=\frac{1}{M}(\gamma_{1,i}-\gamma_{1,i+1})$ If $\Delta_i>\eta$, then $\hat{r}=i$ and go to step 6 else go to step 4 Set $i=i-1$ If $i\geq1$ go to step 2 else go to step 6 Return $\widehat{r}$
NLJs and Coherent Interferers Joint Attack
------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we focus on problem and devise an architecture capable of detecting point-like targets assuming that noise-like jammers as well as coherent interferers contaminate the echoes from the CUT. [ Specifically, such architecture consists of a covariance estimation stage, which relies on the results obtained in Section \[sec\_3a1\], followed by a new detection stage which incorporates a sparse reconstruction algorithm. This choice is dictated by the fact that problem hides an inherent sparse nature, which can be drawn by means of a suitable reformulation. Thus, we select the so-called SLIM algorithm as sparse reconstruction algorithm since it provides a good trade off between computational requirements and reconstruction performance [@slim]. ]{}
Let us consider the hypothesis $H_{1,1}$, defined in , where it is assumed that a number of coherent interferers ($N_q$) are present together with the NLJs and note that $\bz$ is the sum of three components = \_T (\_T) + \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[q]{}]{}\_i (\_[q,i]{}) + . \[eq\_z\] To effectively apply the SLIM approach, it is necessary to bring to light the sparse nature of recasting the above equation as a standard sparse model. From an intuitive point of view, note that radar system steers the beam along several directions to cover the surveillance area, but backscattered echoes and/or interfering signals hit the system from a few directions only. With this remark in mind, let us sample the angular sector under surveillance and form a discrete and finite set of angles denoted by $\Theta=\left\{ \theta_1,\ldots, \theta_L \right\}$, $\theta_1\leq\theta_2\leq \ldots \leq \theta_L$. Moreover, we assume that the target nominal angle $\theta_T$ and the AOA of possible $N_q\ll L$ coherent interferers belong to $\Theta$. Thus, if we define $\bV =[\bv(\theta_1),...,\bv(\theta_L)]\in \mathbb{C}^{N\times L}$ as the model matrix whose columns are the steering vectors associated with the angular positions $\left\{ \theta_1,...,\theta_L \right\}$ and a vector $\balpha=[\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{L}]^T\in \mathbb{C}^{L\times 1}$ whose nonzero entries correspond to the AOAs of the target and the coherent interferers in $\bV$, then it is possible to recast $\bz$ as = + , \[eq\_zz\] where $\balpha$ is assumed to contain the target response $\alpha_T$ as well as the magnitudes of the coherent jammers $\left\{\beta\right\}_{i=1}^{N_q}$. It is important to observe that since $N_q\ll L$, then $\balpha$ is a sparse vector. In fact, from , it turns out that only $N_q+1$ components of $\balpha$ are possibly different from zero. In this case, the SLIM algorithm can be used to produce a very accurate representation for the scene of interest. Remarkably, we can exploit the sparse estimate returned by the SLIM to address the following classification problem
- [*target plus noise-like interferers hypothesis*]{}: \_1: = \_T (\_T) + ;
- [*noise-like plus coherent interferers hypothesis*]{}: \_2: = \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[q]{}]{}\_i (\_[q,i]{}) + ;
- [*target plus noise-like and coherent interferers hypothesis*]{}: \_3: = \_T (\_T) + \_[i=1]{}\^[N\_[q]{}]{}\_i (\_[q,i]{}) + .
Thus, as shown in what follows, the newly proposed architecture exhibits, as a byproduct, signal classification capabilities. Let us start the design by writing the LRT based upon the CUT (;,\_1) = , \[eq\_glrtM1\] where $f_{l}(\bz;l \balpha,\bM_1,H_{l,l})$ is the pdf of $\bz$ under $H_{l,l}$, $l=0,1$, whose expression is $$f_{l}(\bz;l \balpha,\bM_1,H_{l,l}) = \frac{1}{\pi^N \det(\bM_1)}\exp\{ -\tr[\bM_1^{-1}(\bz-l\bV\balpha)(\bz-l\bV\balpha)^\dag] \}.
\label{eq_pdfz1}$$ Now, note that decision rule is not of practical interest since both $\balpha$ and $\bM_1$ are not known and, hence, must be estimated from data. As already stated at the beginning of this subsection, the estimate of $\bM_1$ can be accomplished using the procedures described in Algorithm \[alg:Framwork\]. As for $\balpha$, it is estimated resorting to the framework proposed in [@slim]. Specifically, let us assume that $\balpha$ is a random vector independent of the noise component and that obeys a prior promoting the sparsity, given by f(;q) = \_[i=1]{}\^[L]{} , \[eq\_prior\] where $C$ is a normalization constant and $q\in\Omega_q=(0, 1]$ is a tuning parameter (smaller values of $q$ correspond to sharper peak of the prior distribution and consequently sparser estimate of $\balpha$). Then, $\balpha$ is estimated solving the following maximization problem \_ f\_1(;\_1,H\_[1,1]{}|)f(;q), \[eq\_glrt\_slim1\] where $f_1(\bz;\widehat{\bM}_1,H_{1,1}|\balpha)$ is the conditional pdf of $\bz$ given $\balpha$. Taking the negative logarithm, problem is equivalent to \_ \_[g\_q()]{} \[eq\_glrt\_slim2\] where $\bA=\widehat{\bM}_1^{-1/2}\bV$ and $\by=\widehat{\bM}_1^{-1/2}\bz$. Notice that the first addendum of $g_q(\balpha)$ corresponds to a fitting term, whereas the second term promotes sparsity. Setting to zero the first derivative[^10] of $g_{q}(\balpha)$ with respect to $\balpha$ leads to \[g\_[q]{}()\] = \^- \^+ \_q\^[-1]{}= , \[eq\_der0\] where $\bP_q = \diag{(\bp_q)}$, with $\bp_q=[|\alpha_1|^{2-q},|\alpha_2|^{2-q},...,|\alpha_L|^{2-q}]^T$. Supposing that an initial estimate of $\balpha$ is available, it is possible to apply a cyclic optimization procedure as in [@slim], and the step at the $(m)$th iteration can be expressed as \[eq\_gamma\] \_q\^[(m)]{} = \_q\^[(m-1)]{} \^( \_q\^[(m-1)]{} \^+ )\^[-1]{} , given $\bP_q^{(m-1)}=\diag (\bp_q^{(m-1)})$ from the $(m-1)$th iteration. The optimization procedure can terminate after a fixed number of iterations or when the following convergence criterion is satisfied < , \[eq\_stopcriterion\] with $\Delta$ a suitable small positive number. As for the initial value of $\balpha$, a possible choice is \_i\^[(0)]{} = , i=1,…,L. \[eqn:mle0\] It still remains to estimate $q\in\Omega_q$. As a preliminary step, we sample $\Omega_q$ to come up with a finite set of admissible values for $q$ denoted by $\bar{\Omega}_q$. Now, given $q\in\bar{\Omega}_q$, let $\tilde{\balpha}_{q}$ be the estimate of $\balpha$ provided by the above iterative procedure, summarized in Algorithm \[algSLIM\], and estimate the number of peaks, $h(q)$ say, in $\tilde{\balpha}_{q}$ as follows
1. sort the entries of $\tilde{\balpha}_{q}$ from the largest to the smallest;
2. select $h(q)$ returning the lowest value of $\mbox{BIC}_q = 2 \| \by - {\bA}\widehat{\balpha}_q \|_2^2 + 3 h(q) \log\left(2N\right)$, where $3h(q)$ is the number of parameters to be estimated (namely, azimuth and complex amplitude for each active peaks) and $\widehat{\balpha}_{q}$ is the least-squares estimate for the selected peaks setting to zero the other entries of $\balpha$ (denote by $\bar{\balpha}_q$ the final estimate of $\balpha_q$).
As a result, we obtain the set $\{\mbox{BIC}_q: q\in\bar{\Omega}_q\}$ and the estimate of $q$ is obtained as $\widehat{q} = \arg\min_{q\in\bar{\Omega}_q} \mbox{BIC}_q$.
$\Delta>0$, $q \in (0,1]$, $\bA$, $\by$ $\tilde{\balpha}_q$ Set $m=0$, $ \balpha^{(0)} = \left[ \frac{\bv(\theta_1)^\dag \widehat{\bM}_1^{-1}\bz}{\bv(\theta_1)^\dag \widehat{\bM}_1^{-1}\bv(\theta_1)},
\ldots, \frac{\bv(\theta_L)^\dag \widehat{\bM}_1^{-1}\bz}{\bv(\theta_L)^\dag \widehat{\bM}_1^{-1}\bv(\theta_L)}\right]^T$, Set [$m=m+1$]{} Compute $\bP_q^{(m-1)}=\diag(\bp_q^{(m-1)})$, with $\bp_q^{(m-1)}=\left[ |\alpha_1^{(m-1)}|^{2-q}, |\alpha_2^{(m-1)}|^{2-q}, ..., |\alpha_{L}^{(m-1)}|^{2-q} \right]^T$ Compute $\balpha^{(m)} = \bP_q^{(m-1)} \bA^\dag \left( \bA \bP_q^{(m-1)} \bA^\dag + \bI \right)^{-1} \by$ If ${\| \balpha^{(m)} - \balpha^{(m-1)} \|_2}/{\| \balpha^{(m)} \|_2} < \Delta$ go to step 6 else go to step 2 Return $\tilde{\balpha}_q=\balpha^{(m)}$.
Finally, the adaptive LRT can be written as . \[eq\_glrtbis\] Before concluding this section, we discuss the classification capabilities raising from $\bar{\balpha}_{\hat{q}}$.
Specifically, let us recall that $H_{1,1}$ can be viewed as the union of three hypotheses, namely $H_{1,1} = \cup_{i=1}^3 \cH_i$. Now, in order to mitigate the presence of false objects (ghosts) introduced by $\bar{\balpha}_{\hat{q}}$ and to merge contiguous estimates (induced by energy spillover), we partition the set $\Theta$ into $N_s$ subsets, $\Theta_i$ say, containing contiguous AOAs. In addition, for simplicity, we assume that $|\Theta|/N_s
=|\Theta_1|=\ldots=|\Theta_{N_s}|=N_{\theta}\in\N$, namely that all the subsets share the same number of contiguous AOAs. As a consequence, the generic subset can be written as \_i={\_[(i-1)N\_+1]{},…, \_[i N\_]{} }, i=1,…,N\_s. Since the target AOA, $\theta_T$ say, is supposed to belong to $\Theta$, then there exists $\bar{i}\in\{1,\ldots,N_s\}$ such that $\theta_T\in\Theta_{\bar{i}}$ and let us denote this subset as $\Theta_T$ ($=\Theta_{\bar{i}}$). Thus, for classification purposes, we say that a generic subset $\Theta_{i}$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,N_s\}$, contains coherent components if there exists at least an index $l\in\{1,\ldots,L\}$ such that |\_(l)0 \_l\_[i]{}. \[eqn:conditionPartition\] The above partitioning procedure allows us to define new vectors, $\bgamma$ and $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}$ say, of size $N_s$ starting from $\balpha$ and $\bar{\balpha}_{\hat{q}}$, respectively, that contain information about the angular location in terms of $\Theta_i$ of the coherent signals received by the system. Such vectors will be used at the analysis stage to quantify the algorithm capability in drawing a picture of the entire operating scenario. Specifically, $\forall i\in\{1,\ldots,N_s\}$, we set
- $\bgamma(i)=1$ if condition applied to $\balpha$ holds, otherwise $\bgamma(i)=0$;
- $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}(i)=1$ if is valid, otherwise $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}(i)=0$.
Then, denoting by $\Omega_{\gamma}$, with $|\Omega_{\gamma}|\geq 1$, the set of integers indexing the nonzero entries of $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}$, we can reason according to the following rationale
- if data contain only one coherent component ($|\Omega_{\gamma}|=1$), which can be due to either an interferer or a target, then there exists $\tilde{i}\in\{1,\dots,N_s\}$ such that $\Omega_{\gamma}=\{\tilde{i}\}$ (namely, $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}(\tilde{i})\neq 0$ and $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}(i)= 0$, $\forall i\neq\tilde{i}$) and two cases can occur
- [*Case 1:*]{} $\Theta_{\tilde{i}}=\Theta_T$, which implies that $\cH_1$ holds true;
- [*Case 2:*]{} $\Theta_{\tilde{i}}\neq\Theta_T$, which implies that $\cH_2$ is in force;
- if data contain more than one coherent component ($|\Omega_{\gamma}|>1$), which can be generated by jammers or the target, then the following cases have to be accounted for
- [*Case 1:*]{} $\exists \tilde{i}\in\Omega_{\gamma}$ such that $\Theta_{\tilde{i}}=\Theta_T$; in this case $\cH_3$ is declared;
- [*Case 2:*]{} $\forall \tilde{i}\in \Omega_{\gamma}$: $\Theta_{\tilde{i}}\neq\Theta_T$; in this case $\cH_2$ is declared.
Finally, the SLIM-based detector can be incorporated into the architecture depicted in Figure \[fig\_SLIMarchitecture\], where the condition on $\tilde{i}$ clearly is: $\exists \ \tilde{i}\in\Omega_{\gamma}: \Theta_{\tilde{i}}=\Theta_T$.
It is important to highlight that such architecture can absolve the functions of both SLB and SLC [@antennaBased]. In fact, the use of $\widehat{\bM}_1$ allows to place nulls along the NLJ directions, while $\bar{\balpha}_{\hat{q}}$ allows to separate the target response from the coherent interferers.
Summarizing, the proposed approach allows to suitably handle situations where NLJs as well as CJs attack the victim radar providing a tool for the discrimination between useful structured returns and unwanted signals. In fact, focusing on the CUT only, the actual classification problem herein addressed is the following multiple-hypothesis test $$\label{eq_finalprob}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\cH_1: \bz = \alpha_T \bv(\theta_T) + \bn,
\\
\cH_2: \bz = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{q}}\beta_i \bv(\theta_{q,i}) + \bn,
\\
\cH_3: \bz = \alpha_T \bv(\theta_T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_{q}}\beta_i \bv(\theta_{q,i}) + \bn,
\\
H_{00}: \bz = \bn.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Illustrative Examples {#Sec:Examples}
=====================
In this section, we analyze the performance of the new ECCM strategies against the disturbance injected by NLJs and/or CJs through the antenna sidelobes. Specifically, in Subsection \[NLJ-only\], we analyze the performance in the first scenario (NLJ-only attack) while in Subsection \[SLIM-based\], we investigate the behavior of the SLIM-based detector when both NLJs and CJs are present.
NLJ-only Case {#NLJ-only}
-------------
In this section, we present illustrative examples assessing the performance of the multi-stage architectures devised in Section \[Sec:NLJ-only\] in terms of $P_d$ against the SINR. For comparison purpose, we also report the $P_d$ curves of the so-called Double Trained-AMF (DT-AMF) introduced in [@doubleTraining], the IDT-AMF with known $r$, and the clairvoyant (non-adaptive) detector, i.e., the Matched Filter (MF) with known $\bM_1$, which represents an upper bound to the detection performance. The numerical examples are obtained resorting to standard Monte Carlo counting techniques. More precisely, the $P_d$ is estimated over $10^3$ independent trials, whereas the detection thresholds are computed exploiting $100/P_{fa}$ independent trials. In all the illustrative examples, we set $N=16$, $\sigma^2=1$, $d=\lambda/2$, and $P_{fa} = 10^{-4}$. The SINR is defined as $\textrm{SINR}=|\alpha|^2\bv(0)^{\mathrm{\dag}}\bM_1^{-1}\bv(0)$, while the considered scenario comprises three NLJs with the same power from the following AOAs: $\theta_{nj,1}=15^{\circ}$, $\theta_{nj,2}=25^{\circ}$, and $\theta_{nj,3}=-10^{\circ}$. Then, the resulting ICMs are given by $\bM_2=\bI+\sum_{i=1}^{3}\textrm{JNR}\ \bv(\theta_{nj,i})\bv(\theta_{nj,i})^{\dag}$ and $\bM_1=\bM_2+\textrm{CNR}\ \bM_c$. The $(i,j)$th entry of $\bM_c$ is given by $\bM_c(i,j)=\rho^{|i-j|}$, where $\rho=0.9$ is the one-lag correlation coefficient. Finally, the maximum number of NLJs is set to $N/2$ and the GIC parameter, $\rho$ say, is equal to 2 (this choice represents a reasonable compromise to limit the model overestimation).
In Figure \[p1\], the $P_d$ versus SINR for all the considered detectors is plotted assuming $K = M = 20$, JNR $= 30$ dB and CNR $= 20$ dB. As it can be seen, the IDT-AMF-BIC, IDT-AMF-GIC and IDT-AMF-EIG have nearly the same performance as the IDT-AMF with known $r$ and they exhibit higher $P_d$ values than the DT-AMF with a gain of 0.6 dB at $P_d=0.9$. The IDT-AMF-BIC, IDT-AMF-GIC, IDT-AMF-EIG and IDT-AMF exhibit similar performances due to the fact that the stages responsible for the estimate of $r$ share the same estimation accuracy. As to the IDT-AMF-AIC, it experiences a loss about 1.0 dB at $P_d=0.8$ with respect to other proposed detectors but still has slightly higher $P_d$ than the DT-AMF in the low/medium SINR region. However, the IDT-AMF-AIC is not capable of achieving $P_d=1.0$ for higher SINR values at least for the considered parameter values.
To show the influence of $K$ and $M$ on the detection performance of the proposed detectors, in Figure \[p2\] we set $K=14$ leaving the other parameters as in Figure \[p1\], whereas the parameter values in Figure \[p3\] are the same as in Figure \[p1\] but for $M = 13$. Inspection of Figure \[p2\] confirms the trend observed in Figure \[p1\]. Moreover, the performance gain of the proposed detectors with respect to the DT-AMF increases as $K$ decreases. Precisely, the DT-AMF experiences a loss of about 8.5 dB at $P_d=0.9$ with respect to the architectures based upon BIC, GIC, and the modified ML estimation. Even though the IDT-AMF-AIC performs better than the DT-AMF for SINR$<26$ dB, it is still not capable of ensuring $P_d=1$. Comparing Figure \[p2\] with Figure \[p1\], we can note that each proposed detector experiences a loss of about 1 dB when $K$ decreases from $20$ to $14$. This is due to the fact that the estimation quality of $r$ and $\bM_1$ reduces. On the other hand, Figure \[p3\] highlights that, when $M=13$ and $K=20$, the IDT-AMF-GIC and IDT-AMF-EIG overcome the IDT-AMF-BIC with a gain of 0.4 dB at $P_d=0.9$, whereas the IDT-AMF-AIC has a severe performance degradation. It is important to stress that the $P_d$ curve of DT-AMF is not reported in Figure \[p3\] since it is not defined when $M<N$.
Finally, in Figure \[p4\], the $P_d$ performances are investigated assuming $K < N$ and $M < N$. In particular, we set $K = 14$, $M = 13 $ and leave unaltered the other parameters. The curves in Figure \[p4\] indicate that the detection performances of the IDT-AMF-GIC, IDT-AMF-EIG, and IDT-AMF are still similar while the IDT-AMF-BIC experience a performance degradation of about 0.5 dB at $P_d=0.9$.
Summarizing, architectures IDT-AMF-GIC, IDT-AMF-EIG, and IDT-AMF-BIC are effective solutions to detect point-like targets in the presence of an unknown number of NLJs, with IDT-AMF-GIC and IDT-AMF-EIG slightly superior to IDT-AMF-BIC. However, IDT-AMF-GIC requires to set a parameter while IDT-AMF-EIG exploits two thresholding stages. For this reason, the IDT-AMF-BIC emerges as a viable means for practical implementation.
SLIM-based detector performance analysis (NLJs and CJs joint attack) {#SLIM-based}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we investigate the behavior of the SLIM-based detector in a scenario which assumes the joint presence of one NLJ and two CJs ($N_q=2$). It is important to note that CJs can be also categorized as targets, since they emulate echoes from an object of interest. For this reason, the considered performance metrics concern the capability of the system to detect both target and CJs and to discriminate between the echoes backscattered from the target and the echo-like signal transmitted by the CJs. The NLJ illuminates the radar with a JNR of $30$ dB and AOA $\theta_{nj}=10^\circ$, whereas the CJs are located at $\theta_{q,1}=-14^\circ$ and $\theta_{q,2}=16^\circ$ and radiate power at the same JNR of 45 dB. Target signature is given by $\bv(0)$ and the SINR is defined as in the previous subsection. In other words, the operating scenario corresponds to $\cH_3$. As for the ICMs, $\bM_2=\bI+\mbox{JNR} \bv(\theta_{nj})\bv(\theta_{nj})^\dag$, whereas $\bM_1$ is defined using the same parameters as in the previous subsection.
The analysis, conducted by means of Monte Carlo simulation, is aimed at estimating the following main performance metrics:
- the probability of detection ($P_d$) defined as the probability to declare $H_{1,1}$ when the latter holds true for a preassigned value of the $P_{fa}$, defined as the probability to declare $H_{1,1}$ when $H_{0,0}$ is in force;
- the probability of declaring the presence of a target under $\cH_3$, which is denoted by $P_{t|H_3}$;
- the probabilities of correct classification, namely the probability of declaring $\cH_i$, $i=1,2,3$, when it is on force.
Finally, to assess the estimation capabilities of the SLIM-based detector, additional figure of merits will be suitably introduced in the second part of this section. All the mentioned metrics are estimated resorting to $10^3$ independent trials, while the detection threshold is computed over $100/P_{fa}$ independent trials. An additional thresholding of the entries of $\bar{\balpha}_{\hat{q}}$ is applied to mitigate as much as possible the number of false targets generated by the SLIM estimate especially at low SINR values. To this end, the threshold is set to ensure a probability of declaring the presence of a false target equal to 10$^{-2}$. Finally, all the numerical examples assume $N=16$, $P_{fa}=10^{-4}$, an angular sector under surveillance ranging from $-22^\circ$ to $22^\circ$ and uniformly sampled at $1$ degree (namely, $L=45$), and $|\Theta_i|=5$ with $\Theta_T=\{-2,\ldots,2\}$.
In Figure \[fig\_perf\_slim\], we show the $P_d$ and the $P_{t|H_3}$ both as functions of the SINR and for $(K,M)\in\{ (16,16), (32,32) \}$. As expected, the $P_d$ is equal to $1$ regardless the values of $K$, $M$, and SINR. This is due to the presence of the CJs whose JNR is constant and equal to $45$ dB. On the other hand, the $P_{t|H_3}$ achieves $1$ at SINR$=15$ dB when $(K,M)=(32,32)$ and at SINR$=17$ dB when $(K,M)=(16,16)$. Generally speaking, inspection of the figure highlights that increasing the volume of training samples leads to a moderate improvement of the $P_{t|H_3}$.
It is important to highlight that the SLIM-based detector draws, as a byproduct, a picture of the electromagnetic scenario under surveillance in terms of AOAs of possible passive or active objects. However, this picture might contain false objects (ghosts) or ignore existing sources. Thus, it is worth to evaluate to what extent the above phenomena take place. To this end, in Figure \[fig:metrics\], we plot the following figures of merit as functions of the SINR
- Root Mean Square (RMS) number of missed interferers, $n_{mj}$ say, evaluated by verifying that the $\Theta_i$s corresponding to the two jammers refer to null entries of $\bar{\balpha}_{\hat{q}}$;
- RMS number of ghosts, $n_{g}$ say, defined as the nonzero components of $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}$ in positions different from that of the target and CJs;
- the Hausdorff metric [@4567674] between $\bgamma$ and $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}$. This metric belongs to the family of the multi-object distances which are able to capture the error between two sets of vectors and is defined as $h_d(\cX,\cY) = \max \{ \max_{x \in \cX} \min_{y\in \cY} d(x,y) , \max_{y\in \cY} \min_{x\in \cX} d(x,y) \}$ with $\cX$ and $\cY$ are the sets of the coordinates of the nonzero entries of $\bgamma$ and $\bar{\bgamma}_{\hat{q}}$, respectively.
Note that the Hausdorff metric decreases as the SINR increases up to $15$ dB and then it takes on a constant value equal to $n_{g}=0.4$. Remarkably, the RMS number of missed jammers is close to zero regardless of the SINR, since it depends on the JNR. Finally, Figure \[fig:hist\] contains the classification histograms assuming SINR$=20$ dB. More precisely, each subplot presents the probabilities $P(\cH_i|\cH_k)$ as the percentages of declaring $\cH_i$, $i=1,2,3$, when $\cH_k$, $k=1,2,3$, is in force. The histograms highlight that the probability of correct classification, namely of deciding for $\cH_i$ when the latter holds, is close to $1$ at least for the considered parameter setting.
Summarizing, the analysis shows that the SLIM-based detector is very versatile, since it can operates in the presence of NLJ and/or CJs. More importantly, it can ensure excellent signal classification performances allowing for the discrimination between the echoes backscattered from a target and coherent signals emitted by hostile platforms.
Conclusions {#Sec:Conclusions}
===========
In this paper, we have devised adaptive detection architectures with signal-processing-related ECCM capabilities against the attack of NLJs and/or CJs from the antenna sidelobes. We have analyzed two operating scenarios which differ for the presence of an unknown number of CJs assuming that two independent sets of training samples are available for estimation purposes. Next, we have devised novel signal processing procedures to estimate the ICM capable of providing reliable estimates even in the presence of a low volume of secondary data. Moreover, such estimation procedures work without knowing the actual number of NLJs. In the case where CJs are present, we have conceived a multistage architecture which leverages the hidden sparse nature of the data model to detect structured signals backscattered from a target or generated by CJs. To this end, we have borrowed the SLIM paradigm proposed in [@slim]. The performance analyses has highlighted that the newly proposed detection architectures exhibit satisfactory performances and, more important, the SLIM-based detector with its classification capabilities can act as an improved SLB, since, in the case where a target and CJs are simultaneously present, it does not blank the possible detection.
Future research tracks might encompass the design of detection architectures for range-spread targets based upon compressive sensing algorithms.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
===============
This work was partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61571434, and Chinese academy of sciences president’s international fellowship initiative under Grant No. 2018VTB0006.
MLE of $\bM_2$ for known $r$ {#app:M2_estimate}
============================
In this Appendix, we provide the derivation of . To this end, compute the logarithm of $\cL_R(\sigma^2,\bM_{nj})$ and recast it by means of the eigendecompositions of $\bM_2$ and $\bR\bR^\dag$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\ln \cL(\sigma^2,\bM_{nj}) &=-MN\ln\pi-M\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{r}\ln(\sigma^2+\lambda_{nj,i})+(N-r)\ln\sigma^2\right\} \nonumber
\\
& -\mathrm{tr}\left[(\sigma^2\textbf{I}+\bLambda_{nj})^{-1}\bU^{\dag}\bU_{S1}\bLambda_{S1}\bU_{S1}^{\dag}\bU\right] \nonumber
\\
& = h(\sigma^2,\bLambda_j,\bU),\end{aligned}$$ where
- $\bLambda_{nj}\in \R^{N\times N}$ is a diagonal matrix whose nonzero entries are the eigenvalues of $\bM_{nj}$ with $\lambda_{nj,1}\geq\lambda_{nj,2}\geq...\geq\lambda_{nj,r}>0$ and $\bU \in \C^{N\times N}$ is the unitary matrix of the corresponding eigenvectors;
- $\bLambda_{S1} \in \R^{N\times N}$ is a diagonal matrix whose nonzero entries are the eigenvalues of $\bR\bR^\dag$, denoted by $\gamma_{1,1}\geq \gamma_{1,2}\geq...\geq\gamma_{1,N}\geq 0$, and $\bU_{S1} \in \C^{N\times N}$ contains the corresponding eigenvectors.
Thus, the maximization of $\ln \cL(\sigma^2,\bM_{nj})$ with respect to $\bM_2$ is equivalent to \[eqn:16\] h(\^2,\_j,). Now, the optimization with respect to $\bU$ can be accomplished exploiting *Theorem 1* [@mirsky1959trace], we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{\bU} \mathrm{tr}\left[(\sigma^2\textbf{I}+\bLambda_j)^{-1}\bU^{\dag}\bU_{S1}\bLambda_{S1}\bU_{S1}^{\dag}\bU\right]
&=\max\limits_{\bW_1}\mathrm{tr}[(\sigma^2\textbf{I}+\bLambda_j)^{-1}\bW_1\bLambda_{S1}\bW_1^{\dag}]\nonumber\\
&=\mathrm{tr}[(\sigma^2\textbf{I}+\bLambda_j)^{-1}\bLambda_{S1}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\bW_1=\bU^{\dag}\bU_{S1}$. It is possible to show that optimization with respect to $\bW_1$ leads to $\bW_1=\bI e^{j\theta_1}$ for arbitrary $\theta_1\in [0,2\pi]$. Thus, choosing for simplicity $\theta_1=0$, an MLE of $\bU$ can be recast as $\widehat{\bU}=\bU_{S1}$. As a consequence, problem becomes g(\^2,\_j), where g(\^2,\_j)=-MN-M{\_[i=1]{}\^[r]{}(\^2+\_[j,i]{})+(N-r)\^2}-\_[i=1]{}\^[r]{}-\_[i=r+1]{}\^[N]{}\_[1,i]{}. To estimate the remaining parameters, let us set to zero the gradient of $g(\sigma^2,\bLambda_j)$. Then, the resulting estimates are given by \^2 =\_[i=r+1]{}\^[N]{}\_[1,i]{} \_[j,i]{}+\^2 = , i=1,...,r. Finally, the MLE of $\widehat{\bM}_2$ is \[eq15\] \_2=\_[S1]{}(\^2+\_j)\_[S1]{}\^, where $\widehat{\sigma}^2\bI+\widehat{\bLambda}_j=\textbf{diag}\left\{\frac{\gamma_{1,1}}{M},\ldots,\frac{\gamma_{1,r}}{M},
\frac{1}{M(N-r)}\sum_{i=r+1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i},\ldots,\frac{1}{M(N-r)}\sum_{i=r+1}^{N}\gamma_{1,i}\right\}$.
MLE of $\bM_c$ for known $\bM_2$ {#app:Mc_estimate}
================================
Assume that $\bM_2$ is known and consider the following maximization problem \_[\_c]{} \_[Z]{}(\_c), \[eqn:estimationMc01\] where $\cL_{Z}(\bM_c)$ is defined by . To solve , let us recast the logarithm of $\cL_{Z}(\bM_c)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:17}
&-KN\ln\pi-K\ln\det(\bM_2)-K\ln\det(\bI+\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bM_c\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}) \nonumber
\\
&-\mathrm{tr}\left[(\bI+\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bM_c\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}})^{-1}\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bZ\bZ^\dag\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right] \nonumber
\\
&=-KN\ln\pi-K\ln\det(\bM_2)-K\ln\det(\bI+\bOmega_c)-\mathrm{tr}\left[(\bI+\bOmega_c)^{-1}\bV^{\dag}\bU_{S2}\bLambda_{S2}\bU_{S2}^{\dag}\bV\right] \nonumber
\\
&=\cL_{Z}(\bV,\bOmega_c),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality is due to the eigendecomposition of $\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bM_c\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ and $\bZ\bZ^\dag$. In fact, in , $\bLambda_{S2} \in \R^{N\times N}$ is a diagonal matrix whose nonzero entries are the eigenvalues of $\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bZ\bZ^\dag\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ denoted by $\gamma_{2,1}\geq...\geq\gamma_{2,N}\geq0$ with $\bU_{S2} \in \C^{N\times N}$ the unitary matrix of the corresponding eigenvectors and $\bOmega_c \in \R^{N\times N}$ is the diagonal matrix containing the eigenvalues of $\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}\bM_c\bM_2^{-\frac{1}{2}}$ denoted by $\lambda_{c,1}\geq...\geq\lambda_{c,N}>0$ with $\bV \in \C^{N\times N}$ the unitary matrix of the corresponding eigenvectors. It follows that problem becomes \_[,\_c]{} \_[Z]{}(,\_c). The optimization with respect to $\bV$ can be accomplished adopting the same line of reasoning as for $\bW_1$ in Appendix \[app:M2\_estimate\], namely $$\begin{aligned}
\max\limits_{\bV}\mathrm{tr}\left[(\bI+\bOmega_c)^{-1}\bV^{\dag}\bU_{S2}\bLambda_{S2}\bU_{S2}^{\dag}\bV\right]&=\max\limits_{\bW_2}\mathrm{tr}[(\bI+\bOmega_c)^{-1}\bW_2\bLambda_{S2}\bW_2^{\dag}]\nonumber
\\
&=\mathrm{tr}[(\bI+\bOmega_c)^{-1}\bLambda_{S2}],\end{aligned}$$ where $\bW_2=\bV^{\dag}\bU_{S2}$ and the last equality comes from the fact that $\widehat{\bW}_2=\bI e^{j\theta_2}$ with $\theta_2 \in [0,2\pi]$ arbitrary. As a result, an estimate of $\bV$ is $\widehat{\bV}=\bU_{S2}$.
The final step consists in solving \_[\_c]{} |[g]{}(\_c), where |[g]{}(\_c)=-K\_[i=1]{}\^[N]{}(1+\_[c,i]{})-\_[i=1]{}\^[N]{}. Thus, setting to zero the gradient of $\bar{g}(\bOmega_c)$, we obtain \_[c,i]{}= { -1, 0 }, i=1,…,N. Gathering the above results, the MLE of $\bM_c$ for known $\bM_2$ is \_c\[\_2\]=\_2\^\_[S2]{}\_c\_[S2]{}\^\_2\^, where $\widehat{\bOmega}_{c}=\textbf{diag}\left\{\widehat{\lambda}_{c,1},\ldots,\widehat{\lambda}_{c,N}\right\}$.
[c|l]{}\
AIC & Akaike Information Criterion\
AOA & Angle of Arrival\
AMF & Adaptive Matched Filter\
BIC & Bayesian Information Criterion\
CJ & Coherent Jammer\
CNR & Clutter-to-Noise Ratio\
CUT & Cell Under Test\
DT & Double Trained\
ECCM & Electronic Counter-countermeasure\
ECM & Electronic Countermeasure\
GIC & Generalized Information Criterion\
GLRT & Generalized Likelihood Ratio Test\
ICM & Interference Covariance Matrix\
IDT & Improved Double Trained\
JNR & Jammer-to-Noise Ratio\
LRT & Likelihood Ratio Test\
MLA & Maximum Likelihood Approach\
MLE & Maximum Likelihood Estimate\
NLJ & Noise Like Jammer\
MOS & Model Order Selection\
RMS & Root Mean Square\
SINR & Signal-to-Interference plus Noise Ratio\
SLB & Sidelobe Blanker\
SLC & Sidelobe Canceler\
SLIM & Sparse Learning via Iterative Minimization\
\[tab:Acronyms\]
![*Three-stage Detection Architectures.*[]{data-label="fig1"}](./scheme1new.eps)
![Eigenvalues of $\bM_2$ in the presence of NLJs assuming $N=8$ and JNR$=30$ dB for all NLJs.[]{data-label="fig:dominantEigenvalues2J"}](./eigenvalues2J.eps)
![Block scheme of the SLIM-based detection architecture.[]{data-label="fig_SLIMarchitecture"}](./scheme2new.eps){width=".8\textwidth"}
![*$P_d$ versus SINR for the MF, IDT-AMF, IDT-AMF-AIC, IDT-AMF-BIC, IDT-AMF-GIC, IDT-AMF-EIG and DT-AMF assuming $N=16$, $K=M=20$, CNR=20 dB and JNR=30 dB.* []{data-label="p1"}](./p1.eps){width=".55\textwidth"}
![*$P_d$ versus SINR for the MF, IDT-AMF, IDT-AMF-AIC, IDT-AMF-BIC, IDT-AMF-GIC, IDT-AMF-EIG and DT-AMF assuming $N=16$, $K=14$, $M=20$, CNR=20 dB and JNR=30 dB.* []{data-label="p2"}](./p2.eps){width=".55\textwidth"}
![*$P_d$ versus SINR for the MF, IDT-AMF, IDT-AMF-AIC, IDT-AMF-BIC, IDT-AMF-GIC, and IDT-AMF-EIG assuming $N=16$, $K=20$, $M=13$, CNR=20 dB and JNR=30 dB.* []{data-label="p3"}](./p3.eps){width=".55\textwidth"}
![*$P_d$ versus SINR for the MF, IDT-AMF, IDT-AMF-AIC, IDT-AMF-BIC, IDT-AMF-GIC and IDT-AMF-EIG assuming $N=16$, $K=14$, $M=13$, CNR=20 dB and JNR=30 dB.* []{data-label="p4"}](./p4.eps){width=".55\textwidth"}
![Performance of the SLIM-based detector in terms of $P_{d}$ and $P_{t|H_3}$ versus SINR for $M=K=16$ and $M=K=32$.[]{data-label="fig:my_label"}](./P_d_noc.eps){width="55.00000%"}
\[fig\_perf\_slim\]
![RMS values of $n_{mj}$, $n_{g}$, and $h_d(\cdot,\cdot)$ assuming $M=K=16$.[]{data-label="fig:metrics"}](./rms_K1_16_K2_16.eps){width=".6\textwidth"}
![Classification histograms for all the three hypotheses $\mathcal H_{1}$, $\mathcal H_{2}$, and $\mathcal H_{3}$ assuming $M=K=16$ and SINR$=20$ dB.[]{data-label="fig:hist"}](./histograms_K1_16_K2_16.eps){width=".55\textwidth"}
[^1]: Linjie Yan and Chengpeng Hao are with Institute of Acoustics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. E-mail: [[email protected],[email protected]]{}. Pia Addabbo is with Università degli studi Giustino Fortunato, Benevento, Italy. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}. D. Orlando is with the Engineering Faculty of Università degli Studi “Niccolò Cusano”, via Don Carlo Gnocchi 3, 00166 Roma, Italy. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}. Alfonso Farina is with Selex ES (retired), 00131 Rome, Italy. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}. (Corresponding author: Chengpeng Hao.)
[^2]: In the following, “channel” is used to denote the transmit/receive chain of the radar system [@Richards].
[^3]: Note that in [@doubleTraining] it is only assumed that the difference between the ICM of the conventional training set and that of the additional training set is positive semidefinite, while in the present paper information about the structure of this difference is exploited.
[^4]: In what follows, we refer to the ICM of $\bZ$ using the notation $\bM_1$, $\sigma^2\bI+\bM_{nj}+\bM_c$, or $\bM_2+\bM_c$ as well as we refer to the ICM of $\bR$ writing $\bM_2$ or $\sigma^2\bI+\bM_{nj}$.
[^5]: Recall that the latter might not coincide with $N_{nj}$ because of the angular separation between the NLJs.
[^6]: Note that the second block is formed by two sub-blocks.
[^7]: Note that in the case where $r=0$, the term $M\sum_{i=1}^r\log \frac{\gamma_{1,i}}{M}$ does not appear and, in addition, when $\hat{r}=0$, the procedure returns \_2={ ,…, }.
[^8]: Hereafter, the generic detection threshold is denoted by $\eta$.
[^9]: In practice, the ICM is estimated from data and quality of the estimate leads to noise eigenvalue jitter that can be stabilized by means of diagonal loading [@ScheerMelvin].
[^10]: We make use of the following definition for the derivative of a real function $f(\alpha)$ with respect to the complex argument $\alpha=\alpha_r+j \alpha_i$, $\alpha_r, \alpha_i \in \R$, [@VanTrees4] = .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'A. Marinucci , D. Porquet, F. Tamborra, S. Bianchi, V. Braito, A. Lobban, F. Marin, G. Matt, R. Middei, E. Nardini, J. Reeves'
- 'A. Tortosa'
bibliography:
- 'sbs.bib'
subtitle: 'VI. Geometry of the hot corona from spectroscopic and polarization signatures'
title: 'A deep X-ray view of the bare AGN Ark 120'
---
[The spectral shape of the hard X-ray continuum of Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) can be ascribed to inverse Compton scattering of optical/UV seed photons from the accretion disc by a hot corona of electrons. This physical process produces a polarization signal which is strongly sensitive to the geometry of the scattering medium (i.e. the hot corona) and of the radiation field.]{} [MoCA (Monte Carlo code for Comptonisation in Astrophysics) is a versatile code which allows for different geometries and configurations to be tested for Compton scattering in compact objects. A single photon approach is considered as well as polarisation and Klein-Nishina effects. In this work, we selected four different geometries for the scattering electrons cloud above the accretion disc, namely an extended slab, an extended spheroid and two compact spheroids.]{} [ We discuss the first application of the MoCA model to reproduce the hard X-ray primary continuum of the bare Seyfert 1 galaxy Ark 120, using different geometries for the hot corona above the accretion disc. The lack of extra-Galactic absorption along the line of sight makes it an excellent target for studying the accretion disc-corona system. We report on the spectral analysis of the simultaneous 2013 and 2014 XMM-[*Newton*]{} and [*NuSTAR*]{} observations of the source. ]{} [A general agreement is found between the best fit values of the hot coronal parameters obtained with MoCA and the ones inferred using other Comptonisation codes from the literature. The expected polarization signal from the best fits with MoCA is then presented and discussed, in view of the launch in 2021 of the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE). ]{} [We find that none of the tested geometries for the hot corona (extended slab and extended/compact spheroids) can be statistically preferred, based on spectroscopy solely. In the future, an IXPE observation less than 1 Ms long will clearly distinguish between an extended slab or a spherical hot corona.]{}
Introduction
============
The spectral shape of the nuclear continuum of AGN, in X-rays, can be well approximated with a cutoff power law, with a photon index in the range $\Gamma=1.6-2.2$ [@bianchi09; @sp09]. While this parameter is a function of the optical depth and temperature of the scattering medium, the high energy turnover of the power law mainly depends on the temperature [@sle76; @rl79; @st80; @lz87; @bel99; @petr00; @phm01]. The current paradigm invokes the presence of a corona of hot electrons above the accretion disc, which efficiently scatter the ultraviolet radiation emitted by the accretion disc up to X-ray wavelenghts [the so called two-phase model: @hm91; @hmg94].\
[@nustar] is the first satellite capable of focusing hard X-rays above 10 keV and up to 79 keV. With its broad spectral coverage, it has led to a number of works that have shown that optical depths and electron temperatures typically fall in the ranges $\tau=[0.1-4]$ and kT$_e=[10-500]$ keV, depending on the geometry and on the Comptonization model adopted [@flk15; @flb17; @tbm18].\
A second component has been also invoked to reproduce the soft X-ray excess of AGN [i.e. photons in the 0.5-2 keV band in excess of the extrapolation of the hard power-law component: @arn85; @sgn85]. These models assume a thermal Comptonisation in an optically thick ($\tau=5-50$) and warm (kT$_e=0.1-1$ keV) scattering plasma [@mbz98; @pro04; @ddj12; @jwd12; @ppm13; @rmb15; @pud18]. In this work, however, we focus on Comptonisation from the hot corona only.\
So far, X-ray spectroscopy has not been able to determine the geometry in any of the sources observed with [*NuSTAR*]{} and included in the catalogs mentioned above (simultaneously with XMM, [*Chandra*]{}, [*Suzaku*]{}, [*Swift*]{}). In fact, while the bet fit parameters may depend on the adopted geometry [@tbm18], the statistical quality of the fit is invariably the same, even for the best quality [*NuSTAR*]{} AGN spectra. On the other hand, Compton scattering will produce a polarization signal which is strongly dependent on the geometry of the scattering medium. The IXPE [Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer: @wro16; @wro16b] and eXTP (enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry mission: Zhang et al, 2016) satellites will investigate the polarization properties of the hot coronae in the brightest, unobscured AGN. In particular, [*IXPE*]{} has been recently selected by NASA as a SMall EXplorer Mission (SMEX) for a launch in 2021 and it will be the first X-ray imaging polarimeter on orbit, operating in the 2-8 keV band.\
In this context, a Comptonisation code which includes both special relativity [MoCA: a Monte Carlo code for Comptonisation in Astrophysics; @tmb18 Middei et al., in prep.] and general relativity effects (Tamborra et al. 2018b, in prep.) as well as polarization has been recently released. Compared to different codes in the literature, such as <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">compTT, compPS, nthcomp</span> [@tit94; @ps96; @zjm96; @zds99], the energy-dependent Klein-Nishina cross section is taken into account [differently from @sk10] and multiple geometries can be tested and investigated [similarly to @bkm17]. Moreover, the Monte Carlo approach implies that no a priori limitations in the parameter space is present.\
In this work, we constructed spectral models based on [MoCA]{}, and used it for fitting the 2013 and 2014 XMM and [*NuSTAR*]{} observations of the broad-line Seyfert 1 galaxy Ark 120, exploring different geometries of the hot corona. We will also use [MoCA]{} to predict the polarization signal expected in such geometries. The paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we discuss the data reduction procedure and the implementation of the model, while in Sect. 3 we present the spectral analysis. The polarization signals are reported and discussed in Sect.4. We summarize our results in Sect. 5.\
Throughout the paper, we adopt the cosmological parameters $H_0=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.73$ and $\Omega_m=0.27$, i.e. the default ones in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xspec 12.10.0</span> [@xspec]. Errors correspond to the 90% confidence level for one interesting parameter ($\Delta\chi^2=2.7$), if not stated otherwise.
Observations and data reduction
===============================
XMM-Newton
----------
Ark 120 has been the target of a deep XMM-[*Newton*]{} [@xmm] observation in 2014, starting on 2014 March 18 for a total elapsed time of $\sim 650$ ks with the EPIC CCD cameras, the Pn [@struder01] and the two MOS [@turner01], operated in small window and thin filter mode. In this work, we only focus on the third XMM orbit [observation 2014c in @preem18] since it is the only one simultaneous with [*NuSTAR*]{}. We also analyse data from the 2013 February 18 pointing (total elapsed time of 130 ks), also simultaneous with [*NuSTAR*]{}, applying the latest calibration files available on 2018 June. In 2014, the source was observed in a flux state which was a factor of $\sim2$ higher than in 2013. Data from the MOS detectors are not included in our analysis due to the high pile-up and lower statistics of the spectra. The extraction radii and the optimal time cuts for flaring particle background were computed with SAS 16 [@gabr04] via an iterative process which leads to a maximization of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR), similar to the approach described in @pico04. The resulting optimal extraction radii are 40 arcsec, net exposure times are 89 ks and 92 ks for the 2013 and 2014 observation, respectively. Background spectra were extracted from source-free circular regions with a radius of 50 arcsec. Spectra were then binned in order not to over-sample the instrumental resolution more than a factor of three and to have no less than 30 counts in each background-subtracted spectral channel. Since no significant spectral variability is observed within each observation, we used time averaged spectra [we refer the reader to @mmg14; @npr16; @lpr18; @preem18 for further details].\
NuSTAR
------
[*NuSTAR*]{} (Harrison et al. 2013) observed Ark 120 with its two coaligned X-ray telescopes with corresponding Focal Plane Module A (FPMA) and B (FPMB) simultaneously to XMM-[*Newton*]{} on 2013 February 18 and on 2014 March 22 for a total of $166$ ks and 131 ks of elapsed time, respectively. The Level 1 data products were processed with the [*NuSTAR*]{} Data Analysis Software (NuSTARDAS) package (v. 1.8.0). Cleaned event files (level 2 data products) were produced and calibrated using standard filtering criteria with the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">nupipeline</span> task and the latest calibration files available in the [*NuSTAR*]{} calibration database (CALDB 20180419). Extraction radii for the source and background spectra were $30$ arcsec and 50 arcsec and the net exposure times for the two observations were 80 ks and 65 ks, respectively. The two pairs of [*NuSTAR*]{} spectra were binned in order not to over-sample the instrumental resolution more than a factor of 2.5 and to have a SNR greater than 5$\sigma$ in each spectral channel. A cross-calibration factor within 3 per cent between the two detectors is found. Broad band (between 3 and 79 keV) data are shown in Fig. \[plot\_spectra\] (top panel) and their residuals to a $\Gamma=1.85$ power law model, with a 2-10 keV flux of $3\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, indicate a clear spectral variation between the two pointings (bottom panel).
\
Data analysis
=============
Building the model
------------------
The bare Seyfert galaxy Ark 120 [z=0.0327 @op77] is an excellent source for studying the accretion disc-corona environment, since no significant extra-Galactic absorption along the line of sight is present, both in the UV and in X-rays [@ckb99; @vfb04; @rpb16].\
The source, throughout the years, has shown a variable emission complex in the 6-7 keV band with a broad relativistic Iron K$\alpha$ component in the 2007 [*Suzaku*]{} spectrum [@nfr11] which was not detected in the 2013 XMM+[*NuSTAR*]{} observation [@mmg14]. The neutral core of the 6.4 keV Iron K$\alpha$ fluorescence line was resolved in the 2014 [*Chandra*]{} High Energy Transmission Gratings spectrum and its Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) is consistent with being emitted in the optical Broad Line Region [FWHM=$4700^{+2700}_{-1500}$ km/s: @npr16]. Furthermore, the 2014 monitoring performed with [*Chandra*]{}, XMM and [*NuSTAR*]{} also led to the discovery of transient Fe K emission from the innermost regions of the accretion disc, both on the red and blue sides of the neutral 6.4 keV line. The full data set is analyzed and discussed in @preem18 and clear variations in the shape of the nuclear continuum were found with respect to the previous 2013 pointing. A steeper continuum was observed in the brighter state, accordingly to the well-known softer when brighter behavior [@shem06; @rye09; @upm16]. The change in the slope of the primary emission and the detection of a high energy cutoff in the 2014 spectra are indicative of a variation of the scattering material configuration. We hereby investigate the geometry and the physical parameters of the hot corona, by using the Monte Carlo Comptonisation model MoCA. [ Even though the 2014 monitoring presented flux and spectral changes throughout the four XMM orbits [@lpr18; @preem18], we only considered XMM data simultaneous with [*NuSTAR*]{}, to better characterize the shape of the primary continuum above 10 keV.]{}\
MoCA is a versatile code which allows for different geometries and configurations [we refer the reader to @tmb18 for a more detailed description of the code]. We selected two different geometries for the scattering electrons cloud above the accretion disc: an extended slab and a sphere. The accretion disc emits a multi-temperature black body from 6 up to 500 gravitational radii (r$_g=GM/c^2$) and both the slab and the sphere cover the whole disc. In all our simulations we considered a black hole mass M$_{\rm bh}=1.5\times 10^8$ M$_{\odot}$ [estimated via reverberation mapping: @pet04], and an accretion rate L$_{\rm Bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}=10\%$ (which is representative to the values found from the 2013 and 2014 optical to hard X-ray spectral fitting, i.e. 3–7% (Porquet et al. 2018b). For simplicity, we used spectra integrated over the inclination angle and only Special Relativity effects are considered. We refer the reader to Tamborra et al. (in prep.) for further details on the inclusion of General Relativity effects (which are particularly relevant at radii r$<$6r$_g$) and on the (small) dependence of the emitted spectra on the inclination angle. For the extended slab we assumed a constant height $H=10$ r$_g$ and we simulated spectra in the ranges kT$_e$=20-200 keV and $\tau$=0.1-2.5 adopting 5 keV and 0.1 steps for the temperature and optical depth, respectively. The angle-averaged spectrum is then recorded for each kT$_e$-$\tau$ pair. The same procedure is adopted for the spherical geometry, in which we considered a hemisphere covering the disc with temperatures and optical depth in the ranges kT$_e$=20-200 keV and $\tau$=0.1-4.5, due to the different definition of the optical depth in the two geometries (in the sphere it is the radial one, thence equal to the effective one, while in the slab it is the vertical one, therefore smaller than the effective one). As a final step, we considered two scenarios in which the spherical hot corona is more compact, extending from 6 to 100 r$_g$ and from 6 to 20 r$_g$ (see Sect. 3.2.2). The latter is of the order of the coronal size envisaged via microlensing experiments [@rm13], coronal eclipses by clouds [@rne11; @sanmi13] or reverberation analyses [@demarco13; @kaf16]. [xspec]{} readable tables were generated between 0.1 and 700 keV for each configuration.
Spectral analysis
-----------------
The baseline model adopted for fitting the simultaneous XMM/[*NuSTAR*]{} observations is the one discussed in @preem18. It is composed of a primary cutoff power law, relativistic reflection from the accretion disc [modeled with [relxill]{} in [xspec]{}, @gdl14; @dgp14 and references therein], three Gaussians fixed at 6.4 keV, 6.97 keV and 7.05 keV [see @npr16 for a more complete discussion on these components] and a warm comptonisation component to reproduce the soft excess [modeled with [compTT]{}: @tit94 assuming a slab geometry]. We used a fixed emissivity $\epsilon(r)\propto r^{-3}$ and an inclination angle $i$=30 degrees for the [relxill]{} component. The whole model is multiplied by a constant, to account for the cross-calibration between the three detectors, while Galactic absorption is modeled with [TBabs]{}, using a N$_{\rm H}=1.0\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ [@kalberla05]. In [xspec]{}, the model reads as follows:\
\
[const$\times$TBabs$\times$(cutoffpl + compTT + relxill + 3$\times$zgauss)]{}.\
[cccc]{} [**Obs. Date**]{} & &[**$\chi^2$/d.o.f.**]{}\
\
&&\
& $\Gamma$ & E$_{\rm c}$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $1.79\pm0.02$ & $>200$ & 569/516\
March 2014 & $1.92\pm0.02$ & $300^{+180}_{-100}$ & 555/499\
& & &\
&&\
&$\Gamma_{\rm Nth}$ & kT$_e$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $1.80\pm0.02$ &$>40$ & 574/516\
March 2014 & $1.94\pm0.02$ & $155^{+350}_{-55}$ & 560/499\
&&\
&$\tau$ & kT$_e$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $0.13^{+0.42}_{-0.10}$ &$>50$ & 568/516\
March 2014 & $0.15^{+0.20}_{-0.05}$ & $150^{+160}_{-75}$ & 555/499\
& & &\
&&\
&$\tau$ & kT$_e$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $0.48^{+2.75}_{-0.22}$ &$>40$ & 569/516\
March 2014 & $0.75\pm0.55$ & $125^{+190}_{-65}$ & 555/499\
&&\
&$\tau$ & kT$_e$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $0.58^{+0.26}_{-0.08}$ &$110^{+8}_{-17}$ & 566/516\
March 2014 & $0.51^{+0.25}_{-0.20}$ & $103^{+25}_{-20}$ & 552/499\
& & &\
&&\
&$\tau$ & kT$_e$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $3.00^{+0.05}_{-0.55}$ & $57^{+18}_{-2}$ & 561/516\
March 2014 & $0.80^{+1.75}_{-0.15}$ & $120^{+10}_{-40}$ & 551/499\
& & &\
&&\
&$\tau$ & kT$_e$ (keV)&\
February 2013& $1.50^{+0.08}_{-0.30}$ & $95\pm15$& 561/516\
March 2014 & $0.35\pm0.05$ & $>190$ & 552/499\
When applied to the 2013 and 2014 XMM/[*NuSTAR*]{} spectra we obtain decent fits, with $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=569/516 and 555/499, respectively. The following parameters are left free to vary: photon index, high energy cutoff and normalization of the primary power law, kT$_e$, $\tau$ and normalization of the [compTT]{} component, normalization for the Compton reflection and emission lines. No strong residuals are seen throughout the 0.3-79 keV band (Fig. 2, left and right top panels) and best fit values are in agreement with the ones already discussed in @mmg14 [@npr16; @preem18 b], including cross-calibration constants. For the [compTT]{} component used to reproduce the soft excess, we find kT$_e=0.39^{+0.08}_{-0.04}$ keV, $\tau=10.1^{+0.7}_{-1.1}$, N=$1.6\pm0.15$ and kT$_e=0.42\pm0.05$ keV, $\tau=9.2^{+0.8}_{-0.6}$, N=$3.6^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ for the 2013 and 2014 data observations, respectively.\
In 2013, Ark 120 was in a flux state F=$2.3\pm0.2\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, calculated in the 2-10 keV band. Its primary continuum can be well reproduced with a power law with $\Gamma=1.79\pm0.02$ and E$_{\rm c}>200$ keV. On the other hand, on 2014 (March 22) the flux was a factor of $\sim2$ higher, F=$3.9\pm0.1\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and the parameters of the nuclear continuum changed to $\Gamma=1.92\pm0.02$ and E$_{\rm c}=300^{+180}_{-100}$ keV: such changes are clearly indicative of a variation of the hot coronal parameters. We therefore substituted the [cutoffpl]{} power law component with the Comptonisation model [nthcomp]{} [@zjm96; @zds99]. We fixed the input seed photon temperature kT$_{bb}$ parameter to the [compTT]{} one (kT$_{bb}$=15 eV, inferred from the black hole mass and the mean accretion rate of the source) and left the photon index $\Gamma_{\rm Nth}$, the coronal temperature kT$_{e}$ and the normalization free to vary. We obtain statistically equivalent fits to the ones in which a [cutoffpl]{} component is used, for both the 2013 and 2014 data sets ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=574/516 and $\chi^2$/d.o.f.=560/499, respectively): best fit parameters are shown in Table \[best\_par\]. The inferred parameters from the 2013 and 2014 best fits ($\Gamma_{\rm Nth}=1.80\pm0.02$, kT$_{e}>40$ keV and $\Gamma_{\rm Nth}=1.94\pm0.02$, kT$_{e}$=$155^{+350}_{-55}$ keV, respectively) can be translated into optical depths $\tau<2.45$ and $\tau\simeq0.73$, using the formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau = \sqrt{2.25+\frac{3}{((kT_{e}/m_{e}c^2)((\Gamma+0.5)^2-2.25))}}-1.5,\end{aligned}$$ obtained by inverting Eq. (A1) reported in @zjm96.
At last, we substituted [NTHcomp]{} with [compTT]{}, to directly compare best fit values in slab and spherical geometries with the ones obtained with MoCA. No statistically significant deviations can be found with respect to cutoff power law or [NTHcomp]{} models; we report best fit values and reduced $\chi^2$ in Table \[best\_par\], for 2013 and 2014 observations. Contour plots between kT$_e$ and $\tau$ for the two coronal configurations are shown in the top panels of Fig. \[slab\_cont\].
### **Extended coronae**
We then fitted the spectra using the MoCA tables. We removed the [cutoffpl]{} component and replaced it first with the MoCA generated table for the extended slab configuration ([MoCA$_{-}$Slab]{} model). Variable parameters for the primary continuum are the electron temperature kT$_e$, the optical depth $\tau$ and the model normalization. We obtain statistically equivalent fits for the 2013 and 2014 observations ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=566/516 and 552/499 respectively) and best fit coronal parameters are reported in Table \[best\_par\], while residuals are shown in Fig. 2. No statistically significant changes are found for the other parameters.\
We then substituted the [MoCA$_{-}$Slab]{} component with the one generated adopting a geometry in which the scattering electrons are distributed as an extended sphere above the disc ([MoCA$_{-}$Sphere]{} model). We obtain statistically equivalent fits also in this case ($\chi^2$/d.o.f.=561/516 and 551/499) and best fit parameters are reported in Table \[best\_par\], while residuals are shown in Fig. 2. Again, no statistically significant changes are found for the other parameters. We conclude, therefore, that none of the two geometries for the hot corona can be preferred from the X-ray spectroscopic analysis.\
We show, in Fig. \[slab\_cont\], the contour plots between kT$_e$ and $\tau$ for the two geometries. Contours from lighter to darker colors indicate 99%, 90% and 68% confidence levels. It is interesting to note that, for a given geometry, the contour plots for the 2013 and 2014 observations do not overlap. This is not surprising given that a change in the slope of the primary continuum corresponds to changes in the coronal parameters. This is discussed in detail in Middei et al. (in prep.), where the relation between the photon index $\Gamma$ and the Compton parameter obtained from MoCA simulations is presented.\
### **Compact coronae**
One of the proposed scenarios to explain the variable broad component of the Iron K$\alpha$ in Ark 120 envisages a change in the spatial extension of the hot/warm coronae, which leaves the innermost regions of the accretion disc uncovered. The appearance of the broad, relativistic Iron K$\alpha$ feature from the inner radii of the disc [if fitted with the [relline]{} model in [xspec]{} r$^{14c}_{in}=58^{+33}_{-21}$ r$_{g}$ versus r$^{13}_{in}=228^{+72p}_{-130}$ r$_{g}$ are obtained: @npr16] could be due to a smaller radius of the hot/warm coronae. This was tested in Porquet et al. 2018b by using the [optxconv]{} model [based on the [optxagnf]{} model: @ddj12; @djm13; @jwd12] where we reported a radius of $\sim$73-110 r$_{g}$ in 2013 [where no relativistic component is detected, @mmg14] down to $\sim$12-17 r$_{g}$ in 2014. The model takes into account both the inner warm, thicker corona (to reproduce the soft excess) and the inner hot, thinner phase (for the hard power law emission), and the emission form the outer disc. The modeling took into account both disc inclination and relativistic effects. The variable parameters are mainly the spin of the black hole, the (warm and hot) corona radius and the accretion rate.\
We therefore tried to fit the 2013 and 2014 data sets with tables generated adopting a spherical hot corona extended from 6 to 100 r$_g$ and from 6 up to 20 r$_g$, respectively. We find that the reduced $\chi^2$ are comparable with the ones presented in Table \[best\_par\] and we cannot prefer these solutions on statistical ground. It is also worth mentioning that the present version of MoCA does not include GR effects, which may be relevant especially for the most compact corona (see Tamborra 2018b for a more complete discussion on the topic). Contour plots between kT$_e$ and $\tau$ are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[slab\_cont\] and while no significant difference is found for the 2013 data set, we can spot a clear discrepancy for the 2014 observation, with respect to extended spherical coronae (see blue contours and gray solid contours for a visual comparison). This effect is further explained in the next section.\
The geometry of the hot corona
------------------------------
The different configurations tested in the previous sections provide insights on the geometry of the hot corona in Ark 120. We find a good agreement between the best fit values of the coronal temperature and optical depth obtained with MoCA and the ones inferred using other Comptonisation codes from the literature ([compTT, NTHcomp]{}). However, the top panels in Fig. \[slab\_cont\] show that the shape of the contour plots obtained with MoCA are different from the [compTT]{} ones, indicating that different geometries of the corona lead to different kT$_{e}$-$\tau$ planes. In MoCA, we assumed a slab with a fixed H/R=0.02 and a sphere with radius r=6-500 r$_g$, fully covering the accretion disc. Compared to the [compTT]{} semi-infinite slab and sphere, a larger value of the input optical depth is needed to recover the same spectral shape, for a fixed electron temperature.\
The change in normalization between the 2013 and 2014 MoCA best fits ($N^{13}=0.63\pm0.01\times10^{-2}$ and $N^{14}=1.30\pm0.02\times10^{-2}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ keV$^{-1}$ at 1 keV, respectively) can be explained in terms of a corona intercepting more seed photons, resulting in a higher luminosity for the 2014 observation, consistently with the UV fluxes reported in @lpr18 for this object.\
We also investigated a physical scenario in which the Comptonisation mechanism occurs in a very compact corona (r=6-20 r$_g$). For the 2014 data set (Fig. \[slab\_cont\], bottom panel, lower contours), we see that compact coronae need higher optical depths for a given temperature to recover the same spectral shape (or equivalently higher electron temperatures are needed for a given optical depth). This effect is due to the effective number of scatterings that seed photons experience at a given radius. The input spectrum from the disc is assumed to be a multi-temperature black body and photons emitted from the innermost radii will hence be the most energetic ones, despite the geometry of the scattering medium. For values M$_{\rm bh}=1.5\times 10^8$ M$_{\odot}$ and L$_{\rm Bol}$/L$_{\rm Edd}=10\%$, the radial distribution of the seed photons will be therefore peaked at r$\simeq10$ r$_g$, with a negligible contribution from radii above r$\geq100$ r$_g$. In MoCA, for spherical geometries, the input optical depth is the radial one but, since UV seed photons originate from the accretion disc, photons emitted at different radii will see an effective optical depth $\tau_e$ which will be different from the input optical depth $\tau$. The effective optical depth of seed photons from the innermost regions decreases significantly in 6-20 r$_g$ coronae. From our calculations, in a kT=100 keV and $\tau$=1 configuration, while photons emitted below 10 r$_g$ experience on average N$_s\simeq$0.75 scatterings in the 6-500 r$_g$ and 6-100 r$_g$ cases, this number drops to N$_s\simeq$0.62 for 6-20 r$_g$ coronae. This effect is further confirmed by comparing our simulated spectra for extended and compact coronae: we observe steeper continua (and hence lower $\tau_e$) for 6-20 r$_g$ coronae. On average, the discrepancy between the photon indices is $\Delta\Gamma\simeq0.1$, as discussed in @tmb18. Therefore we can conclude that thicker coronae are needed for a given temperature (or vice versa higher temperatures for a given $\tau$) to recover the same spectral shape, in the case of 6-20 r$_g$ spherical coronae.
**X-ray polarization**
======================
Compton scattering, as any scattering mechanism produces a linear polarization, which is strongly sensitive to the symmetry of the scattering medium (i.e. the hot corona) and of the radiation field. For the geometries considered here, we expect a polarization which is perpendicular to the plane of the disc (from now-on we will refer to it as vertical) with the slab showing a higher degree of polarization with respect to the sphere. The thermal emission from the disc is assumed to be polarized parallel to the disc plane (we will refer to it as horizontal) according to Chandrasekhar results for a pure electron scattering, optically thick atmospheres in plane-parallel approximation; the polarization degrees goes from zero for a face-on view of the disc, to almost 12% for an edge-on view [@chandra60].\
We therefore chose the best fit coronal parameters for the 2013 and 2014 XMM-[*NuSTAR*]{} observations of Ark 120 and calculated the expected X-ray polarization as function of the inclination angle, integrated between 2 and 8 keV.\
For the 2013 observations, we selected kT$_e$=110 keV-$\tau=0.6$ for the extended slab and kT$_e$=60 keV-$\tau=3.0$ for the extended spherical geometry (Fig. \[pol\_b\], top-left panel). These values correspond to the absolute minima of the fits (see Table \[best\_par\]). We also chose two more pairs of parameters, corresponding to the relative minima of the fits (see contour plots presented in Fig. \[slab\_cont\]). These additional pairs are kT$_e$=75 keV-$\tau=1.1$ and kT$_e$=85 keV-$\tau=1.7$ for slab spherical geometries, respectively (Fig. \[pol\_b\], top-right panel).\
We followed the same approach for the 2014 observations and selected kT$_e$=100 keV-$\tau=0.5$ for the extended slab and kT$_e$=120 keV-$\tau=0.8$ for the extended spherical geometry as absolute minima of the fits (Fig. \[pol\_b\], bottom-left panel). As secondary sets of parameters we simulated data using kT$_e$=57 keV-$\tau=1.4$ and kT$_e$=85 keV-$\tau=1.4$ for the slab and the sphere, respectively (Fig. \[pol\_b\], bottom-right panel).\
Polarization angle
------------------
The polarization angle is always consistent with $\chi=\pi/2$ for every considered configuration.\
Compton scattering produces a vertical polarization, i.e. $\chi=\pi/2$, in both geometries, with the angle measured with respect to the spin axis. Even though some photons are initially polarized horizontally, the flip in the polarization angle [seen in @sk10 for instance] is not visible in the IXPE band where only photons which experienced multiple scattering are present and their polarization is already vertical.
Polarization degree
-------------------
We show, in Fig. \[pol\_b\], the expected polarization degree versus the cosine of the inclination angle ($\mu=\cos\theta$, with $\theta$ defined from the spin axis) in the four considered cases, assuming radiation integrated between 2-8 keV (corresponding to the IXPE operating energy band). Simulations for the 2013 and 2014 data sets are shown in the top and bottom panels, respectively. The expected signal arising from the slab configuration is plotted using a solid line while dashed lines are used for the spherical configurations. The polarization for the spherical corona is always lower than for the slab, in every simulated scenario, due to obvious symmetry reasons. For a given geometry we may also notice that thicker coronae will produce a larger polarization signal: the more the UV photons are Compton scattered, the more they will be polarized.\
The maximum of the polarization degree is obtained towards high inclination angles (i.e. low values of $\mu$). On the other hand, when the system is observed face-on, for $\mu$=1, it is perfectly symmetrical for both geometries and the polarization degree approaches zero in all scenarios, as expected. It is important to note that the polarization degree is not a monothonic function of $\mu$, but has a maximum around $\mu\simeq0.2$, as already found by @ang69 [Fig. 2] for a $\tau=2$ scattering spheroid.
**Polarization measurements with IXPE**
---------------------------------------
To calculate the exposure time needed to constrain the coronal geometry with IXPE, we assumed a model composed of a power law with photon index $\Gamma=1.94$ and a 2-8 keV flux of $3.3\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. From Fig. \[pol\_b\] we can clearly see that the lowest values for the polarization degree are obtained in spherical coronae, ranging from 1% up to 4%. Much larger values are found in the slab geometry. The minimum polarization degree measurable at a certain confidence level [MDP, see @eow12 for details] is given by: $$MDP=\sqrt{-2 \ln(1-CL)}\sqrt{2}\frac{\sqrt{C_S+C_B}}{C_S<\mu>}$$ where $C_S$ are source counts, $C_B$ background counts, $CL$ is the confidence level, and $<\mu>$ is the source-count-weighted modulation factor. In order to achieve an MDP of 2.5$\%$ at 99% c.l. in an IXPE observation of Ark 120, an exposure time t${}_{\rm exp}\sim$800 ks is needed[^1]. The source is a bare Seyfert galaxy and its negligible intrinsic X-ray absorption [N$_{\rm H}<3.4\times10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$: @rpb16] suggests a low inclination for the accretion disc-corona system. In fact, an inclination angle $i$=26$^{\circ}$ is measured for the host galaxy [@nhc95] but a misalignment between the X-ray obscuring material and the accretion disc cannot be excluded a priori [@le10]. Different inclination angles of the accretion disc have been inferred via Iron K$\alpha$ line spectroscopy [$i$=35$\pm2$ and $i$=57$^{+5}_{-12}$ degrees: @preem18; @nfr11 respectively] or using the [optxconv]{} model which accounts for the warm and hot Comptonisation ($i$=20-35 degrees, Porquet et al., 2018). These ranges in inclination angles translate into a global range of $\mu$=0.45-0.9 [see @fma16 for a complete list of measurements], which clearly allows us to measure a polarization signal and to distinguish between a slab or spherical geometry (see Fig. \[pol\_b\]).
**Conclusions**
===============
We presented the first application of the [MoCA]{} Comptonisation code to real X-ray data to model the hot corona for the bare Seyfert galaxy Ark 120. Our results can be summarized as follows:
- the 2013 and 2014 simultaneous XMM and [*NuSTAR*]{} observations of Ark 120 have been analyzed and different models have been tested, to reproduce the X-ray shape of its nuclear continuum in order to characterize the hot corona. No statistically significant difference is found between a phenomenological model (cutoff power law), [NTHcomp]{}, [compTT]{} and [MoCA]{};\
- [xspec]{} readable tables based on [MoCA]{} have been generated for multiple geometries of the hot corona. We considered an extended slab above the accretion disc (r=6-500 r$_g$), an extended sphere (r=6-500 r$_g$) and two compact spheres (r=6-20 r$_g$ and r=6-100 r$_g$). All the tested geometries for the hot coronae are statistically equivalent, based on spectroscopy solely, for both the 2013 and 2014 data sets. We found that thicker hot coronae are needed for a given temperature (or equivalently higher temperatures for a given $\tau$) to recover the same spectral shape, in the case of 6-20 r$_g$ spherical coronae;\
- a general agreement is found between the best fit values of the hot coronal parameters obtained with MoCA and the ones inferred using other Comptonisation codes from the literature ([compTT, NTHcomp]{}). However, the comparison between the best fit kT$_e$-$\tau$ contour plots stress the importance of MoCA in modeling the geometry of the scattering material;\
- best fit values from the spectral fits have been used to run simulations to calculate the polarization properties, when integrated in the IXPE energy band. A difference between the two geometries for the hot corona clearly emerges, due to the higher asymmetry of the extended slab compared to the extended sphere configuration;\
- we estimated that the two geometries for the hot corona can be distinguished with a t${}_{\rm exp}\sim$800 ks with IXPE, corresponding to a MDP$_{99}$=2.5$\%$.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
[We thank the anonymous referee for her/his comments.]{} AM thanks Craig Gordon for useful suggestions about generating the MoCA [xspec]{} tables. AM, GM acknowledge financial support from the Italian Space Agency under grant ASI/INAF I/037/12/0-011/13. SB acknowledges financial support from the Italian Space Agency under grant ASI-INAF I/037/12/0. AM, GM, SB, RM, AT acknowledge financial support from ASI-INAF 2017-12-H.0. AL acknowledges support from STFC consolidated grant ST/M001040/1. FM would like to thank the Centre national d’ètudes spatiales (CNES) who funded this project through to the post-doctoral grant ‘Probing the geometry and physics of active galactic nuclei with ultraviolet and X-ray polarized radiative transfer’. EN acknowledges funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skł[l]{}odowska-Curie grant agreement No. 664931.
[^1]: The IXPE sensitivity calculator can be found at [https://ixpe.msfc.nasa.gov/for$_{-}$scientists/pimms/](https://ixpe.msfc.nasa.gov/for_scientists/pimms/)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Recent detections of merging black holes allow observational tests of the nature of these objects. In some proposed models, non-trivial structure at or near the black hole horizon could lead to echo signals in gravitational wave data. Recently, Abedi et al. claimed tentative evidence for repeating damped echo signals following the gravitational-wave signals of the binary black hole merger events recorded in the first observational period of the Advanced LIGO interferometers. We reanalyse the same data, addressing some of the shortcomings of their method using more background data and a modified procedure. We find a reduced statistical significance for the claims of evidence for echoes, calculating increased p-values for the null hypothesis of echo-free noise. The reduced significance is entirely consistent with noise, and so we conclude that the analysis of Abedi et al. does not provide any observational evidence for the existence of Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons.'
author:
- Julian Westerweck
- 'Alex B. Nielsen'
- 'Ofek Fischer-Birnholtz'
- |
\
Miriam Cabero
- Collin Capano
- Thomas Dent
- Badri Krishnan
- Grant Meadors
- 'Alexander H. Nitz'
title: Low significance of evidence for black hole echoes in gravitational wave data
---
Introduction
============
The detections of gravitational wave (GW) signals allow for new tests of the nature of black holes [@Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2017vtc; @Abbott:2017gyy; @Abbott:2017oio; @TheLIGOScientific:2016wfe; @TheLIGOScientific:2016src]. Black holes are characterised by their horizons. In vacuum general relativity these horizons are devoid of material structure. The possibility that additional structure may form at or near the horizon location has been widely discussed in the literature, motivated by a number of different models and theoretical considerations [@MembraneParadigm; @Almheiri:2012rt]. The Advanced LIGO [@Harry:2010zz; @TheLIGOScientific:2014jea] and VIRGO [@TheVirgo:2014hva] detectors have detected gravitational wave signals from several binary black hole mergers [@Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2017vtc; @Abbott:2017gyy; @Abbott:2017oio]. These detections now make those ideas testable in the observational regime.
A generic set of models called Ultra Compact Objects (UCOs) [@Cardoso:2016oxy; @Cardoso:2016rao; @Cardoso:2017njb; @Mark:2017dnq; @Volkel:2017kfj] can mimic black holes in terms of their gravitational wave emission at early stages of binary inspirals. These models are designed to match the properties of standard black holes at sufficiently large distances, but differ in the near-horizon regime. The gravitational wave signal from the inspiral of two UCOs is expected to be almost identical to that of standard black holes (for possible tidal modifications see [@Cardoso:2017cfl]). However, the merger and ringdown signals may differ sufficiently to be detectable. Near-horizon material structures motivated by semi-classical and quantum gravity theories could, at least partially, reflect incoming waves which in standard vacuum general relativity would be fully absorbed by the black hole.
Recent works by Abedi, Dykaar and Afshordi (ADA) [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2; @Abedi:2017isz] have claimed to find tentative evidence of near-horizon Planck-scale structure using data [@LOSC; @Vallisneri:2014vxa] from the three Advanced LIGO events GW150914, LVT151012 and GW151226. In the simplified analysis of [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2], this near-horizon structure gives rise to so-called echoes [@Cardoso:2016oxy; @Cardoso:2016rao; @Nakamura:2016gri; @Holdom:2016nek].
The data used by ADA is from the LIGO Open Science Center (LOSC) [@LOSC; @Vallisneri:2014vxa], which contains a total of 4096 seconds of strain data from both Advanced LIGO detectors around each of the three events. Out of this data ADA used only 32 seconds centered around each event for their analysis. The authors claimed in [@Abedi:2016hgu] to find evidence for such echoes in data following the three events with a p-value $3.7\times 10^{-3}$, corresponding to a combined significance of 2.9$\sigma$ (with the one-sided significance convention used in [@Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Connaughton:2016umz], this value corresponds to 2.7$\sigma$). This was subsequently updated to a p-value of $\sim 1\%$ and interpreted as 2.5$\sigma$-level tentative evidence in [@Abedi:2017v2]. Nonetheless if such a signal were shown to be present in the data, it would force a major re-evaluation of the standard picture of black holes in vacuum Einstein gravity.
Here we investigate concerns about the methods in [@Abedi:2016hgu] and ADA’s updated works [@Abedi:2017isz; @Abedi:2017v2], and give a different significance estimate for the findings. Our initial caveats concerning [@Abedi:2016hgu] appeared as [@EchoComments]. We do not examine the theoretical motivations for the existence of such near-horizon Planck-scale structure, nor the model templates for which ADA have chosen to search. Rather, we focus on the data analysis methods as reported and on the significance estimates assigned to the results. We identify a number of shortcomings in the analysis and perform an improved analysis, which corrects for several of these problems. We evaluate the echo findings in the gravitational wave data [@LOSC; @Vallisneri:2014vxa], estimate their significance with updated p-values (for a general critique of p-values, see [@pvalues]) and conclude that there is as of yet no evidence for the existence of black hole echoes in this data.
ADA’s Model and search procedure
================================
![A coalescence template extended to include echoes. The five parameters of the echo waveform model are illustrated, and the phase-inversion between echoes is visible.[]{data-label="fig:templates"}](WaveformAnnotatedWithT0_3.png){width="\columnwidth"}
The analysis of ADA [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2; @Abedi:2017isz] consists of three parts: a simple waveform model, a search procedure, and a significance estimation method. In this section we briefly review these.
With a partially reflective surface outside the horizon, echo signals may be found as wave solutions in a cavity formed by the near-horizon membrane barrier and the angular momentum barrier (“photon sphere") that exists further out [@Cardoso:2016oxy; @Cardoso:2016rao]. In the geometric wave picture, at each barrier the wave is partially reflected and partially transmitted. Each partially transmitted wave from the outer angular momentum barrier would be detected by distant observers as an echo. The delay time between subsequent echoes results from the travel time between the two barriers. This time may be different for the first echo due to non-linear effects during the merger, as may further parameters of the echo signal such as the damping between successive echoes. For a description of the echoes as poles of the propagators see [@Mark:2017dnq].
An example of such an echo template is shown in Fig.\[fig:templates\] and several parameters define its features:
1. $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$: The delay time between subsequent echoes, resulting from the travel time between the barriers. $\Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}$ is the expected value found in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2], based on the inferred final mass and spin parameters for each event [@Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2017vtc; @AbediPrivate]. In the search, the parameter $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$ is allowed to vary around the theoretical value $\Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}$ to account for uncertainties.
2. $t_{\rm echo}$: The time of the first echo. This is expected to be $t_{\rm merger} + \Delta t_{\rm echo}$, where $t_{\rm merger}$ is the time of the merger. It is allowed to deviate from this expectation in the search to account for non-linear effects close to the merger [@Abedi:2016hgu].
3. $A$: The amplitude of the first echo relative to the original signal amplitude.
4. $\gamma$: The relative amplitude between subsequent echoes.
5. $t_0$: Only the last part of the original waveform is used to produce the echo waveform; this parameter describes how far before $t_{\rm merger}$ the original waveform is tapered down to 0, using the tapering function given in [@Abedi:2016hgu].
In addition, the phase is inverted between subsequent echoes. Likewise, the phase-difference between the original signal and the first echo is fixed to $\Delta \phi = \pi$. We use an abbreviated notation for the combination of parameters $x := (t_{\rm echo} - t_{\rm merger} ) / \Delta t_{\rm echo}$, with an expected value for the first echo of $x=1$.
The **ADA-search** procedure used in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2] consists of the following steps:
1. Produce a pure echo template for given echo-parameters. The original event is removed from the template.
2. Produce a bank of these templates, with an evenly spaced grid in the parameters listed above.
3. Perform matched filtering with the echo templates. The original event is removed from the data prior to this.
4. Maximise SNR$^2$ over all parameters for each value of $x$.
The maximisation uses either each single event or combinations of events. The combination assumes some parameters to be different between events, namely $A$ and $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$. The parameters $x$, $t_0/\Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}$ and $\gamma$ are kept identical for each event. For combinations of events, the sum of the individual SNR$^2$s is maximised.
The **ADA-estimation** uses the following method to estimate the significance of their findings [@Abedi:2016hgu]:
1. Find the maximum SNR$^2$ value in the range $x \in (0.99,1.01)$ after the event.
2. Calculate and maximise SNR$^2$ over the time range $9 \leq \frac{t_{\rm echo} - t_{\rm merger}}{\Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}} \leq 38 $. The maximisation is slightly adapted for this step.
3. Divide this last range into 1450 segments, each of duration $2\%$ of $\frac{t_{\rm echo} - t_{\rm merger}}{\Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}}$.
4. A p-value is found as the number of segments with higher peak SNR$^2$, divided by the total number of segments.
General remarks
===============
A first immediate problem arises regarding how strong the relative signal should be for the three events. The two binary black hole events GW150914 and GW151226 were detected by the Advanced LIGO detectors with significance levels $>5.3\sigma$ and signal-to-noise ratios of $23.7$ and $13.0$ respectively [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea]. The other event, LVT151012, had a reported significance of only $1.7\sigma$ and a signal-to-noise ratio of $9.7$ combined between the two Advanced LIGO detectors. However, in Table II of [@Abedi:2017v2] we see that the signal-to-noise ratio of the claimed echo signal is actually largest for LVT151012.
The higher SNR of LVT151012 cannot be due to the different projected number of echoes between the events. The different $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$ leads to differing numbers of echoes in a given duration: the 32 seconds of data used would contain ($\sim\!180$) for LVT151012 and ($\sim\!110$) for GW150914. Although the number of echoes is larger for LVT151012, late echoes are strongly damped. They decrease by a factor of 10 over $\sim\!22$ echoes for the claimed relative amplitude $\gamma\sim0.9$. Thus in order for the echoes of LVT15012 to have a higher SNR than the echoes of GW150914, their amplitude must be very high. In fact to account for the reported SNRs, the initial amplitude for the first echo of LVT151012 would have to be about $10\%$ higher than that of GW150914 [@EchoComments], while the original event’s peak is about 2-3 times lower for LVT151012 in comparison to GW150914’s. This would require their parameter $A$ to be about 2-3 times larger for LVT151012 than for GW150914. This seems to be confirmed by the best fit search results in Table II of the updated work [@Abedi:2017v2], which gives $A_{\rm GW150914} = 0.091$ and $A_{\rm LVT151012} = 0.34$.
We assume that far in the wave zone the gravitational wave signal of the echoes decays similarly to the signal of the event itself, i.e. linearly with the distance from the source. This explicit astrophysical assumption, in addition to those in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017isz; @Abedi:2017v2], is the basis for the above concern. The lower significance of LVT151012 is rooted in its distance: its mean estimated distance being more than twice as large as that of GW150914 and GW151226, we expect weaker echo signals. While particular combinations of system parameters and signal morphologies may have significant effects on the generation of echoes and their relative amplitudes, changing their relative significance, there is yet no extensive model to justify abandoning this concern here.
The inferred amplitude parameters suggest that a lot of gravitational wave energy was emitted in the echoes: a very rough calculation implies that the amount of energy emitted in the echoes was approximately 0.1 solar masses (for GW150914) and 0.2 solar masses (for LVT151012). This should be compared to the total estimated energy emitted by the original signal of 3 solar masses (for GW150914) and 1.5 solar masses (for LVT151012).
We also note an inconsistency in the above procedure, resulting from the use of a fixed waveform for each event as the basis for all echo templates, obtained from the LOSC [@LOSC]. The parameters of the echo templates, in particular $\Delta t_{\text{echo}}$, depend on the mass and spin parameters of the final black hole. Instead of using only one initial waveform and generating all echo templates with this, one should use an initial waveform that corresponds to each set of echo parameters to be varied over. Using the single LOSC waveform is a simplification, restricting to only one choice of final mass and spin parameters for the echoed original event, while simultaneously varying over the final mass and spin values through $\Delta t_{\text{echo}}$.
Validation of the matched-filter analysis
=========================================
![The matched filtering technique is able to recover signals with a variety of amplitudes. As shown here, the SNR depends on the amplitude of the signal. The amplitude found by ADA ($A=0.1$) is close to the level that is found in pure Gaussian noise. An amplitude twice as large as this would be clearly identifiable in the data. []{data-label="fig:recovery"}](GW150914_PureGaussianNoise_InjectionAmplitudeInfluenceTest_all189_update170825.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We wrote a separate implementation of the **ADA-search** procedure, that we refer to as **ADA$_{{AEI}}$-search**. No changes were made to the algorithm as described before, while the implementation itself is independent. The SNR$^2$-results obtained with our implementation are similar to those shown in [@Abedi:2016hgu].
As a first check, we verify that the **ADA$_{{AEI}}$-search** procedure can distinguish between pure noise and simulated echo-signals. For this, a known signal is injected into simulated noise. We simulate Gaussian noise with a Power Spectral Density (PSD) similar to that found for the detector data around each event (calculated from the LOSC data). The **ADA$_{{AEI}}$-search** is then applied to simulated data of both pure noise and also the same noise with added injections of different amplitudes. In this test, we only use echo waveforms with parameters similar to the best-fit results of [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2]. Fig. \[fig:recovery\] shows the dependence of the SNR$^2$ peak on the injection amplitude $A_{\rm inj}$. The effectiveness of the method in finding a signal depends on $A_{\rm inj}$. This test was performed for different realisations of the simulated noise. The minimum $A_{\rm inj}$ required to find a peak rising above the noise background also depends on the noise instantiation. We find that $A_{\rm inj} \sim 0.1$ can yield a visible peak. This is the best-fit value of $A$ reported for GW150914 in [@Abedi:2016hgu]. In one out of the five trials conducted in this first test, however, a higher amplitude was necessary to distinguish the signal from noise, as shown in Fig. \[fig:recovery\], where the noise and the quietest injection have almost identical SNR$^2$ results. This prompted us to perform more detailed statistical analyses and injection-recovery analyses, as described below.
Prior ranges and template spacing
=================================
Values for each echo parameter are determined from within a prior range. Each template in the bank is produced for a specific value of each parameter. The matched filtering method finds a higher SNR for data similar to the template, but each template can recover signals with a range of parameter values. The three parameters $\gamma$, $t_0$ and $t_{\rm echo}$ are determined by maximisation, with $\gamma$ and $t_0$ kept fixed between the different events. In this, the parameters recovered are defined as the values corresponding to the template in the bank which yields the highest SNR. The maximisation is performed over all templates in the bank and thus over all values in the parameter grid used to create the bank. The boundaries of the parameter grid are determined by a prior range, where the ranges chosen by ADA are displayed in Table I of [@Abedi:2016hgu].
![Injected and recovered values for $\gamma$, correct recovery would be seen as a diagonal. The search method’s preference for $\gamma=1$ (dashed line) at lower injection amplitudes is clearly seen.[]{data-label="fig:inj_rec_gamma"}](SNR_Maximisation_Widen_Event1_16s_Injections_ParameterRecovery_Gamma_zoom.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The values for $\gamma$ and $t_{0}$ resulting from this maximisation are found to lie very close to the boundary of their prior range, $0.9$ and $-0.1$ respectively [@EchoComments]. This suggests that there may be support for values of these parameters that lie outside of this range. If these values reflect the priors rather than the data, then they cannot be reliably considered as evidence for a detection claim. Furthermore, a value greater than unity for $\gamma$ means that each successive echo has an amplitude greater than the previous echo. Such a result would require the echo signal to be extracting energy from the black hole spacetime.
We tested whether the preference for these parameter values is an artifact of the method, again using known signals injected into simulated noise. We constructed Gaussian noise with a PSD estimated from the 4096 seconds of LOSC data around GW150914. The injected signals are pure echo signals based on the LOSC GW150914-template for various echo parameters. The range of $\gamma$ is widened to $\gamma \in (0.1,2.0)$ both in the prior of the search and the injections. The range of $t_0$ is widened to $t_0 \in (-0.2,0) \Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}$ in the search. It is not widened for the injections in this test, as the dependency of the maximised SNR on the wider range in $t_0$ was found to be much weaker than for $\gamma$. The relative amplitude of the injections $A = A_{\rm inj}$ ranges from ADA’s recovered value $0.1$ to about 50 times this amplitude. We then compare the best-fit value of $\gamma$ from the search with the value of the injection. This comparison is shown in Fig. \[fig:inj\_rec\_gamma\].
The **ADA-search** method is biased towards finding $\gamma$ values close to $1$. Ideally, the recovered parameter value would be closest in the grid to the value of the injection. In Fig. \[fig:inj\_rec\_gamma\], this would mean lying as close as possible to the plotted diagonal. In this figure, the recovered values are close to the injected ones for higher injection amplitudes. Thus for very high echo amplitudes, the recovery method could in principle be effective. For lower injection amplitudes, there is a preference for recovered values of $\gamma$ close to $1$, independently of the $\gamma$ value of the injection. Thus finding $\gamma \sim 1$ as the best-fit value in the search does not necessarily mean that this is indeed the correct value for an existing signal. The method is biased to find these values for $\gamma$ in almost all cases. In particular this is also true for relatively low echo amplitudes as found by ADA, and even significantly higher signal amplitudes. We interpret the recovery of $\gamma \sim 1$ as a generic property of the method and finding such a value cannot be considered evidence for the presence of a signal.
The bias is introduced through the spacing between templates in the bank, as can be found through an analysis on white Gaussian noise and calculating the overlap between the templates. An analysis in white Gaussian noise using the same parameter range as ADA also shows a strong preference for $\gamma = 0.9$. Further extending the range to $\gamma \in \left( 0.1, 2.0 \right)$ displays preference for $\gamma=1$ in white noise. The distribution of recovered $\gamma$ values in this test is shown in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_white\_noise\]. The reason for this is revealed by calculating the overlap between neighbouring templates in the parameter grid for different $\gamma$, while keeping the other parameters fixed. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:gamma\_white\_noise\], the match between neighbouring templates follows the same distribution as the preference for recovering $\gamma=1$. Templates with $\gamma$ close to $1$ lie further apart in the noise weighted match metric than other templates. Each template near $\gamma=1$ covers a larger region of the signal space than other templates and thus, more noise realisations are best matched by the (morphology-wise) more scarcely placed templates close to $\gamma=1$.
We similarly test how the method recovers the echo signal’s amplitude through injections into Gaussian noise[^1]. For the results in Fig. \[fig:amplitude\_recovery\], we chose to show the absolute peak amplitude of the echo signal instead of the parameter $A$, which gives the echo amplitude relative to the original event amplitude. This allows us to find the minimum echo amplitude to be recovered correctly, independently of that of the event. Fig. \[fig:amplitude\_recovery\] shows the recovered values deviate from the injected ones strongly below strain amplitudes of about $10^{-22}$. For lower injection amplitudes, values around $10^{-22}$ are found instead of the injected ones. This suggests that finding such low amplitude values might be expected in pure noise as well. The absolute value is close to those found in [@Abedi:2016hgu]: the relative amplitudes of $0.1$ for GW150914 and $0.3$ for LVT151012, multiplied by the respective events’ peak amplitudes, are shown as horizontal lines in Fig. \[fig:amplitude\_recovery\], and seem consistent with incorrect recovery of the method for lower injection amplitudes.
Extending the template bank to a wider range in $\gamma$ and $t_0$ and performing the same analysis as before leads to a modified SNR structure in $x$, where additional and higher peaks appear further away from the predicted value for the echoes in GW150914. As we will see below, applying a wider parameter range also for the background estimation results in a further factor $\sim 3.5$ increase in the p-value of the combination (1,2,3) (using the 32-second dataset estimation). The modified p-values for the wider priors of different combinations are found in Table \[tab:16+32\_original+widened\], where the widened prior entries refer again to the ranges $\gamma \in (0.1,2.0)$ and $t_0 \in (-0.2,0) \Delta t_{\rm echo, theory}$.
Extending the background estimation
===================================
To calculate a significance for the match found in the templated search, an assessment of the background must be performed. Since an analytical noise model is not known, real data away from the possible signal is used to estimate the noise background. This relies on an assumption that the background noise is similar to that during the time of interest. The noise background is calculated by how often an equal or larger SNR value is obtained in the off-source data. ADA chose to do this in a short period of time of approximately 16 seconds of data after each event. To obtain sufficient background statistics this period of time was used intensively: they consider 16 second stretches of data as independent when shifted by only 0.1 seconds.
This background estimation is problematic [@EchoComments] for two reasons: potential contamination of the background samples by existing echo signals, and the lack of independence between background samples. The estimation uses a range of $t_{\rm echo}$ values that is only $\mathcal{O}(10)$ echo periods away from the merger. If there is indeed an echo signal in the data then this region will not be entirely free of the signal being searched for. At the beginning of the region the amplitude of the echoes would only have dropped by a factor $0.9^9 \!\sim\! 0.4$. One therefore expects a contaminated background estimation. Even in the absence of echoes, a random feature mistaken for echoes in one segment may well extend to neighbouring segments, and they cannot be treated as independent (see discussion of template auto-correlations below for the problem of insufficient independence of samples).
Each of the data sets released at the LOSC [@LOSC] consists of 4096 seconds of data. Both GW150914 and LVT151012 are located 2048 seconds into this data, equivalent to $\mathcal{O}(10^3)$ echo periods, thus for large stretches of the data, such contamination through the presence of a damped echo signal would be negligibly small.
We have performed a different background estimation as an independent test, which uses the full period of 4096 seconds of LOSC data available around each event. A schematic comparison of the different choices of data used for background estimation is shown in Fig. \[fig:wider\].
The obtained p-value and background estimate are only meaningful if the data in the background is comparable to that at the time of the event. A plot of the noise variations over the full 4096 seconds of data released for each event is shown in Fig. \[fig:noiserayleigh\] and for GW150914 specifically in Fig. \[fig:noise\]. The variations are seen to be small and we conclude that for the four events considered our background estimate is indeed characteristic of the noise just after the event. For the graph showing the properties of noise in the Hanford detector around the time of LVT151012 in Fig. \[fig:noiserayleigh\], a reduced amount of data was used. This choice is made due to three loud short transient noise features, which we discuss further below. The noise features strongly influence the Rayleigh statistic calculation, while occupying less than 0.1 % of the data. Using data excluding these noise features, the variation as shown in Fig. \[fig:noiserayleigh\] is found. Properties of the data at and around LVT151012 are discussed in [@DetChar].
In our case, the 4096 seconds of data for each event are divided into 128 independent, 32-seconds long segments. For each, the echoes analysis is performed as it was on the 32-second segment containing the event. The resulting peak SNR in $x \in (0.99,1.01)$ is found for each segment. Simply counting the number of segments containing a higher peak SNR in this interval yields an estimate for the p-value. For the combined first three events, GW150914, LVT151012 and GW151226, our resulting p-value of $0.032$ is about a factor $3$ larger than the value of $0.011$ found in [@Abedi:2017v2], where less data and overlapping intervals were used.
![Schematic comparison of the data segments used to estimate the background between ADA [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2] and this work (AEI). Compared to ADA, we extend the amount of data used for background estimation to the full 4096 seconds for each event available from the LOSC [@LOSCtutorial].[]{data-label="fig:wider"}](background_illustration2_171101.png){width="\columnwidth"}
![Rayleigh plot of noise variation, showing the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean for frequency bins of the PSD estimated using 16 second segments of the 4096 second data stretch for both detectors for each event. []{data-label="fig:noiserayleigh"}](Combined_Rayleigh.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Variation of the noise spectrum during the 4096s around GW150914 calculated using 16 second segments, showing the $1\%$ and $99\%$ percentile variations. In this sense, the data is sufficiently stationary for background estimation to be reliable during the full 4096 second data stretch.[]{data-label="fig:noise"}](GW150914_Spectrum+Percentiles.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
An estimate of the p-value significance in this way is susceptible to small number statistics (accounting for the Poisson error as suggested in [@Abedi:2018pst], the p-value can be $0.032\pm 0.016$, still larger than in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2]). The original LOSC templates, before introducing echoes, contain an approximately 16 seconds long waveform followed by 16 seconds of a flat zero template. Echoes were introduced only into this flat region when producing the echo templates. After removing the original event, we are left with a 32-second template with 16 seconds of no signal, followed by the produced echoes. So we can double the number of background samples without losing independence between samples, by dividing the available data into 256 independent segments of 16 seconds length.
The exact number of available data segments varies slightly for each of the events. This is due to the positions of the original signals, and the influence of one of the three mentioned short transient noise features (inconsistent with the echo morphology) in one segment of the LVT151012 data, which was discarded. This short noise feature was found by noticing a very high SNR outlier for one data segment. The feature can be seen in the whitened time-domain data, appearing close to the beginning of the data segment. The search procedure always aligns one of the first and thus loudest echoes with the noise feature, yielding the high SNR. The effect of not discarding the high SNR noise dataset always is an increase of p-value due to the very high SNR, but the effect on the resulting p-values is minimal ($\sim 1/256$). Only the estimation with 16-second long segments is influenced by this noise feature. The total number of estimates when combining events is thus 125 to 126 for the 32-second segments and 250 to 251 for the 16-second segments.
The other two short noise features appear late in the respective data segments. For these, the search does not consistently align one of the later and more strongly damped echoes with the noise feature, as the increase in SNR is outweighed by the placement of the first loud echoes in the data. Thus the search is not influenced by these features significantly and we do not exclude the data segments from the estimation.
The results of this alternative approach for the significance estimation, both using 32- and 16-second long segments, are shown in Table \[tab:16+32\_original+widened\]. Different combinations of the events are considered, denoted chronologically as (GW150914, LVT151012, GW151226) $\rightarrow (1,2,3)$. In addition, for comparison and as the first detection after the claims of [@Abedi:2016hgu], we also consider the first event in the second observing run, GW170104 [@Abbott:2017vtc], denoted $4$ in Table \[tab:16+32\_original+widened\].
For the combination $(1,2,3)$, a p-value of $0.011$ was found in [@Abedi:2016hgu]. With four points out of 125 trials giving maximised combined SNR values larger than immediately after each event, our method finds the p-value for the particular SNR value to be $4/125 = 0.032$ thus $\sim 3\%$. Using twice the number of samples of 16 seconds length each, we find $5/250 \sim 2 \%$ for the p-value.
To highlight the role of LVT151012 in obtaining low p-values, we have chosen to make a comparison with a combination of three events excluding LVT151012. When choosing the available events to be combined in the analysis, a reasonable choice seems to be using those of sufficiently high significance. Here, this means GW150914, GW151226 and GW170104, the combination $(1,3,4)$, for which we find $9/125 \sim 7\%$ and $50/251 \sim 20\%$ respectively. These values are much higher than for combinations including LVT151012 and are fully consistent with the pure noise null hypothesis.
The combined background is shown in Fig. \[fig:distributionSNR\] which shows the peak value of SNR$^2$ found in each segment for both the real detector data and Gaussian noise. For each event, the Gaussian noise was created with the same PSD as estimated from the data of this event. There is no significant difference between the distribution of peaks for detector data and for Gaussian noise. Here we note that there is no obvious trend in the peak SNR over time. Also by this measure, there is no indication of the noise being unstable and preventing its use for background estimation. These two properties are shared by all single events and the alternate combination $(1,2,3)$: all show the similarity of the peak distribution for Gaussian noise and detector data, and lack a trend in time.
Event [@Abedi:2017v2] original 16s (32s) widened priors 16s (32s)
----------- ----------------- -------------------- --------------------------
GW150914 0.11 0.199 (0.238) 0.705 (0.365)
LVT151012 - 0.056 (0.063) 0.124
GW151226 - 0.414 (0.476) 0.837
GW170104 - 0.725 0.757
(1,2) - 0.004 0.36
(1,3) - 0.159 0.801
(1,2,3) 0.011 0.020 (0.032) 0.18 (0.144)
(1,3,4) - 0.199 (0.072) 0.9 (0.32)
(1,2,3,4) - 0.044 (0.032) 0.368 (0.112)
: p-values obtained by using 4096 seconds of LOSC data divided into segments of 16 or 32 seconds length. Results are given for the priors in $t_0$ and $\gamma$ chosen in the original analysis and for widened priors, for the 3 O1 events individually and for various combinations of events. For the combinations directly comparable to [@Abedi:2017v2], with the original priors, we also record the Poisson errors (as suggested in [@Abedi:2018pst]): for GW150914 our p-values are $0.199\pm 0.028$ ($0.238\pm 0.043$), and for (1,2,3) our p-values are $0.02\pm 0.009$ ($0.032\pm 0.016$). The Poisson errors for the full combination (1,2,3,4) with original priors, are $0.044 \pm 0.013$ ($0.032 \pm 0.016$). With widened priors, the p-values are all much larger, and the Poisson error relatively insignificant. Combinations that include LVT151012 have the lowest p-values. The addition of GW170104 to the three O1 events increases the combined p-value and is thus more compatible with pure noise. The lowest p-value out of all 11 combinations using up to four events is found for the combination (1,2). Note however that considering more combinations of events using the same data also leads to a higher effective trials factor to be accounted for. []{data-label="tab:16+32_original+widened"}
![4096 seconds of LOSC data are divided into $\sim$ 256 segments of 16 seconds. The segments containing the GW event are excluded. For comparison, we generated 4096 seconds of Gaussian noise with the same PSD as estimated from the LOSC data for each event and divide it into segments in the same way. For each segment, the maximum SNR$^2$ for the echo search is shown. The distribution of SNR peaks in the data is similar to that in Gaussian noise. The p-value is calculated from the number of points for detector data lying above the black line which indicates the combined SNR value found immediately after each GW event. There is no obvious trend in the peak SNR over time. []{data-label="fig:distributionSNR"}](SNR_Maximisation_Widen_16s_CountPlotPeaks_Event1342percent.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Autocorrelation of the pure echo template depending on shift in time. The peaks demonstrate that there is significant correlation between background samples for small shifts.[]{data-label="fig:overlap"}](GW150914_Autocorrelation_PSD.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
A second concern about the background estimation used in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017isz; @Abedi:2017v2] arises from the very small shift in time between samples that are considered independent. In this, the quasi-periodic nature of the echo signal has to be considered, leading to potentially long templates with equally quasi-periodic autocorrelation in time. The autocorrelation of the echo templates is shown in Fig. \[fig:overlap\]. This affects the significance estimation as performed in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2]. This method is problematic because the template is significantly longer than the shift in time between background sample intervals. If the autocorrelation between templates used in different background samples does not vanish, the results from these samples cannot be considered truly independent: a feature of the data at one point in time then influences the SNR found for several background samples. The total number of effectively independent samples is thus much lower in this method.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:overlap\], the echo signal model leads to a series of peaks in the overlap of original and time-shifted wavefunction, depending on the parameters $\gamma$, $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$ and $t_0$. A value of overlap to be considered sufficiently independent could be e.g. $1 \%$. To achieve this value, there are two ways to place templates with respect to the original position in time. For $\gamma < 1$, i.e. a damped echo signal, applying a shift in time by a sufficiently large multiple of $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$ leads to a reduction of the correlation. Using the GW150914 template and $\gamma = 0.5$ shows that at least $7$ times $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$ is necessary. In Fig. \[fig:overlap\], this corresponds to the very small peak close to $2.1$ seconds of time-shift.
Alternatively, the templates can be interlaced, such that the echoes of one template are placed within the time between echoes of the other. This corresponds to the small overlap values between the peaks in Fig. \[fig:overlap\]. Here we again use the GW150914 template and the most favourable values in the prior range, i.e. the shortest echoes ($t_0 = -0.001 \Delta t_{\text{echo, theory}}$) and the longest delay ($\Delta t_{\rm echo} = 0.30166 \: {\rm s}$). Then about $7$ echoes can be placed between the peaks of the original template. For these parameters we now consider shifts in time of the echo template up to $29 \Delta t_{\rm echo}$, which is the maximum shift used in ADA’s significance estimation. We find about $4$ independent samples through sufficient timeshift and a factor $8$ through interlacing, giving $\sim 32$ independent samples.
As the maximisation is performed over a range of parameters, exactly determining the total number of independent samples would need further consideration. The parameters chosen for this estimate, however, are favourable, as smaller damping or smaller time delay would further lower the total number. For the maximisation combining the different events, $\Delta t_{\rm echo}$ may vary independently between events, obstructing a clear estimate on the number of samples; the same considerations, however, still apply. These considerations suggest the method of [@Abedi:2017v2] contains only a small number of independent background samples, on the order of a few tens of samples.
The method we employed to estimate the background precludes this effect by only applying the matched filtering procedure to separate sets of data. The template thus is always placed in only one of the background samples and the resulting SNR cannot be influenced by data features in the remaining samples.
The nature of the echo templates leads to a further potential problem: due to the delay between echoes, low frequency components may be introduced in the template. Due to the delay times of about 0.1 to 0.3 seconds, these frequencies are expected to be in the range below 20 Hz, down to a few Hz. However, the data as supplied by the LOSC, [@LOSC], is not calibrated below 10 Hz, as mentioned in the corresponding notes on data usage. The results of the analysis may thus be influenced by the uncalibrated data. We have repeated the analysis after applying a high-pass filter to the data and the original waveform, removing the data below 30 Hz for final SNR calculations. The results of this analysis are almost identical to those before applying the high-pass filter in terms of SNR. The resulting p-values similarly show only minor changes compared to the values given in Table \[tab:16+32\_original+widened\]. The combination of introduced low frequency components in the templates and the uncalibrated data thus seems to have no significant effect on the results of the analysis.
Remark on echo templates
========================
![The maximised SNR for GW150914 is shown with different phase change $\Delta \phi$ between event and first echo. The original analysis allows for $\Delta \phi = 0 \lor \pi$ for each $x$ and then finds a prominent peak near $x=1$. However the model requires $\Delta \phi = \pi$. When we enforce this value in the analysis, the peak vanishes. []{data-label="fig:GW150914_phaseflip"}](GW150914_SNR_positive_plot.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
The **ADA-search** procedure does not distinguish between inversion and non-inversion of the first echo’s phase. The waveform templates used here are based on the simple model described in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2]. Within this model, the phase-change of the gravitational wave between the original signal and the first echo is described as a simple phase-flip. However, as only the square of the SNR from the matched filter analysis is considered for the maximisation, the result is insensitive to this phase inversion. Repeating the analysis for GW150914 and enforcing the phase inversion as required by this model, we find that the prominent peak in SNR at $x = 1$ vanishes. This is shown in Fig. \[fig:GW150914\_phaseflip\]. More sophisticated models would be needed to determine whether this phase flip is truly required or not. Still, it is worth noting that the peak that forms the basis of evidence for echoes in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2], does not contain this phase inversion as required by the simple model, but actually the opposite phase.
Conclusions
===========
A full analysis of the data at a level necessary to confidently detect echo signals is outside the scope of this work. However, we have analysed the data using a simple templated search similar to [@Abedi:2016hgu]. Using an extended background estimated from the full 4096 seconds of data released publicly by the LIGO collaboration for each event in the first observing run, we find a p-value for the null noise only hypothesis of $0.02$, higher than that reported using the restricted background of $0.011$ in [@Abedi:2016hgu]. We have demonstrated the importance of LVT151012, the weakest LIGO candidate event [@DetChar], in obtaining this p-value. A combined analysis of the three events GW150914, GW151226 and GW170104, excluding LVT151012, yields an even larger p-value of $0.199$, fully consistent with noise. We have also identified a number of weaknesses in the analysis method of [@Abedi:2016hgu] including the role of the prior boundaries and the density of templates. In particular we have examined the role of the $\gamma$ parameter and found that the clustering of $\gamma$ values near $\gamma = 1$ is entirely consistent with noise. The signal manifold is such that in pure Gaussian noise, one would expect many more triggers with values of $\gamma \sim 1$. This perhaps would not be expected for true echo signals, although a more detailed model of echo signals would be needed to make a quantitative prediction. A similar bias in recovered parameters concerns the peak amplitude, which for both GW150914 and LVT151012 was found by [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2] just on the boundary of credible signal recovery.
In conclusion, we find that the tentative evidence as presented in [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2; @Abedi:2017isz] is lacking in several key aspects with respect to template placement, background estimation and implementation. Our analysis of these short shortcomings shows that the method of Abedi et al. cannot provide observational evidence for or against the existence of near-horizon Planck-scale structure in black holes. This stresses the importance of developing both new theoretical models and analysis methods for gravitational wave echoes from such structures. We hope some of the concerns explored here may be useful to vet other searches for echoes, such as [@Conklin:2017lwb], and help in the development of methods which would place black hole near-horizon physics within the realm of gravitational wave observations.
The authors thank Andrew Lundgren, Laura Nuttall, Vitor Cardoso, and the authors of [@Abedi:2016hgu; @Abedi:2017v2; @Abedi:2017isz], for useful discussions, as well as Bruce Allen for helpful comments. Some of the discussions particularly enjoyed the hospitality of meetings at Nikhef and at the Perimeter Institute. This research has made use of data, software and/or web tools obtained from the LIGO Open Science Center (https://losc.ligo.org), a service of LIGO Laboratory and the LIGO Scientific Collaboration. LIGO is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). O.B. acknowledges the NSF for financial support from Grant No. PHY-1607520.
[99]{}
[[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{} (2016) no.6, 061102 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102]{}]{} \[arXiv:1602.03837[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
[[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{} (2016) no.24, 241103 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103]{}]{} \[arXiv:1606.04855[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
[[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run,”]{} Phys. Rev. X [**6**]{} (2016) no.4, 041015 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041015]{}]{} \[arXiv:1606.04856[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
[[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“GW170104: Observation of a 50-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at Redshift 0.2,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{}, no. 22, 221101 (2017) [[doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.221101]{}]{} \[arXiv:1706.01812[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\]. [[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“GW170608: Observation of a 19-solar-mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence,”]{} Astrophys. J. [**851**]{}, no. 2, L35 (2017) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9f0c \[arXiv:1711.05578 \[astro-ph.HE\]\]. [[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“GW170814: A Three-Detector Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**119**]{}, no. 14, 141101 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.141101 \[arXiv:1709.09660[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\]. [[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“Properties of the Binary Black Hole Merger GW150914,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{} (2016) no.24, 241102 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241102]{}]{} \[arXiv:1602.03840[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
[[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“Tests of general relativity with GW150914,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{} (2016) no.22, 221101 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.221101]{}]{} \[arXiv:1602.03841[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
D. A. MacDonald, R. H. Price, K. S. Thorne(editors) [“Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm”]{} Yale University Press (1986)
A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, [“Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?,”]{} JHEP [**1302**]{} (2013) 062 [[doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062]{}]{} \[arXiv:1207.3123[[ \[hep-th\]]{}]{}\]. G. M. Harry \[LIGO Scientific Collaboration\], [“Advanced LIGO: The next generation of gravitational wave detectors,”]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{}, 084006 (2010). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084006 J. Aasi [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific Collaboration\], [“Advanced LIGO,”]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**32**]{}, 074001 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 \[arXiv:1411.4547 \[gr-qc\]\]. F. Acernese [*et al.*]{} \[VIRGO Collaboration\], [“Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,”]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**32**]{}, no. 2, 024001 (2015) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 \[arXiv:1408.3978 \[gr-qc\]\]. V. Cardoso[, E. Franzin [and ]{}P. Pani]{}, [“Is the gravitational-wave ringdown a probe of the event horizon?,”]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{} (2016) no.17, 171101 Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{} (2016) no.8, 089902\] [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.089902, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.171101]{}]{} \[arXiv:1602.07309[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
V. Cardoso[, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palenzuela [and ]{}P. Pani]{}, [“Gravitational-wave signatures of exotic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the horizon scale,”]{} Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{} (2016) no.8, 084031 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084031]{}]{} \[arXiv:1608.08637[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
V. Cardoso[ [and ]{}P. Pani]{}, [“The observational evidence for horizons: from echoes to precision gravitational-wave physics,”]{} \[arXiv:1707.03021 \[gr-qc\]\].
Z. Mark[, A. Zimmerman, S. M. Du [and ]{}Y. Chen]{}, [“A recipe for echoes from exotic compact objects,”]{} Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{} (2017) no.8, 084002 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084002]{}]{} \[arXiv:1706.06155 \[gr-qc\]\]. S. H. Völkel[ [and ]{}K. D. Kokkotas]{}, [“Ultra Compact Stars: Reconstructing the Perturbation Potential,”]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**34**]{} (2017) no.17, 175015 [[doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa82de]{}]{} \[arXiv:1704.07517 \[gr-qc\]\].
V. Cardoso[, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani [and ]{}G. Raposo]{}, [“Testing strong-field gravity with tidal Love numbers,”]{} Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 8, 084014 (2017) Addendum: \[Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 8, 089901 (2017)\] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.089901, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084014 \[arXiv:1701.01116 \[gr-qc\]\].
J. Abedi[, H. Dykaar [and ]{}N. Afshordi]{}, [“Echoes from the Abyss: Evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons,”]{} \[arXiv:1612.00266v1[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\], 1 Dec 2016.
J. Abedi[, H. Dykaar [and ]{}N. Afshordi]{}, [“Echoes from the Abyss: Tentative evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons,”]{} Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 8, 082004 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.082004 \[arXiv:1612.00266v2[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\], 3 Oct 2017.
J. Abedi[, H. Dykaar [and ]{}N. Afshordi]{}, [“Echoes from the Abyss: The Holiday Edition!,”]{} \[arXiv:1701.03485[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “LIGO Open Science Center - Data Releases for Observed Transients", 2017, [[doi:10.7935/K5MW2F23, 10.7935/K5CC0XMZ, 10.7935/K5H41PBP, 10.7935/K53X84K2]{}]{} <http://losc.ligo.org/events>
M. Vallisneri[, J. Kanner, R. Williams, A. Weinstein [and ]{}B. Stephens]{}, [“The LIGO Open Science Center,”]{} J. Phys. Conf. Ser. [**610**]{}, no. 1, 012021 (2015) doi:10.1088/1742-6596/610/1/012021 \[arXiv:1410.4839 \[gr-qc\]\].
T. Nakamura[, H. Nakano [and ]{}T. Tanaka]{}, [“Detecting quasinormal modes of binary black hole mergers with second-generation gravitational-wave detectors,”]{} Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{} (2016) no. 4, 044048 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044048]{}]{} \[arXiv:1601.00356[[ \[astro-ph.HE\]]{}]{}\].
B. Holdom[ [and ]{}J. Ren]{}, [“Not quite a black hole,”]{} Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{} (2017) no.8, 084034 [[doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.084034]{}]{} \[arXiv:1612.04889[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
V. Connaughton [*et al.*]{}, [“Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914,”]{} Astrophys. J. [**826**]{} (2016) no.1, L6 [[doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/L6]{}]{} \[arXiv:1602.03920[[ \[astro-ph.HE\]]{}]{}\], Appendix B, ‘Significance of two-parameter coincidence’.
G. Ashton[, O. Birnholtz, M. Cabero, C. Capano, T. Dent, B. Krishnan, G. D. Meadors, A. B. Nielsen, A. Nitz [and ]{}J. Westerweck]{}, [“Comments on: “Echoes from the abyss: Evidence for Planck-scale structure at black hole horizons”,”]{} \[arXiv:1612.05625[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
R. L. Wasserstein and N. A. Lazar, [“The ASA’s Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose,”]{} The American Statistician, [**70:2**]{} (2016), 129-133 [[doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108]{}]{} <https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/P-ValueStatement.pdf>
J. Abedi, Private communication, applying the method of [@Abedi:2017isz] to the posteriors of [@Abbott:2017vtc], yielding $\Delta t_{\rm echo} = 0.2412 \pm 0.018449$ s.
J. Abedi, H. Dykaar and N. Afshordi, “Comment on: “Low significance of evidence for black hole echoes in gravitational wave data”,” arXiv:1803.08565 \[gr-qc\].
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “LOSC Event tutorial v1.4", 2016, <http://losc.ligo.org/s/events/GW150914/LOSC_Event_tutorial_GW150914.html>
[[B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific [and ]{}Virgo Collaborations\]]{}]{}, [“Characterization of transient noise in Advanced LIGO relevant to gravitational wave signal GW150914,”]{} Class. Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, no. 13, 134001 (2016) [[doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001]{}]{} \[arXiv:1602.03844[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
R. S. Conklin[, B. Holdom [and ]{}J. Ren]{}, [“Gravitational wave echoes through new windows",”]{} \[arXiv:1712.06517[[ \[gr-qc\]]{}]{}\].
[^1]: we thank N. Afshordi for suggesting this additional test[@Abedi:2018pst]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We present a quasi-integrable two-dimensional lattice equation: i.e., a partial difference equation which satisfies a test for integrability, singularity confinement, although it has a chaotic aspect in the sense that the degrees of its iterates exhibit exponential growth. By systematic reduction to one-dimensional systems, it gives a hierarchy of ordinary difference equations with confined singularities, but with positive algebraic entropy including a generalized form of the Hietarinta-Viallet mapping. We believe that this is the first example of such quasi-integrable equations defined over a two-dimensional lattice.
PACS: 05.45.-a, 05.50.+q, 02.90.+p
author:
- |
Masataka Kanki$^1$, Takafumi Mase$^2$ and Tetsuji Tokihiro$^2$\
$^1$ Faculty of Engineering Science,\
Kansai University, 3-3-35 Yamate, Suita, Osaka 564-8680, Japan\
$^2$ Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences,\
University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan
title: 'Singularity confinement and chaos in two-dimensional discrete systems'
---
Introduction
============
Dynamical systems can be classified into two broad categories; integrable systems and non-integrable systems. For Hamiltonian equations of motion with finite degrees of freedom, an integrable system is defined to have enough number (half the degrees of freedom) of independent constants of motion in involution which allow us to obtain local and global information about the system explicitly or implicitly[@Arnold]. This integrability criterion is extended to nonlinear partial differential equations and the equations with this property are called infinite dimensional non-linear integrable equations or soliton equations[@MJD; @Ablowitz]. Another test for integrability is the Painlevé property which is based on singularity analysis of solutions[@Conte; @ARS]. The Painlevé equations are the second order differential equations with this property, and they play important roles in many areas of physics, e.g. in the theory of correlation functions of quantum spin systems, random matrices and so on[@Wu; @TracyWidom]. For discrete dynamical systems, an analog of the Painlevé property is the singularity confinement[@SC], by which a series of discrete Painlevé equations were successfully constructed[@RGH]. The QRT mappings, which are typical second order integrable mappings with a constant of motion, also satisfy singularity confinement test[@QRT].
We have to note that there are second order mappings which have singularity confinement but show chaotic behaviors, and therefore singularity confinement is only a necessary property for the mapping to be integrable. The first and one of the most important examples was given by Hietarinta and Viallet [@HV]. They introduced the following second order recurrence relation $$\label{HVeq}
x_{n+1}=-x_{n-1}+x_n+\frac{a}{x_n^2}.$$ If $x_n$ reaches $0$, then we have $x_{n+1}=\infty$, $x_{n+2}=\infty$ and we encounter indeterminacy $x_{n+3}=\infty -\infty$. However, if we use an infinitesimally small parameter $\epsilon$ and set $x_{n-1}=c,\,x_n=\epsilon$, we have $x_{n+1}=O(\epsilon^{-2})$, $x_{n+2}=O(\epsilon^{-2})$, $x_{n+3}=O(\epsilon)$ and $x_{n+4}=c+O(\epsilon)$. By letting $\epsilon \to 0$, we have a definite sequence $...,c,0,\infty,\infty,0,c,c+a/c^2,...$, hence the singularity is confined. But the orbits of are shown to exhibit chaotic behaviors [@HV]. To refine the integrability test, the increasing rate of the degree of the iterates was investigates in [@HV]. The complexity of discrete systems are measured by the degrees of the successive iterates $\phi^n$ of the mapping $\phi$. When the degree $\deg \phi=d$, we naïvely assume that $\deg \phi^n\sim d^n$, which is an exponential growth, however, for mappings with strong cancellations during the iterations, $\deg \phi^n$ may grow only polynomially. The algebraic entropy [@BV] of the mapping $\phi$ is defined by $$\lambda:=\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\ln (\deg \phi^n),$$ which is always convergent to a non-negative value. Algebraic entropy is a more sensitive integrability test than singularity confinement, and the dynamical system is, in most cases, integrable if its algebraic entropy is zero [@Veselov]. In other words, if the degrees of the iterates grows faster than polynomially, it is likely that the system is non-integrable. In [@HV], it is proved that the algebraic entropy of is positive ($\ln((3+\sqrt{5})/2)=0.962...$), and from this observation, they have proposed that the algebraic entropy can be a refined integrability detector. Hereafter we will use the new term [*quasi-integrable*]{} to denote the discrete systems which have confined singularities and the positive algebraic entropy at the same time. Hietarinta-Viallet equation is quasi-integrable and subsequently many quasi-integrable second order mappings were discovered[@Tsuda; @Bedford2; @Bedford; @Redemption; @Mase2015]. A natural expectation would be the existence of a higher dimensional quasi-integrable system. However, up to our best knowledge, neither two-dimensional quasi-integrable equation nor higher than second order quasi-integrable mapping has been reported yet. A reason why a higher dimensional quasi-integrable mapping was not found for a long time is that the number of singularity patterns of the system becomes infinite and it is practically impossible to check all of them, though some of the discrete soliton equations were discussed in view of confined singularities[@RGS].
Recently an algebraic reinterpretation of singularity confinement, [*co-primeness*]{}, was proposed so that it can apply to higher dimensional systems[@dKdVSC; @dKdVSC2]. For a second order rational mapping, $(x_n,x_{n-1}) \mapsto (x_{n+1},x_n)$, $x_n$ is regarded as a rational function of the initial data $(x_0,x_1)$. We say that the mapping has [*co-primeness*]{} if there exists a positive integer $M$ such that any pair of $x_n$ and $x_m$ with $|n-m|>M$ has no common factor except for a monomial of $x_0,\,x_1$. For example, in mapping , we can prove that $x_n=p_{n+2}p_{n-1}/(p_{n+1}p_n)^2$ where $p_n$ is an independent [*irreducible*]{} Laurent polynomial of $x_0,x_1$, and that $x_n$ and $x_m$ have no common factor except for a monomial of $x_0,\,x_1$ on condition that $|n-m|>3$ [@extHV]. The notion of co-primeness has been introduced as an alternative for the singularity confinement test that works better for two-dimensional lattice equations, and the discrete KdV equation and the discrete Toda equations have been shown to have co-primeness for various boundary conditions[@dKdVSC2; @dToda]. On the other hand, non-confining systems do not have co-primeness. For example, a non-confining and non-integrable mapping $x_{n+1}=(x_n+1)/(x_{n-1}x_n^3)$ does not have co-primeness, since $x_n$ and $x_m$ share the factor $(x_1+1)$ for all $n, m\ge 2$. Another example of mapping without co-primeness property is the following mapping $$x_{n+1}=-x_{n-1}+x_n+\frac{1}{x_n^k},\ \ (k\ge 3,\ k\ \text{is odd})$$ which has been proposed as a non-confining generalization of the Hietarinta-Viallet equation in [@extHV].
In this Letter, utilizing the notion of co-primeness, we will present one example of two-dimensional quasi-integrable lattice equation (equation ). Moreover, equation is shown to give a hierarchy of quasi-integrable one-dimensional systems, including the Hietarinta-Viallet equation , by projecting from the two-dimensional lattice. We also study the algebraic entropy of the four-term (third-order) recurrence relation corresponding to , which could not have been investigated with conventional approach using an algebraic geometry of rational varieties.
Quasi-integrable lattice equation
=================================
Let $k\ge 2$ be an even integer. Our main target is the following partial difference equation $$x_{t,n}= - x_{t-1,n-1}+\frac{a}{x_{t,n-1}^k}+\frac{b}{x_{t-1,n}^k},\ \ (k\ \text{is even}\ ) \label{eq11}$$ where $a,b \neq 0$ are constants. Equation is a lattice equation over $(t,n)\in \mathbb{Z}^2$. Under a suitable set of initial data, time evolution of is well-defined toward an upper right of the $n$-$t$ plane. In case $k=1$ and $a=b$, is equivalent to the discrete KdV equation and we may regard as a quasi-integrable generalization of the discrete KdV equation. Let us take initial data of as $x_{1,1}=\varepsilon$, where $\varepsilon$ is an infinitesimal. Then the singularity pattern of over the $t$-$n$ lattice is obtained as in Fig. \[fig1\], where the lower left corner indicates a point $(t,n)=(0,0)$, and we have placed the evaluation of each cell on the lattice.
![Singularity pattern for the lattice equation . Here, ‘init’ denotes a point of initial value, and ‘rg’ denotes that of regular value.[]{data-label="fig1"}](singularity1.eps){width="7.0cm"}
Here, the evolution of is defined from $x_{1,1}=\varepsilon$ and generic initial values $x_{1,0}$, $x_{0,1}$, $x_{2,0}$, $x_{0,2}$, $x_{3,0}$, $x_{0,3}$. By “rg”, we denote that the iterate is regular valued (i.e., $x_{t,n}$ is not $\infty$ and retains the dependence on the initial data). Also, we use an expression $x \sim \varepsilon^m$ to indicate that the highest order of the $\varepsilon$-expansion of $x$ is $\varepsilon^m$.
Let us briefly explain how to prove the confinement. First $x_{2,1}=-x_{1,0}+a x_{2,0}^
{-k} +b \varepsilon^{-k}\sim \varepsilon^{-k}$ and $x_{1,2}\sim \varepsilon^{-k}$. Using these values we have $x_{2,2}=-\varepsilon+O(\varepsilon^{k^2})\sim \varepsilon$, $x_{3,1}=-x_{2,0}+a x_{3,0}^{-k}+O(\varepsilon^{k^2})\sim \text{rg}$, and $x_{1,3}\sim \text{rg}$. At the next iterate $x_{3,2}$, since $$\begin{aligned}
x_{3,2}&=-\frac{b}{\varepsilon^k}+x_{1,0}-\frac{a}{x_{2,0}^k} \notag \\
& + a\left( O(1) \right)^{-k}+b\left(-\varepsilon+O(\varepsilon^{k^2})\right)^{-k}, \notag\end{aligned}$$ $$b\left(-\varepsilon+O(\varepsilon^{k^2})\right)^{-k}=(-1)^k \frac{b}{\varepsilon^k}+O(\varepsilon^{k^2-k-1})$$ we have a non-trivial cancellation when $k$ is even, and $x_{3,2}\sim \text{rg}$. In the same manner, $x_{2,3},x_{3,3}$ are regular valued, which conclude that passes the singularity confinement test for this fundamental singularity pattern. Note that the singularity is not confined when $k(\ge 3)$ is an odd integer.
To show that singularities are confined in general, we prove that has co-primeness. For this purpose, let us introduce another variable $\upsilon_{t,n}$, $((t,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2)$ by the relation $$x_{t,n}=\frac{\upsilon_{t,n} \upsilon_{t-1,n-1}}{\upsilon_{t-1,n}^k \upsilon_{t,n-1}^k}, \label{transform11}$$ which is inferred from the singularity pattern of $x_{1,1},x_{2,1},x_{1,2},x_{2,2}$ above. We obtain the following higher order recurrence relation $$\begin{aligned}
\u_{t,n}&=\frac{1}{\u_{t-2,n-1}^k \u_{t-1,n-2}^k}\Big( -\u_{t-2,n-2} \u_{t-1,n}^k \u_{t,n-1}^k \notag \\
& \quad +a \u_{t-1,n-1}^{k^2-1}\u_{t,n-2}^{k^2}\u_{t-1,n}^k \u_{t-2,n-1}^k\notag \\
& \qquad +b \u_{t-1,n-1}^{k^2-1} \u_{t-2,n}^{k^2} \u_{t,n-1}^k \u_{t-1,n-2}^k \Big). \label{eq22}\end{aligned}$$ Although is not a multi-linear equation, it helps us in a way similar to bilinear forms of integrable equations. The equation satisfies the Laurent property, the irreducibility property and the co-primeness property, which tell us that and thus is quasi-integrable. Let $a,b\in\mathbb{C}^{\times}$, and let $H:=\{(t,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2\, |\, t \in\{0,1\}\ \mbox{or}\ n\in\{0,1\}\}$ be the domain on which the initial values for sit. Then the iterates $\u_{t,n}$ on the first quadrant $(t\ge 0, n\ge 0)$ are well-defined from and satisfy $$\u_{t,n}\in \mathbb{C}[\u_{s,m},\u_{s,m}^{-1}\, | \, (s,m)\in H],$$ that is, $\u_{t,n}$ is a Laurent polynomial of $\{\u_{s,m}\}_{(s,m)\in H}$. Moreover, each iterate $\u_{t,n}$ is an independent irreducible Laurent polynomial. The proof of this statement is done by induction in a similar way to the proofs shown in Ref. [@dKdVSC2; @dToda], but it is fairly technical and will be reported elsewhere. For example, when $k=2$, at $\u_{3,4}$, we have a non-trivial cancellation of $\u_{2,2}^2$ and only the monomials of initial variables remain in the denominator.
From these results, we can obtain the co-primeness property for the partial difference equation . We state this fact as a theorem:
\[coprimethm\] Let $k\ge 2$ be an even integer and let $G:=\{(t,n)\in\mathbb{Z}^2\, |\, t=0\ \mbox{or}\ n=0\}$ be the domain of initial values of . Every pair of iterates $x_{t,n}$ and $x_{s,m}$ of is co-prime in the field $\mathbb{C}(x_{t,n}|(t,n)\in G)$ of rational functions, if it satisfies at least one of $|t-s|>1$ or $|n-m|>1$.
Here two rational functions $F_1/F_2$ and $P_1/P_2$ are co-prime if no pair among $(F_1,P_1)$, $(F_1,P_2)$, $(F_2,P_1)$, $(F_2,P_2)$ has common factors except for the monomials of initial variables. The proof of theorem \[coprimethm\] is done by giving a direct correspondence between the initial values of and those of . For example, $$x_{t,n}=(\upsilon_{t,n} \upsilon_{t-1,n-1})/(\upsilon_{t-1,n}^k \upsilon_{t,n-1}^k)$$ and $$x_{t-2,n-2}=(\upsilon_{t-2,n-2} \upsilon_{t-3,n-3})/ (\upsilon_{t-3,n-2}^k \upsilon_{t-2,n-3}^k)$$ do not share a common factor, since each $\u_{m,s}$ is irreducible.
We can generalize equation : $$x_{t,n}= -c_{t,n} x_{t-1,n-1}+\frac{a_{t,n}}{x_{t,n-1}^k}+\frac{b_{t,n}}{x_{t-1,n}^m}, \label{eq11gen}$$ where $a_{t,n},b_{t,n},c_{t,n}$ are non-zero for every $t$ and $n$, and $k,m$ are integers greater than one. If we assume that the singularity is confined in the same manner as that for equation , we obtain the following two conditions for non-autonomous terms:$$c_{t+1,n+1} c_{t,n+1}^m b_{t,n}=(-1)^m b_{t+1,n+1},\ \text{and}\ c_{t+1,n+1} c_{t+1,n}^k a_{t,n}=(-1)^k a_{t+1,n+1}.$$ As special cases, we just present two examples: $$x_{t,n}= - x_{t-1,n-1}+\frac{a}{x_{t,n-1}^k}+\frac{b}{x_{t-1,n}^m}\ (k,m\ \text{are both even}),$$ which is the only case of autonomous equation, and $$x_{t,n}= x_{t-1,n-1}+\frac{a_{t,n}}{x_{t,n-1}^k}+\frac{b_{t,n}}{x_{t-1,n}^m},$$ where $c_{t,n}=-1$, $a_{t+1,n+1}=-a_{t,n}$ and $b_{t+1,n+1}=-b_{t,n}$ for every $t,n$. Again we obtain a generalized form of the discrete KdV equation.
Reduction
=========
Now we examine a relation of with one-dimensional discrete systems such as Hietarinta-Viallet equation [@HV] and its extension [@extHV]. Let $p,q$ be positive integers. Reduction of is done by identifying those iterates $x_{t,n}$ that have the same value for $pt+qn$. By introducing a new one-dimensional variable $y_m:=x_{t,n}$ for $m=pt+qn$, we obtain the following reduced system $$\label{reducedeq11}
y_m=-y_{m-p-q}+\frac{a}{y_{m-q}^k}+\frac{b}{y_{m-p}^k}.$$ The transformation and the $\u$-functions are reduced in the same manner: i.e., is reduced to the following nonlinear form: $$\begin{aligned}
u_m&=\frac{1}{u_{m-2p-q}^k u_{m-p-2q}^k}\Big( -u_{m-2p-2q} u_{m-p}^k u_{m-q}^k \notag\\
&\quad+a u_{m-p-q}^{k^2-1} u_{m-2q}^{k^2} u_{m-p}^k u_{m-2p-q}^k\notag \\
& \qquad +b u_{m-p-q}^{k^2-1} u_{m-2p}^{k^2} u_{m-q}^k u_{m-p-2q}^k \Big), \label{reducedeq22}\end{aligned}$$ by the transformation $$\label{ymfactor}
y_m=\frac{u_m u_{m-p-q}}{u_{m-p}^k u_{m-q}^k}.$$ It is not hard to prove that every iterate $u_m$ of satisfies the Laurent property: $u_m\in\mathbb{C}[u_k,u_k^{-1}\, |\, 0\le k\le 2p+2q-1]$, utilizing the Laurent property for equation . We use the fact that the Laurent property is also satisfied for the domain of initial values $\{(t,n)\, |\, pt+qn=0,1,\cdots,p+q-1\}$, which is different from $G$. Therefore, identifying the iterates $\u_{t,n}$ with fixed $pt+qn$ does not break the Laurent property of $\u_{t,n}$.
On the other hand, the irreducibility and the co-primeness theorem \[coprimethm\] is not trivially reduced to these properties for and . We have proved that the irreducibility and the co-primeness hold for $(p,q)=(1,2)$. However, for larger $p,q$, we just give two conjectures that, if $p\neq q$, (i) every iterate $u_m$ is an [*irreducible*]{} Laurent polynomial, and that (ii) two iterates $x_m$ and $x_l$ are co-prime in the field of rational functions $\mathbb{C}(x_k\, |\, 0\le k\le p+q-1)$ on condition that $|m-l|>2p+2q$, which is immediate from (i). Moreover, the algebraic entropy of equation is conjectured to be $\ln \Lambda>0$, where $\Lambda$ is the largest real root of $$1-k \Lambda^p -k \Lambda^q+\Lambda^{p+q}=0. \label{ymalgent}$$ If we suppose the irreducibility of $u_m$, the factorization form of $y_m$ in does not have additional cancellations. Thus, if we suppose the increasing rate as $u_m\sim \Lambda^m$, we obtain the desired polynomial .
Equation includes an extended form of the Hietarinta-Viallet equation which is seen by a simple [*integration*]{} procedure for recurrence relations. Let us take $p=1$ and $q=2$ and suppose that $a=b$ in : i.e., we consider $$y_m=-y_{m-3}+\frac{a}{y_{m-2}^k}+\frac{a}{y_{m-1}^k}. \label{HVk4term}$$ Since implies $$\begin{aligned}
&y_{m+1}-y_m-\frac{a}{y_m^k}+y_{m-1}\\
&=-\left(y_m-y_{m-1}-\frac{a}{y_{m-1}^k}+y_{m-2} \right),\end{aligned}$$ we can integrate $$y_{m+1}-y_m-\frac{a}{y_m^k}+y_{m-1}=(-1)^m C,$$ where $C$ is a constant determined by the initial condition. In particular, if we take the initial condition as $C=0$, we obtain $$y_{m+1}=-y_{m-1}+y_m+\frac{a}{y_m^k}, \label{HVk}$$ which is nothing but the extended Hietarinta-Viallet equation we have investigated in [@extHV]. Equation of the type is studied from algebro-geometric approach [@Bedford]. For $k=2$ we recover the original chaotic equation by Hietarinta and Viallet [@HV]. Equation is shown to pass the singularity confinement test and to have the irreducibility and co-primeness property if and only if $k>1$ is an even integer. It is also known that the algebraic entropy of for $k$ even is $\lambda_k:=\ln\{(k+1+\sqrt{(k-1)(k+3)})/2\}>0$. Therefore is a quasi-integrable discrete system. From equation , the $4$-term recurrence relation seems to have the same algebraic entropy $\lambda_k$ as that of .
We present some numerical calculation based on the notion of Diophantine integrability [@Halburd]. The idea of Diophantine integrability is to take the initial values and the coefficients as rational numbers so that all the iterates $y_m (m\ge 3)$ are rational valued. We use the height of rational numbers instead of the degrees of the iterates to define [*Diophantine entropy*]{}. For a rational number $r/s\in\mathbb{Q}$ which is an irreducible fraction, the height $H(r/s)$ is defined as $H(r/s)=\max\{|r|,|s|\}$. For an arbitrary discrete dynamical systems with rational coefficients, let us fix the initial values $y_0,y_1,y_2,...\in\mathbb{Q}$ and numerically compute $M_m:=(\ln H(y_{m+1}))/(\ln H(y_m))$. $M_m$ is conjectured to converge to the exponential of the algebraic entropy, for generic initial conditions. For example, in equation , if we take $a=1$ and the initial values as $y_0=2$, $y_1=1$, $y_2=2$, then $M_{18}=2.6180...$ for $k=2$, $M_{12}= 4.7912...$ for $k=4$, $M_{10}= 6.8541...$ for $k=6$, which show good convergence to $\exp(\lambda_k)$ even for small $m$. Proof is an open problem, however, we can at least prove that the lower bound for the algebraic entropy of is at least $\lambda_k$. Thus the equation is a chaotic equation with a positive entropy.
Conclusion
==========
We have presented a novel example of two-dimensional [*quasi-integrable*]{} discrete dynamical system , with confined singularities, but with exponential growth of degrees. The system we have introduced can be reduced to a hierarchy of quasi-integrable one-dimensional equations of order higher than two (equation ), which pass the singularity confinement test and the co-primeness criterion, but nevertheless are non-integrable with positive entropy. The exact value of the algebraic entropy is conjectured, by comparing the degrees of the denominator and the numerator of the iterates. The discussion relies on the irreducibility and the co-primeness property, which has been proposed as a new necessary condition for integrability. Our one-dimensional systems include the celebrated Hietarinta-Viallet equation, which is the first example reported to have confined singularities and at the same time is non-integrable with orbits of chaotic behavior.
Chaos is a universal phenomenon appearing in nonlinear dynamical systems and has wide application to science and engineering [@Strogatz]. A quasi-integrable system, which has an aspect of integrability, belongs to a particular class of chaotic systems, and will have potential application to complex phenomena, by enabling us to avoid singularities in numerical simulations. Furthermore, by utilizing the co-primeness and the irreducibility, it becomes tractable for us to estimate physical quantities related to the initial data in quasi-integrable systems. The two-dimensional quasi-integrable systems we have presented here suggest that, there exists a class of quasi-integrable systems just like that of integrable ones, which will be of considerable importance in the study of higher dimensional nonlinear systems. To find and to investigate wider classes of quasi-integrable systems, and to apply them to various fields of science are the subjects we wish to address in future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank Prof. R. Willox for useful comments. This work is partially supported by KAKENHI Grant Numbers 15H06128, 25-3088 and the Program for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan.
[99]{} V. I. Arnold, Mathematical Method of Classical Mechanics, 1997, Springer, 2nd ed.
T. Miwa and M. Jimbo and E. Date, Solitons: Differential Equations, Symmetries and Infinite Dimensional Algebras, 2000, Cambridge University Press.
M. J. Ablowitz and H. Segur, Solitons and The Inverse Scattering Transform, 1985, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2nd ed.
R. Conte, The Painlevé property. One century later., 1999, Springer-Verlag, New York.
M. J. Ablowitz and A. Ramani and H. Segur, Nonlinear evolution equations and ordinary differential equations of Painleve type, 1978, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 23, 333–338.
T. T. Wu and B. M. McCoy and C. A. Tracy and E. Barouch, Spin-spin correlation functions for the two-dimensional Ising model: Exact theory in the scaling region, 1976, Phys. Rev. B, 13, 316–374.
C. A. Tracy and H. Widom, Random Unitary Matrices, Permutations and Painlevé, 1999, Comm. Math. Phys., 207, 665–685.
B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani and V. Papageorgiou, Do integrable mappings have the Painlevé property?, 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 1825–1828.
A. Ramani and B. Grammaticos and J. Hietarinta, Discrete versions of the Painlevé equations, 1991, Phys. Rev. Lett., 67, 1829–1832.
G. R. W. Quispel and J. A. G. Roberts and C. J. Thompson, Integrable mappings and soliton equations II, 1989, Physica D, 34, 183–192.
J. Hietarinta and C. Viallet, Singularity confinement and chaos in discrete systems, 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 325–328.
M. P. Bellon and C. M. Viallet, Algebraic entropy, 1999, Comm. Math. Phys. , 204, 425–437.
A. P. Veselov, Growth and integrability in the dynamics of mappings, 1992, Comm. Math. Phys., 145, 181–193.
T. Tsuda and B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani, A Class of Integrable and Nonintegrable Mappings and their Dynamics, 2007, Lett. Math. Phys., 82, 39–49.
E. Bedford and K. Kim, Dynamics of Rational Surface Automorphisms: Linear Fractional Recurrences, 2009, J. Geom. Anal., 19, 553–583.
E. Bedford and K. Kim, Continuous families of rational surface automorphisms with positive entropy, 2010, Math. Ann., 348, 667–688.
A. Ramani and B. Grammaticos and R. Willox and T. Mase and M. Kanki, The redemption of singularity confinement, 2015, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 48, 11FT02.
B. Grammaticos and A. Ramani and R. Willox and T. Mase and J. Satsuma, Singularity confinement and full-deautonomisation: a discrete integrability criterion, 2015, Physica D, 313, 11–25.
A. Ramani and B. Grammaticos and J. Satsuma, Integrability of multidimensional discrete systems, 1992, Phys. Lett. A, 169, 323–328.
M. Kanki and J. Mada and T. Tokihiro, Singularities of the discrete KdV equation and the Laurent property, 2014, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 47, 065201 (12pp).
M. Kanki and J. Mada and T. Mase and T. Tokihiro, Irreducibility and co-primeness as an integrability criterion for discrete equations, 2014, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 47, 465204 (15pp).
M. Kanki and T. Mase and T. Tokihiro, Algebraic entropy of an extended Hietarinta-Viallet equation, 2015, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor., 48, 355202 (22pp).
M. Kanki and J. Mada and T. Tokihiro, Irreducibility and co-primeness as an integrability criterion for discrete equations, 2015, J. Math. Phys., 56, 022706 (22pp).
R. G. Halburd, Diophantine integrability, 2005, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. , 38, L263–L269.
S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, 2014, Westview Press, 2nd ed.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We complete a certain diagram (the operadic butterfly) of categories of algebras involving $Com$, $As$, and $Lie$ by constructing a type of algebras which have 4 generating operations and 16 relations. The associated operad is self-dual for Koszul duality.'
address: |
Institut de Recherche Mathématique Avancée\
CNRS et Université Louis Pasteur\
7 rue R. Descartes\
67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France
author:
- 'Jean-Louis Loday'
title: Completing the operadic butterfly
---
Introduction {#S:int}
============
The three categories of algebras $Com$, $As$, and $Lie$ (for commutative algebras, associative algebras and Lie algebras) are related by two functors $$Com \hookrightarrow As \stackrel{-}{\to} Lie \ .$$
There are other types of algebras with similar functors which make up the following “operadic butterfly":
$$\xymatrix{
&Dend\ar[rd]^{+} & &Dias\ar[rd]^{-} & \\
Zinb\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]\ar[rd]^{+}& &As\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]\ar[rd]^{-} & &Leib \\
&Com\ar@{^{(}->}[ru] & &Lie\ar@{^{(}->}[ru] &
}$$\
The four other categories of algebras which appear in this diagram are as follows:
$Zinb = $ category of *Zinbiel* algebras. They have one operation $x\cdot y$ (with no symmetry), satisfying $$(x\cdot y) \cdot z = x\cdot (y \cdot z) + x\cdot (z \cdot y).$$
$Dend = $ category of *dendriform* algebras. They have two operations $x\l y$ and $x\r y$ (with no symmetry), satisfying $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
(x\l y)\l z &=& x\l (y\l z) + x\l (y\r z) , \\
(x\r y)\l z &=& x\r (y\l z) , \\
(x\l y)\r z + (x\r y)\r z &=& x\r (y\r z).
\end{array}
\right.$$
$Dias = $ category of *diassociative* algebras (or associative dialgebras). They have two operations $x\g y$ and $x\d y$ (with no symmetry), satisfying $$\left\{\begin{array}{c}
x\g (y\g z) = (x\g y)\g z = x\g (y\d z), \\
(x\d y)\g z = x\d (y\g z) , \\
(x\g y)\d z = x\d (y\d z) = (x\d y)\d z .
\end{array}
\right.$$
$Leib = $ category of *Leibniz* algebras. They have one operation $[x, y]$ (with no symmetry), satisfying $$[[x,y], z] = [[x, z], y] + [x,[y,z]].$$\
An arrow like $\AA \hookrightarrow\BB$ means that an $\AA$-algebra is a $\BB$-algebra satisfying some symmetry property. An arrow like $\AA\stackrel{\pm}{\to}\BB$ means that any generating operation of a $\BB$-algebra is obtained by some addition (or substraction) of two operations of the $\AA$-algebra type (like the Lie bracket from the associative product). We let the reader to write the exact formulas in each case.
Each one of these types of algebras defines a binary quadratic operad. For these operads there is a well-defined notion of Koszul duality theory devised by Ginzburg and Kapranov [@G-K]. Let $\PP^!$ be the dual of the operad $\PP$ (note that $\PP^{!!} = \PP$). It turns out that Koszul duality in the operadic butterfly corresponds to symmetry around the vertical axis passing through $As$: $$As^! = As , \ Com ^! = Lie,\ Zinb^! = Leib, \ Dend^! = Dias \ .$$ A functor of the form $\hookrightarrow$ is changed into a functor of the form $\stackrel{\pm}{\leftarrow}$ by duality.
One can slightly enhance the operadic butterfly by putting the category $Vect$ of algebras with no operation (also called *abelian Lie algebras*) in between $Com$ and $Lie$. The operad $Vect$ is self-dual. So an immediate question comes to mind: can one complete the operadic butterfly by putting some category of algebras $\XX$ at the upper place on the middle axis ?
$$\xymatrix{
&& \XX\ar[rd]^{+} & & & \quad 8 \\
&Dend\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]\ar[rd]^{+} & &Dias\ar[rd]^{-} & &\quad 4 \\
Zinb\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]\ar[rd]^{+}& &As\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]\ar[rd]^{-} & &Leib &\quad 2\\
&Com\ar@{^{(}->}[ru]\ar[rd]^{-} & &Lie\ar@{^{(}->}[ru] & &\quad 1\\
&& Vect\ar@{^{(}->}[ru] && &\quad 0
}$$\
The numbers on the right side of the diagram indicate the dimension of the space of binary operations.
In other words we would like to find a notion of $\XX$-algebra whose operad is binary and quadratic, and satisfies the following properties:
1. the space of binary operations is 8 dimensional,
2. the operad is isomorphic to its dual (for Koszul duality),
3. a dendriform algebra is an $\XX$-algebra satisfying some symmetry,
4. any $\XX$-algebra gives, by some symmetrization of the operations, a diassociative algebra,
5. the functors deduced from the preceding two items make the upper square of the completed operadic butterfly commutative.
The aim of this paper is to answer this question, and the answer is as follows: there are two solutions $\XX^+$ and $\XX^-$.
An algebra of type $\XX^{\pm}$ has four generating operations denoted $ \begin{array}{cc}
\nwarrow & \nearrow \\
\swarrow & \searrow \\
\end{array}
$ and $16=5\times 3 + 1 $ relations (we write $(\circ)\bullet$ instead of $(x\circ y)\bullet z$ ):
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
(\nw) \nw = \nw (\nw) + \nw (\sw), & (\sw) \nw = \sw (\nw), & (\nw) \sw + (\sw) \sw = \sw (\sw), \\
(\nw) \nw = \nw (\se) + \nw (\ne), & (\sw) \nw = \sw (\ne), & (\nw) \sw + (\sw) \sw = \sw (\se), \\
(\ne) \nw = \ne (\nw) + \ne (\sw), & (\se) \nw = \se (\nw), &(\ne) \sw + (\se) \sw = \se (\sw), \\
(\nw) \ne = \ne (\ne) + \ne (\se), & (\sw) \ne = \se (\ne), & (\nw) \se + (\sw) \se = \se (\se), \\
(\ne) \ne = \ne (\ne) + \ne (\se), & (\se) \ne = \se (\ne), & (\ne) \se + (\se) \se = \se (\se),
\end{array}$$ $$(\ne)\se - (\nw)\se = \pm( \ \nw(\sw) - \nw (\se)\ ) . \eqno{(16\pm)}$$\
A more conceptual way of describing $\XX^{\pm}$ is as follows. Given two binary quadratic operads $\PP$ and $\QQ$ with a prefered basis for the space of generating operations, one can construct a new operad, denoted $\PP \sq \QQ$, whose set of generating operations is the product of those of $\PP$ and $\QQ$ and the set of relations is also the product (in a certain sense) of those of $\PP$ and $\QQ$. This construction has already been used in particular cases in [@A-L], [@Leroux] (for ($\PP =\QQ$) and in [@E-G]. The operad $\XX^{\pm}$ is $Dend \sq Dias$ quotiented by the relation $(16\pm)$.\
[**Content.**]{} In the first part we recall the theory of Koszul duality for regular operads and we introduce the construction $\PP \sq \QQ$. In the second part we introduce the operads $Dend$ and $Dias$, and we compute $(Dend \sq Dias)^!$. In the third part we show that $$\XX^{\pm} := Dend \sq Dias / \textrm{ relation } (16\pm)$$ completes the operadic butterfly.
[**Convention.**]{} All vector spaces are over the field $\mathbb K$. The tensor product over $\mathbb K$ of the two spaces $V$ and $W$ is denoted $V\t W$.
Product of operads {#operads}
==================
Regular operads {#regular}
---------------
In this paper we are dealing with algebras whose structure is defined by generating operations $(x,y)\mapsto x\circ_iy$ (with no symmetry) and relations of the form $$\sum_{i,j} \alpha_{ij}\, (x\circ_iy) \circ _j z = \sum_{i,j} \beta_{ij}\, x\circ_i(y \circ _j z)\ ,\leqno (r)$$ where $ \alpha_{ij}$ and $ \beta_{ij}$ are scalars. In these relations the variables stay in the same order (this is not the case for $Com, Lie, Zinb, Leib$). The associated operad, denoted $\PP$, is [*binary*]{} because the generating operations are binary. It is [*quadratic*]{} because the relations involve monomials with two operations. It is [*regular*]{} because the operations have no symmetry and, in the relations the variables stay in the same order. As a consequence of regularity the free $\PP$-algebra over the vector space $V$ is of the form $$\PP(V) = \oplus_{n\geq 1} \big( \PP_n \otimes {\mathbb K}[S_n]\big)\otimes_{S_n}V^{\t n}= \oplus_{n\geq 1} \PP_n \otimes V^{\t n},$$ where $S_n$ is the symmetric group. The space $\PP_n$ is the space of (non-symmetric) $n$-ary operations.
Let us denote by $E=\PP_2$ the space of (non-symmetric) binary operations. Let $\{\circ_i\ \vert \ i\in I\}$ be a basis of $E$. The space of (non-symmetric) relations $R$ is a subspace of $2E\t E$. The first summand corresponds to the parenthesizing $ (x\circ_iy) \circ _j z$ and the second summand to the parenthesizing $ x\circ_i(y \circ _j z)$. It will be helpful to denote by $ (\circ_i) \circ _j $ and $ \circ_i(\circ _j )$ the generating elements of $2E\t E$. Hence $R$ is the subspace of $2E\t E$ generated by the vectors $$r= \sum_{i,j} \alpha_{ij} (\circ_i) \circ _j - \sum_{i,j} \beta_{ij} \circ_i(\circ _j)\in 2E\t E\$$ for each relation $(r)$.
One has $\PP_1 = {\mathbb K}$, since, up to multiplication of scalars, there is only one unary operation: the identity. One has $\PP_2 = E$ and $\PP_3 = 2E\t E/R$.
If an operad $\QQ$ is obtained from an operad $\PP$ by enlarging the space of relations with some more relations $(r)$, then the space of $n$-ary operations of $\QQ$ is a quotient of the space of $n$-ary operations of $\PP$. By abuse of language we will say that $\QQ$ is a quotient of $\PP$ by $(r)$ and we write $\QQ=\PP / (r)$ .
The Koszul dual of the operad $\PP$, denoted $\PP^!$, is determined by $E^*:=\Hom(E, {\mathbb K})$ and $R^{\perp}$. Since we equipped $E$ with a basis, we can take the dual basis for $E^*$ and identify it with $E$. After this identification $R^{\perp}$ is described as follows: it is the space orthogonal to $R$ for the inner product $\langle -, - \rangle$ given on $E\t E \oplus E\t E$ by the matrix $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1
\end {array}\right)\ .$$
In other words one has $$\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\langle (\circ_i)\circ_j, (\circ_i)\circ_j \rangle = 1,& \\
\langle \circ_i(\circ_j), \circ_i(\circ_j) \rangle = -1,& \\
\langle -, - \rangle=0 & \textrm{ in the other cases.}
\end {array}\right.$$
Since the operations of $\PP$ and $\PP^!$ do not satisfy, in general, the same relations, it is necessary, sometimes, to distinguish between them. So we adopt the notation $\circ^*$ for the latter.
\[orthogonality\] Let $K$ be an index set and let $(r_k), k\in K$, be the relations defining $R$. An element $$\sum_{i,j} \alpha'_{ij} (\circ_i^*) \circ _j^* - \sum_{i,j} \beta'_{ij} \circ_i^*(\circ _j^*)\in 2E^*\t E^*\$$ is in $R^{\perp}$ if and only if one has $$\sum_{i,j} \alpha^{(k)}_{ij}\alpha'_{ij} = \sum_{i,j} \beta^{(k)}_{ij}\beta'_{ij}$$ for all $k\in K$.
Proof. This is an immediate translation of the definition of orthogonality. $\square$
The square product of operads {#squareproduct}
-----------------------------
Let $\PP$ be a binary quadratic regular operad defined by binary operations denoted by $\circ_i$, and relations $(r)$ (cf. \[regular\]). Let $\QQ$ be another one with operations $\bullet_k$ and relations $(r')$. We define the operad $\PP \sq \QQ $ by the operations $\circ_i \bullet_k$ (product of the two sets of operations), and relations $(r,r')$ given by $$\sum_{i,j,k,l}\alpha_{ij}\alpha'_{kl} (\circ_i \bullet_k) \circ_j\bullet_l =
\sum_{i,j,k,l}\beta_{ij}\beta'_{kl} \circ_i \bullet_k ( \circ_j\bullet_l) .$$ So, if $\PP$ is defined by $m$ relations and $\QQ$ by $m'$ relations, then $\PP \sq \QQ $ is defined by $mm'$ relations.
It is immediate to see that the construction $\sq$ is associative, commutative, and its neutral element is the operad $As$. Indeed, $As$ has only one operation $\cdot$ satisfying $(\cdot) \cdot = \cdot (\cdot)$ .
\[squaredual\] Let $\PP$ and $\QQ$ be binary quadratic regular operads. The operad $ (\PP \sq \QQ)^! $ is a quotient of the operad $\PP^! \sq \QQ^!$, so there is a natural forgetful functor of categories of algebras: $$(\PP \sq \QQ)^! {\rm -alg} \longrightarrow (\PP^! \sq \QQ^!){\rm -alg} .$$
Proof. The set of generating operations is the same in both cases, only the space of relations is different. For $ (\PP \sq \QQ)^! $ it is $T^{\perp}$, where $T$ is the space generated by the relations $(r,r')$ (cf. \[squareproduct\]). For $\PP^! \sq \QQ^!$ it is the space $S$ generated by the relations $(s,s')$, where $s$ is orthogonal to all the relations $r$, and $s'$ is orthogonal to all the relations $r'$.
In order to complete the proof it is sufficient to prove that $S$ is included into $T^{\perp}$. Indeed the expected functor would then simply be the forgetful functor. The space $S$ is included into $T^{\perp}$ if and only if $\langle S, T \rangle = 0$. Let us check this equality for the relations $(s,s')$ and $(r,r')$.
We denote by $\alpha, \beta$ the structure constants of $r$ as in \[regular\] and by $\gamma, \delta$ the structure constants of $s$ (same thing with a prime for $r'$ and $s'$). By Lemma \[orthogonality\], it suffices to prove the equality $$\sum_{i,j,k,l}\alpha_{ij}\alpha'_{kl}\gamma_{ij}\gamma'_{kl}= \sum_{i,j,k,l}\beta_{ij}\beta'_{kl} \delta_{ij}\delta'_{kl} .$$ The lefthand summand is equal to $$(\sum_{i,j}\alpha_{ij}\gamma_{ij}) (\sum_{k,l} \alpha'_{kl}\gamma'_{kl})$$ and similarly for the righthand side. Since the relations $r$ and $s$ (resp. $r'$ and $s'$) are orthogonal one has $$\sum_{i,j}\alpha_{ij}\gamma_{ij}=
\sum_{i,j}\beta_{ij}\delta_{ij}$$ and similarly with a prime. This proves the equality and so $\langle S, T \rangle = 0$.$\square$
Dendriform and diassociative algebras {#dend-dias}
=====================================
We recall from [@Lo] the definition of dendriform algebra (with a slight change of notation) and of diassociative algebra.
Definition {#dend}
----------
A *dendriform* algebra $A$ is a vector space equipped with two operations denoted $\wedge$ and $\vee$ satisfying the following relations: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rclr}
(x\wedge y)\wedge z &=& x\wedge (y\wedge z) + x\wedge (y\vee z) ,&(i) \\
(x\vee y)\wedge z &=& x\vee (y\wedge z) ,&(ii) \\
(x\wedge y)\vee z + (x\vee y)\vee z &=& x\vee (y\vee z).&(iii)
\end{array}
\right.$$
Definition {#dend}
----------
A *diassociative* algebra (or associative dialgebra) $A$ is a vector space equipped with two operations denoted $\g$ and $\d$ satisfying the following relations: $$\left\{\begin{array}{rclcr}
(x\g y)\g z &=& x\g (y\g z) ,&\qquad&(1) \\
(x\g y)\g z &=& x\g (y\d z) , &\qquad&(2) \\
(x\d y)\g z &=& x\d (y\g z) , &\qquad&(3) \\
(x\g y)\d z &=& x\d (y\d z) , &\qquad&(4) \\
(x\d y)\d z &=& x\d (y\d z) . &\qquad&(5)
\end{array}
\right.$$ It was shown in [@Lo] that the associated operads are dual to each other via the identification $\wedge^* = \g $ and $\vee^* = \d$. So we have $Dend^!=Dias$ and $Dias^!=Dend$. In fact the reader can check it immediately from the description of duality for regular operads given in Lemma \[orthogonality\].
The Operad $Dend\sq Dias$ and its dual {#dualdenddias}
--------------------------------------
Consider the operad $Dend\sq Dias$. We denote its set of generating operations by $$\nw:=(\wedge, \g),\ \ne:=(\wedge, \d),\ \se:=(\vee, \d),\ \sw:=(\vee, \g)\ .$$ Since $Dend$ has 3 relations and since $Dias$ has 5 relations, $Dend\sq Dias$ has 15 relations which read as follows:
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
(\nw) \nw = \nw (\nw) + \nw (\sw), & (\sw) \nw = \sw (\nw), & (\nw) \sw + (\sw) \sw = \sw (\sw), \\
(\nw) \nw = \nw (\se) + \nw (\ne), & (\sw) \nw = \sw (\ne), & (\nw) \sw + (\sw) \sw = \sw (\se), \\
(\ne) \nw = \ne (\nw) + \ne (\sw), & (\se) \nw = \se (\nw), &(\ne) \sw + (\se) \sw = \se (\sw), \\
(\nw) \ne = \ne (\ne) + \ne (\se), & (\sw) \ne = \se (\ne), & (\nw) \se + (\sw) \se = \se (\se), \\
(\ne) \ne = \ne (\ne) + \ne (\se), & (\se) \ne = \se (\ne), & (\ne) \se + (\se) \se = \se (\se).
\end{array}$$
The tableau
\[prop:denddiasdual\] The operad of $(Dend\sq Dias)^!$-algebras is isomorphic to the quotient of the operad $Dend\sq Dias$ by the following two relations $$\left\{\begin{array}{c}
(\ne)\se - (\nw)\se =0\ ,\\
0=\nw(\sw) - \nw(\se)\ .
\end{array}
\right.$$
Proof. The 15 relations of $Dend\sq Dias$ are linearly independent, hence the space of relations is of dimension 15. Its orthogonal is of dimension $2\times 4^2 - 15 = 17$. Since $Dend^!=Dias$ and $Dias^!=Dend$ one has $Dend^!\sq Dias^! = Dias \sq Dend \cong Dend \sq Dias$. By Proposition \[squaredual\] $(Dend\sq Dias)^!$ has, at least, the 15 relations of $ Dend \sq Dias$ (up to isomorphism) as relations plus two more (linearly independent). Let us show that the two extra operations are the ones indicated.
We first make explicit the isomorphism: $$\begin{array}{c}
\nw^* =(\wedge,\g)^* = (\wedge^*,\g^*) = (\g, \wedge) \cong \nw\ ,\\
\ne^* =(\wedge,\d)^* = (\wedge^*,\d^*) = (\g, \vee) \cong \sw\ ,\\
\se^* =(\vee,\d)^* = (\vee^*,\d^*) = (\d, \vee) \cong \se\ ,\\
\sw^* =(\vee,\g)^* = (\vee^*,\g^*) = (\d, \wedge) \cong \ne\ .\\
\end{array}$$ So, in order to write down the 15 relations of $(Dend\sq Dias)^!$ with this basis of generating operations we have to exchange the operations $\ne$ and $\sw$ in the tableau of the 15 relations. Let us call it the dual tableau. Under this isomorphism the two extra relations read: $$\left\{\begin{array}{c}
(\sw)\se - (\nw)\se =0\ ,\\
0=\nw(\ne) - \nw(\se)\ .
\end{array}
\right.$$ Let us check that these two relations are orthogonal with the 15 relations of $Dend\sq Dias$. In 28 cases the verification is immediate because the involved operations are all different. The remaining two cases are $$\begin{array}{c}
\langle\ (\sw)\se - (\nw)\se\ , \ (\nw)\se + (\sw)\se - \se(\se)\ \rangle = +1-1=0 ,\\
\langle\ \nw(\ne) - \nw(\se)\ , \ -(\nw)\nw + \nw(\se) + \nw(\ne)\ \rangle = -1+1=0 .
\end{array}$$ It is straightforward to check that these 17 relations are linearly independent, therefore we have a complete presentation of $(Dend\sq Dias)^!$. Under the inverse isomorphism of the one described above we get the expected result.$\square$
The missing operad {#missing}
==================
In this section we complete the operadic butterfly by constructing the operad $\XX$.
\[ex\] Let $\XX^+$ (resp. $\XX^-$) be the operad $Dend\sq Dias$ quotiented by the relation (16+) (resp. (16-)): $$\begin{array}{rcl}
(\ne)\se - (\nw)\se &=& +\nw(\sw) - \nw(\se)\ ,\qquad (16+)\\
(\ne)\se - (\nw)\se &=& -\nw(\sw) + \nw(\se)\ .\qquad (16-)
\end{array}$$ The operad $\XX^{\pm}$ completes the operadic butterfly, that is, it satisfies the following properties:
1. the space of binary operations is 8 dimensional,
2. the operad is isomorphic to its dual (for Koszul duality),
3. a dendriform algebra is an $\XX$-algebra satisfying some symmetry,
4. any $\XX$-algebra gives, by some symmetrization of the operations, a diassociative algebra,
5. the functors deduced from the preceding two items make the upper square of the completed operadic butterfly commutative.
Proof. Let us put $r:= (\ne)\se - (\nw)\se $ and $s:= \nw(\sw) - \nw(\se)$. We are looking for scalars $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that the operad $Dend\sq Dias/ \alpha r + \beta s$ is self-dual. The dual of $r$ (resp. $s$) is $r^*= (\sw)\se - (\nw)\se$ (resp. $s^* = \nw(\ne) - \nw(\se)$ ). To get self-duality of the quotient operad we need to have $-\alpha^2 + \beta ^2 = 0$. Hence $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have to be equal up to sign. So the sixteenth relation is either $r=s$, called $(16+)$ or $r=-s$, called $(16-)$. It is immediate to check that in both cases the 16 ($=3\times 5 + 1)$) relations are linearly independent. Hence we have proved (1) and (2). It turns out that both solutions satisfy also the other requirements as we prove now.\
(3) Let $(A, \wedge, \vee)$ be a dendriform algebra. Define $\nw := \wedge=: \ne$ and $\sw := \vee=: \se$. Let us prove that $(A, \nw, \ne, \sw, \se)$ is an $\XX^{\pm}$-algebra. The first fifteenth relations are fullfilled since relation $(n,a)$ is a consequence of relation $(a)$ for $n=1,\ldots , 5$ and $a = i, ii, iii$. The relation $(16\pm)$ is also fullfilled since both sides of the equality are $0$: the left side because $\nw =\ne$ and the right side because $\sw =\se$.\
(4) Let $(A, \nw, \ne, \sw, \se)$ be an $\XX^{\pm}$-algebra. Define $$x\g y := x\nw y + x\sw y \quad {\rm and }\quad
x\d y := x\ne y + x\se y.$$ Adding relations $(n,i), (n,ii)$ and $(n,iii)$ shows that relation $(n)$ is fullfilled for $n=1,\ldots , 5$.\
(5) Starting with a dendriform algebra $(A, \wedge, \vee)$, we get a diassociative algebra $(A, \g, \d)$ such that $$x\g y = x\nw y + x\sw y = x\wedge y + x\vee y = x\ne y + x\se y = x \d y\ .$$ Therefore the composite $Dend \hookrightarrow \XX^{\pm} \stackrel{+}{\to} Dias$ is equal to the composite $Dend \stackrel{+}{\to} As \hookrightarrow Dias$ as expected. $\square$\
[**Remark.**]{} In fact our proof shows that these two solutions are the only quotients of $Dend\sq Dias$ which satisfy all the required properties.\
Question
--------
The operads $Com, Lie, As, Zinb, Leib, Dend, Dias$ are Koszul operads, that is the associated Koszul complex is acyclic (cf. [@G-K], [@L-P], [@Lo]). Is also $ \XX^{+} $(resp. $ \XX^{-} $) a Koszul operad ?
Since the operad $\XX$ ($=\XX^+$ or $\XX^-$) is regular and self-dual, the criterion to ensure Koszul duality takes the following form. Let $\XX_n$ be the homogeneous part of degree $n$ in the free $\XX$-algebra on one generator. Then for each integer $k\geq 1$ there is a finite chain complex
$$\begin{array}{c}
0\to \XX_k\t\XX_1\t \cdots \t \XX_1 \to \cdots \hfill \\
\qquad \qquad \to \bigoplus_{m_1+ \cdots +m_n=k}\XX_n\t\XX_{m_1}\t \cdots\t \XX_{m_n}\to\cdots \qquad \qquad\\
\hfill \cdots \to \XX_1\t\XX_k\to 0.
\end{array}$$
The acyclicity of these complexes for $k>1$ imply Koszulity. It would imply that $\XX_n$ is of dimension $4^{n-1}$.
[99]{}
M. Aguiar and J.-L. Loday, *Quadri-algebras*, J. of Pure and Applied Algebra, 191 (2004), 205–221.
K. Ebrahimi-Fard, L. Guo, *On products and duality of binary, quadratic, regular operads*, preprint `arXiv:math.RA/0407162` . V. Ginzburg, M.M. Kapranov, *Koszul duality for operads*, Duke Math. J. **76** (1995), 203-272.
Ph. Leroux, *Ennea-algebras*, preprint `arXiv:math.QA/0309213 ` (2003).
J.-L. Loday, *Dialgebras*, “Dialgebras and related operads", 7–66, Lecture Notes in Math., 1763, Springer, Berlin, 2001.
J.-L. Loday and T. Pirashvili, *Universal enveloping algebras of Leibniz algebras and (co)homology.* Math. Ann. 296 (1993), no. 1, 139–158.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We develop two iteration schemes for construction of localized stationary solutions (bumps) of a one-population Wilson-Cowan model with a smoothed Heaviside firing rate function. The first scheme is based on the fixed point formulation of the stationary Wilson-Cowan model. The second one is formulated in terms of the excitation width of a bump. Using the theory of monotone operators in ordered Banach spaces we justify convergence of both iteration schemes.'
address:
- |
A. Oleynik, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology and Center for Integrative Genetics, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1432 $\AA$s, Norway\
and\
Department of Mathematics, Uppsala University, 751 06 Uppsala, Sweden
- 'Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology and Center for Integrative Genetics, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1432 $\AA$s, Norway'
- 'J. Wyller,Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology and Center for Integrative Genetics, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1432 $\AA$s, Norway'
author:
- Anna Oleynik
- Arcady Ponosov
- John Wyller
title: Iterative schemes for bump solutions in a neural field model
---
Introduction
============
Neural field models have been the subject of mathematical attention since the publications [@WC1; @WC2; @A1; @A]. These models typically take the form of integro-differential equations. We consider a one-population neural field model of the Wilson-Cowan type [@WC1; @WC2; @A1; @A; @Coombes2005] $$\label{model}
u_t=-u+\int \limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\omega(y-x)f(u(y,t)-h)dy.$$ Here $u(x,t)$ represents the activity of population, $f$ the firing-rate function, $\omega$ the connectivity function, and $h$ the firing threshold. For review on the model see [@Coombes2005]. Existence and stability of spatially localized solutions and traveling waves are commonly studied for the case when the firing rate function is given by the unit step function . However, the results for the case when the firing rate function is smooth are few and far between .\
In the mathematical neuroscience community time-independent spatially localized solutions of are referred to as *bumps*. The motivation for studying bumps stems from the fact that they are believed to be linked to the mechanisms of a short memory [@G-R1995]. In the case when $f$ is given as a unit step function, one can find analytical expressions for the bump solutions [@A]. In principle, bumps solutions can also be constructed when the firing rate function is smooth provided the Fourier-transform of the connectivity function is a real rational function. In that case the model can be converted to a higher order nonlinear differential equation which can be represented as a Hamiltonian system. The bumps are represented then by homoclinic orbits within the framework of these systems. See for example [@Elvin2010; @LT2003; @Krisner].\
Kishimoto and Amari [@KA] have proved the existence of bump solutions of when $f$ is a smooth function of a special type (smoothed Heaviside function), using the Schauder fixed point theorem. The Schauder fixed point theorem, however, does not give a method for construction of the bumps. Pinto and Ermentrout in constructed bumps using singular perturbation analysis. However, this method is quite involved, and is restricted to the lateral-inhibitory connectivity (i.e., $\omega$ is assumed to be continuous, integrable and even, with $\omega(0) > 0$ and exactly one positive zero). Coombes and Schmidt in developed an iteration scheme for constructing bumps of the model with a smoothed Heaviside function. They, however, did not give a mathematical verification of their approach. Apart from the work of Coombes and Schmidt , the authors of the present paper do not know about other attempts to develop iterative algorithms for the construction of bumps. Thus there is a need for a more rigorous analysis of iteration schemes for bumps. This serves as a motivation for the present work.\
We present two different iteration schemes for constructing bumps. The first one is based on the fixed point problem introduced in [@KA]. The second scheme, which is modification of the procedure introduced in , is an iteration scheme for the excitation width of the bumps. We prove that both schemes converge using the theory of monotone operators in ordered Banach spaces.\
The present paper is organized in the following way: In Section \[sec:I\] the properties of the one-population Wilson-Cowan model are reviewed with emphasis on the results of Kishimoto and Amari [@KA]. In Section \[sec:Preliminaries\] some necessary mathematical preliminaries are introduced. Section \[Sec:II\] is devoted to the study of a direct iteration scheme based on the fixed point problem proposed by of Kishimoto and Amari [@KA]. In Section \[Sec:Numerics:1\] we illustrate the results with a numerical example. In Section \[sec:IIa\] we introduce a fixed problem based on the specific representation of the firing rate function studied in . The fixed problem is formulated for the crossing between bumps and a shifted parameterized threshold value $h+t,$ $t\geq 0$. The bump solution can be restored from these crossings. We prove that there is a fixed point which can be obtained by iterations. We provide an numerical example in Section \[Sec:Numerics:2\]. In Section \[sec:Discussion\] we summarize our findings and describe open problems.
Model {#sec:I}
=====
Let $f : {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow [0, 1]$ be an arbitrary non-decreasing function. We assume that the connectivity function $\omega $ satisfies the following conditions:
- $\omega$ is symmetric, i.e. $\omega(-x)=\omega(x),$
- $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}}|\omega(x)|dx<\infty,$ i.e., $ \omega \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}),$
- $\omega$ is continuous and bounded, i .e., $\omega \in BC({\mathbb{R}}),$
- $\omega$ is differentiable a.e. with bounded derivatives, i.e., $\omega \in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}).$
The examples of such a function are $$\label{eq:Mexican-hat}
\omega(x)=K e^{-kx^2}-M e^{-mx^2}, \quad 0<M<K,\; 0<m<k,$$ and $$\label{eq:w-ex2}
\omega(x)=e^{-b|x|}(b\sin|x|+\cos x), \quad b>0.$$
In Fig.\[Fig1\](a) we illustrate the function given in with parameters $K=1.5,$ $k=2,$ and $M=m=1.$ In Fig.\[Fig1\](b) we illustrate the function in with $b=0.3.$ The function models the lateral-inhibition coupling and is often called as a Mexican-hat function, e.g., see [@A; @LT2003; @Coombes2005]. The model with periodically modulated spatial connectivity given by was considered in .
Stationary solutions of are given as solutions to the integral equation $$\label{steady state}
u(x)=\int \limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}w(y-x)f(u(y)-h)dy.$$
We note the following properties of :
- A solution $u$ is translation invariant. That is, if $u(x)$ is a solution to , so is $u(x-c)$ for arbitrary constant $c \in {\mathbb{R}}.$
- A symmetric solution to can be expressed as $$\label{steady state:2}
u(x)=\int \limits_{0}^{+\infty}r(x,y)f(u(y)-h)dy$$ where $$r(x,y)=w(y-x)+w(y+x).$$
Let the function $f$ be given as the unit step function $$\label{eq:Theta}
f=\theta, \quad \theta(u)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0,& u<0\\
1,&u\geq0.
\end{array} \right.$$ Amari [@A] was the first who observed that in this case, the spatially localized solutions to can be explicitly constructed. Following [@A] we introduce the following definitions:
The set $R[u]=\{x|\, \, u(x)>h\}$ is called the excited region of $u(x),$ [@A].
\[def:bump\] An equilibrium solution $u(x)$ of with $f=\theta$ is called a bump with the width $a,$ if the excited region of $u$ is an interval of the length $a$, i.e., $R[u]=(a_1,a_2),$ where $a=a_2-a_1.$
Then a bump solution with the width $a$ is given as $$u(x)=\int\limits_{a_1}^{a_2}\omega(y-x)dy, \quad a=a_2-a_1.$$ Due to translation invariance of we without loss of generality consider bumps defined on a symmetric interval, i.e., $$u(x)=\int \limits_{-a/2}^{a/2}\omega(y-x)dy, \quad a_{2}=-a_{1}=a/2.$$ It is easy to see that $u(x)$ in this form is a symmetric function. Indeed, letting $z=-y$ we have $$u(-x)=-\int \limits_{a/2}^{-a/2}\omega(-z+x)dz=\int \limits_{-a/2}^{a/2}\omega(z-x)dz=u(x).$$ Thus, using a bump solution can be written as $$u(x)=\int \limits_0^{a/2}r(x,y)dy.$$ We define a new function $\Phi$ $$\Phi(x,y)=\int_0^y r(x,z)dz, \: x,y \in {\mathbb{R}}, y>0$$ with $$\label{eq:dPhi}
\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x,y)=\omega(y+x)-\omega(y-x), \quad \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial y}(x,y)=r(x,y).$$ We conveniently express bumps by means of the function $\Phi$:
\[th:a-solutions\] Let $h>0$ be fixed. The model with the firing-rate function $f=\theta$ possesses a bump solution if and only if there exist a width, $a,$ such that $$\label{eq:antideriv}
\Phi(a/2, a/2)\equiv\int_0^a w(y)dy=h$$ and
- $\Phi(x,a/2) \leq h ,\: \forall x> a/2,$
- $\Phi(x,a/2) \geq h, \: \forall x \in [0, a/2).$
The bump solution is given then as $u(x)=\Phi(x,a/2).$
The stability of bumps has been studied using the Amari approach [@A] and the Evans function technique, [@Coombes2005]. Here we present the result based on [@A]:
\[th:stability\] Let $h>0$ be fixed, $f=\theta,$ and there exist a bump with the width $a.$ The bump is linearly stable if $\omega(a)<0$ and unstable if $\omega(a)>0.$
The firing-rate function we treat here is of the following type, [@KA] $$\label{f(u)}
f(u)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & u\leq 0\\
\phi(u),& 0<u<\tau \\
1,& u\geq \tau
\end{array} \right.,$$ where $\tau>0,$ $\phi$ is an arbitrary continuous, monotonically increasing, and normalized function such that $$\phi(0)=0, \quad \phi(\tau)=1.$$ The example of such a function is $$\label{eq:logoid}
f(u)=\Sigma\left({u}/{\tau},p\right),\quad
\Sigma(u,p)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & u\leq 0\\
\dfrac{u^p}{u^p+(1-u)^p},& 0<u<1 \\
1,& u\geq 1
\end{array} \right., \; p>0,$$ where $\Sigma(\cdot,p) \in C^{[p]}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $[p]$ denotes the integer part of $p.$
We need the following definition:
$R^*[u]=\{x|u(x)> h+\tau\}$ is called a maximally excited region, and $R^-[u]=\{x|h<u(x)<h+\tau\}$ is an incompletely excited region, [@KA].
\[def:f-bump\] An equilibrium solution $u(x)$ of with $f$ given by is called a bump if $R^*[u]$ is the interval surrounded by an incompletely excited region $R^{-}[u],$ i.e., $R[u]=R^*[u]\cup R^{-}[u]$ being another interval, [@KA].
Thus, by Definition \[def:f-bump\] the function $u(x)$ displayed graphically in Fig.\[Fig2\] can be a bump to with $f$ given in when $\tau=\tau_1,$ whereas for $\tau=\tau_2$ it can not be a bump.
Let $f$ be given as , $f_0(u)=\theta(u),$ and $f_\tau(u)=\theta(u-\tau).$ To distinguish between bump solutions to with different firing rate functions, we use the following terminology: the neural field with the firing rate functions $f_0,$ $f_\tau,$ and $f$ is called a $f_0$-field, $f_\tau$-field, and $f$-field, respectively. We observe that $f_\tau$-field is equivalent to the $f_0$-field with the new threshold value $h+\tau,$ and $$\label{f0,f,fh}
f_\tau(u) \leq f(u)\leq f_0(u).$$
The original idea of Kishimoto and Amari [@KA] is to use bump solutions of the $f_0$- and $f_\tau$-fields to prove the existence (and stability) of bumps in the $f$-field. If $\omega$ has a Mexican-hat shape (e.g., see Fig.\[Fig1\](a)) then the $f_0$-field ($f_\tau$-field) possesses two symmetric bumps for moderate values of $h$, one stable and one unstable bump. In [@KA] it was shown, using the Schauder fixed point theorem, that there exists a bump solution of $f$-field if both $f_0$- and $f_\tau$-fields possess linearly stable bumps and $\omega$ has a Mexican-hat shape (i.e., the connectivity function can have the shape as in Fig.\[Fig1\](a) but not as in Fig.\[Fig1\](b)). Moreover, if $\phi$ is a differentiable function it was shown that the $f$-field bump is stable.
Notice that the differentiability of $\phi$ can be replaced by a weaker assumption, namely differentiability almost everywhere, i.e., $\phi \in W^{1,1}([0,\tau]).$ Then, the firing-rate function can be represented as in , i.e., $$\label{f(u):Coombes}
f(u)=\int \limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\rho(\xi)\theta(u-\xi)d\xi,$$ with $\theta$ given by , ${\mathrm{supp}}\{\rho\}=[0,\tau],$ and $\rho$ is positive and normalized $\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\rho(x)dx=1.$
In this paper we prove existence of bumps in the $f$-field, and introduce two iteration methods for their construction. We improve the existence result obtained in [@KA] by relaxing on the assumption that $\omega$ has a Mexican-hat shape. We also do not require the bumps of the $f_0$- and $f_\tau$-field be stable as it is assumed in [@KA]. So far there have been two methods used to construct bumps in $f$-field: One is based on the singular perturbation analysis, . This method is quite involved and, moreover, it restricts the choice of $\omega$ to functions of a Mexican-hat shape. The other method is to convert to a higher order nonlinear differential equations which can be represented as a Hamiltonian system. The bumps then are given by homoclinic orbits within the framework of these systems, see [@Elvin2010; @LT2003; @Krisner]. This method requires the Fourier transform of $\omega$ to be a real rational function. Thus, it can not be applied in some cases, as for example in the case of . We do not requite $\omega$ to have either Mexican-hat shape or real rational Fourier transform to be able to apply our iteration schemes.
We use the following assumptions:
\[As:1\] There exists a bump with the width $2\Delta_0$ of the $f_0$-field model, and a bump with the width $2\Delta_\tau$ to the $f_\tau$-field model. Moreover, the widths are such that $\Delta_\tau<\Delta_0.$
To illustrate this assumption let us assume that there is a bump solution of the $f_0$-field model, i.e., $\Phi(\Delta_0, \Delta_0)=h,$ see Theorem \[th:a-solutions\]. Then, by the inverse function theorem there exists a value $\tau>0$ such that $\Phi(\Delta_\tau, \Delta_\tau)=h+\tau$ for some $\Delta_\tau<\Delta_0,$ if $\omega(2\Delta)<0$ in some vicinity of $\Delta_0.$ In this case both bumps are stable by Theorem \[th:stability\]. However, Assumption \[As:1\] can be satisfied even when the situation described above does not take place, i.e., the condition $\omega(2\Delta)<0$ is not fulfilled for all $\Delta \in [\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0],$ see for example Fig.\[Fig3\].
Under Assumption \[As:1\] bumps for the $f_0$-field model and the $f_\tau$-field model are, in accordance with Theorem \[th:a-solutions\], given as $$\begin{array}{ll}
u_0(x)= \Phi (x, \Delta_0) & u_\tau(x)=\Phi(x,\Delta_\tau).
\end{array}$$
\[As:2\] The function $r(x,y)$ is non-negative for all $x,y \in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$
We get the following relationship between $u_\tau$ and $u_0$:
\[lemma:u\_tau<u\_0\] Under Assumption \[As:2\] we have $u_\tau\leq u_0$ on $[\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$
We get $$u_0(x)-u_\tau(x)=\int_0^{\Delta_0}r(x,y)dy -\int_0^{\Delta_\tau}r(x,y)dy=\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0}r(x,y)dy\geq 0.$$
In this paper we will only consider bump solutions of the $f$-field such that $$\label{eq:u-spec}
u(x)>h+\tau, \; \forall x\in R[u_\tau-\tau], \quad u(x)<h \; \forall x\not\in R[u_0].$$
Mathematical Preliminaries {#sec:Preliminaries}
==========================
Let $K$ be a cone in a real Banach space ${{\mathcal B}}$ and $\leq$ be a partial ordering defined by $K.$ Let $w,v \in {{\mathcal B}}$ be such that $w \leq v.$ Then a set of all $g\in {{\mathcal B}}$ such that $w\leq g\leq v,$ defines an ordered interval which we denote $\llbracket w,v \rrbracket.$
The theoretical foundation of the iteration schemes presented in Section \[Sec:II\] and Section \[sec:IIa\] are based on the following general results:
\[th:G&L:1\] Let $w_0, v_0 \in {{\mathcal B}},$ $w_0\leq v_0$ and $A: \llbracket w_0, v_0 \rrbracket \rightarrow {{\mathcal B}}$ be an increasing operator ($Aw \leq Av$ provided $w\leq v$ for any $w,v \in {{\mathcal B}}$) such that $$w_0 \leq Aw_0, \: Av_0 \leq v_0.$$ Suppose that one of the following two conditions is satisfied:
- $K$ is normal and $A$ is condensing;
- $K$ is regular and $A$ is semicontinuous, i.e., $x_n\rightarrow x$ strongly implies $Ax_n \rightarrow Ax$ weakly.
Then $A$ has a maximal fixed point $x^{*}$ and a minimal fixed point $x_{*}$ in $\llbracket w_0, v_0 \rrbracket;$ moreover $$x^{*}=\lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}v_n, \: x_{*}=\lim\limits_{n \rightarrow \infty}w_n,$$ where $v_n=Av_{n-1}$ and $w_n=Aw_{n-1},$ $n=1,2,3...,$ and $$w_0 \leq w_1 \leq ...\leq w_n \leq ...\leq v_n \leq...\leq v_1 \leq v_0.$$ See .
From Theorem \[th:G&L:1\] we get the following corollary.
\[corollary:1\] If under the conditions of Theorem \[th:G&L:1\] $x^{*}=x_{*}=\tilde{x},$ then $\tilde{x}$ is the unique fixed point of the operator $A$ in $\llbracket w_0,v_0\rrbracket.$
\[th:cone\] The cone $ K=\{ u \in {{\mathcal B}}| u(x) \geq 0 \}$ is normal but not regular in ${{\mathcal B}}=C(\bar{D}),$ and regular in ${{\mathcal B}}=L_p(D), \; 1 \leq p< \infty,$ where $D$ is a bounded set and $\bar{D}$ is a closed bounded set, see .
\[th:Hammerstein\] The Hammerstein operator $$(Af)(x)=\int_a^b k(x,y) \psi(y,f(y))dy$$ is continuous and compact in $C([a,b])$ if $k(x,y)$ and $\psi(x,y)$ are continuous functions on $[a,b]\times[a,b]$.
The operator $A$ can be represented as the superposition, $A=LN,$ where $L$ is the linear operator $$(Lg)(x)=\int_a^b k(x,y)g(y)dy ,$$ and $N$ is the Nemytskii operator $$(Nf)(x)=\psi(x,f(x)).$$
The linear operator $L: C([a,b]) \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is continuous and compact if $k(x,y)$ is continuous [@Kolmogorov]. Obviously, the Nemytskii operator $N: C([a,b]) \rightarrow C([a,b])$ is continuous and bounded if $\psi(x,y)$ is continuous. Thus, the Hammerstein operator $A$ is completely continuous as the superposition of the continuous and bounded operator $N,$ and completely continuous operator $L.$
Iteration Scheme I: Direct Iteration. {#Sec:II}
=====================================
In this section we consider the direct iteration scheme for construction of bumps. This scheme is based on [@KA]. We start out by observing that a bump solution of an $f$-field satisfying can be written as $$\label{eq:restriction of u}
u(x)=u_\tau(x)+\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} r(x,y)f(u(y)-h)dy,$$ for all $x\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$\
First, we prove that there exists a solution $u^*(x)$ to and it can be iteratively constructed. Next, we introduce assumptions under which $u^*(x)$ is appeared to be a restriction of a bump solution to on $[\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0].$ Finally, in Section we illustrate our results numerically and draw some conclusions based on the numerical observation.\
Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a real Banach space with partial ordering $\geq$ defined by the cone $K=\{u\in {{\mathcal B}}| u(x)\geq 0\}.$ We have the following theorem.
\[th:existence\] Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be either $L_2([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ or $C([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]).$ Let $\omega$ satisfy Assumption \[As:1\] and \[As:2\], the operator $T_f: \llbracket u_\tau, u_0\rrbracket\subset {{\mathcal B}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal B}}$ be defined as $$\label{operator:T_f}
(T_f u)(x)=u_\tau(x)+\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0}r(x,y)f(u(y)-h)dy.$$ Then $T_f$ has a fixed point in $\llbracket u_\tau, u_0 \rrbracket.$ Moreover, the sequences $\{T_f^n u_\tau\}$ and $\{T_f^n u_0\}$ converge to the minimal and maximal fixed point of the operator $T_f,$ respectively.
We base our proof on Theorem \[th:G&L:1\]. The cone $K$ is normal provided ${{\mathcal B}}=C([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ and is regular provided ${{\mathcal B}}=L_2([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]),$ see Theorem \[th:cone\]. By Assumptions \[As:1\] and \[As:2\] there exist $u_\tau$ and $u_0$ such that $0\leq u_\tau(x)\leq u_0(x)$ for all $x\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$ Thus, $\llbracket u_\tau, u_0\rrbracket$ is the ordered interval defined on ${{\mathcal B}}.$\
We describe the properties of $T_f$ which hold true in both spaces: ${{\mathcal B}}=C([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ and ${{\mathcal B}}=L_2([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]).$ First of all, $T_f$ is positive and monotone due to Assumption \[As:2\] and monotonicity of $f,$ i.e., $$u_1(x)\leq u_2(x)\Rightarrow(T_fu_1)(x) \leq (T_fu_2)(x).$$ Moreover, $T_f$ is continuous due to continuity of $f$ and boundedness of $r(x,y).$ Defining a non-linear operator $T_g$ associated with the non-negative function $g(x)$ by $$(T_gu)(x)=u_\tau(x)+\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} r(x,y)g(u(y)-h)dy$$ we get $$\begin{array}{ll}
T_{f_0}u_0=u_0,& T_{f_\tau}u_\tau=u_\tau.
\end{array}$$ Thus, from Assumption \[As:2\] we can easily deduce that $$g(x)\leq m(x) \, \Rightarrow \, (T_gu)(x)\leq (T_mu)(x),$$ and, therefore, $$(T_{f_\tau}u)(x)\leq (T_fu)(x) \leq (T_{f_0}u)(x).$$ We obtain $$\begin{array}{ll}
T_fu_\tau \geq T_{f_\tau}u_\tau =u_\tau,& T_fu_0 \leq T_{f_0}u_0=u_0.
\end{array}$$
From Theorem \[th:G&L:1\] we conclude that $T_f:\llbracket u_\tau, u_0 \rrbracket \subset L_2([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]) \rightarrow L_2([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ has a fixed point in $\llbracket u_\tau, u_0 \rrbracket$ which can be found by iterations. However, for the case ${{\mathcal B}}=C([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ it remains to show that $T_f$ is condensing. Applying Theorem \[th:Hammerstein\] to the Hammerstein operator on the right hand side of , i.e., to the operator $u \mapsto \int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0}r(x,y)f(u(y)-h)dy,$ we find that $T_f: \llbracket u_\tau, u_0 \rrbracket \rightarrow C([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ is compact and, thus, condensing. This observation completes the proof.
Next we show that the fixed point $u^*$ of the operator $T_f$ referred to in the theorem above can be extended to the solution $u$ of over ${\mathbb{R}}$ in such a way that $u(x)\geq h+\tau$ for $x\in [0,\Delta_\tau]$ and $u(x)\leq h$ for $x\in [\Delta_0, \infty).$ To do so we introduce additional assumptions on the connectivity function $\omega$.
\[As:3\] $u_0$ is a decreasing function on the interval $[\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]$ which is equivalent to $$\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x,\Delta_0)<0 ,\: \forall x\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0],$$ and $u_\tau$ is a decreasing function on $[\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]$ which is equivalent to $$\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x,\Delta_\tau)<0 ,\: \forall x\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$$
From this assumption the transversality of the intersections $u_0(x)$ with $h,$ and $u_\tau(x)$ with $h+\tau$ follows. Thus, the assumption always can be satisfied if, for example, we choose a small $\tau$ provided $|\Delta_0-\Delta_\tau|$ is sufficiently small.
\[As:4\] $$\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} \mid\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(x,y)\mid f(u_0(y)-h)dy < -\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x,\Delta_\tau) ,\: \forall x\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$$
Assumption \[As:4\] is technical and is used to prove that $u^*(x)$ is a decreasing function on $[\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0].$ Noticing that $$\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}=\dfrac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial x \partial y },$$ non-negativity of ${\partial r}/{\partial x}$ for $x,y \in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]$ and Assumption 3 imply that Assumption 4 is satisfied. Indeed, the following chain of inequalities is valid for all $x\in [\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0]$ $$\begin{split}
\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} \mid\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(x,y)\mid f(u_0(y)-h)dy + \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{ \partial x} (x,\Delta_\tau)<\\
<\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} \dfrac{\partial^2 \Phi}{\partial y \partial x}(x,y)dy+ \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{ \partial x} (x,\Delta_\tau)= \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{ \partial x} (x,\Delta_0)<0.
\end{split}$$ However, the non-negativity of ${\partial r}/{\partial x}$ is rather rigid condition.
\[lemma:u’<0\] Let Assumption 3 and 4 be fulfilled. Then, the fixed point $u^*(x)$ of the operator $T_f$ is differentiable and decreasing on the interval $[\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$
We get $$(u^*(x))'=u'_\tau(x)+I, \quad I=\int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(x,y) f(u^*(y)-h)dy.$$ In order to prove that $(u^*(x))'<0$ we need to show that $I< -u'_{\tau}(x) $ where $$u'_{\tau}(x)=\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x,\Delta_\tau) <0$$ by Assumption \[As:3\].
We get the following chain of inequalities for $|I|$ $$\begin{split}
|I| &\leq \int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} \mid\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(x,y)\mid f(u^*(y)-h)dy \leq \\
& \leq \int_{\Delta_\tau}^{\Delta_0} \mid\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(x,y)\mid f(u_0(y)-h)dy .
\end{split}$$ Thus, by Assumption \[As:4\] we have $|I|< -u'_\tau(x)$ and therefore $I< -u'_\tau(x).$
Finally, we introduce the assumption which by Definition \[def:f-bump\] allows us to view the extended solution $u$ of $u^*$ as a bump:
\[As:5\] The function $\Phi$ is such that
- $\Phi(x,y) \leq h, \: \forall x> \Delta_0, \; y \in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0],$\
- $\Phi(x,y) \geq h+\tau, \: \forall x \in [ 0,\Delta_\tau],\; y \in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$
\[th:extension\] Let $u^* \in C^1([\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0])$ define the fixed point of the operator $T_f$ referred to in Theorem \[th:existence\]. Under Assumptions \[As:3\] - \[As:5\] the function $u^*$ can be extended to a bump solution $u(x)$ of defined on ${\mathbb{R}}$ in such a way that $u(x)>h+\tau$ for all $x \in [0, \Delta_\tau) $ and $u(x)<h$ for all $x \in (\Delta_0, \infty).$
From Theorem \[th:existence\] and Lemma \[lemma:u’<0\] it follows that there exist unique $\delta_\tau,$ $\delta_0:$ $\Delta_\tau<\delta_\tau<\delta_0<\Delta_0$ such that $$u^*(\delta_\tau)=h+\tau, \quad u^*(\delta_0)=h.$$ Let us introduce the function $F$ defined by $$F(y)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1,& 0\leq y < \delta_\tau \\
f(u^*(y)-h), &\delta_\tau \leq y \leq \delta_0\\
0, & y>\delta_0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Then, according to Lemma \[lemma:u’<0\] $F(y)$ is monotonically decreasing function on $[\delta_\tau, \delta_0]$ with $F(\delta_0)=0$ and $F(\delta_\tau)=1.$ From we get $$u(x)=\int_{0}^{\delta_0} r(x,y)F(y)dy=-\int_{0}^{\delta_0} r(x,y) \int_y^{\delta_0} F'(z)dz.$$ By changing the order of integration, we have $$u(x)=-\int_{\delta_\tau}^{\delta_0} \int_0^z r(x,y)dy F'(z)dz= \int_{\delta_\tau}^{\delta_0} \int_0^z r(x,y)dy d(1-F(z)),$$ or $$u(x)=\int_{0}^{1} \int_0^{z(\xi)} r(x,y)dy d\xi=\int_{0}^{1} \Phi(x,z(\xi)) d\xi, \; \mbox{ where } \xi=1-F(z).$$ It remains to show that $\Phi(x,z)< h$ for $ x> \Delta_0,$ $z \in [\delta_\tau, \delta_0],$ and $\Phi(x,z)> h+\tau$ for $ 0\leq x< \Delta_\tau,$ $z \in [\delta_\tau, \delta_0].$ Assumption \[As:5\] guarantees that these inequalities are fulfilled even on a larger interval. Moreover, $u(-x)=u(x)$ due to symmetry of $\omega.$ Thus, the proof is completed.
The proof of Theorem \[th:existence\] is a modification of the theorem used in [@KA]. The modification is caused by the fact that our assumptions on the connectivity functions $\omega$ are different from ones used in [@KA].
Numerical example {#Sec:Numerics:1}
-----------------
In this section we exploit examples of $\omega$ be given by . Thus, the equation $\omega(x)=0$ has one positive solution $x_{max}=\sqrt{1/{(k-m)}\ln(K/M) }.$ Furthermore, $\omega(x)$ is positive for all $|x|<x_{max}$ and is negative for all $|x|>x_{max}.$ This defines the behavior of the antiderivative to $\omega,$ i.e., $$\label{eq:W}
W(x)=\int\limits_0^x \omega(y)dy.$$ Then, for any $h,\tau$ satisfying the inequality $$\lim \limits_{x\rightarrow +\infty}W(x)<h<h+\tau<W(x_{max})$$ there exist the widths $\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0$ referred to in Assumption 1 such that $ [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0] \subset (1/2\, x_{max},\infty.)$ Moreover, $u_0(x)=\Phi(x,\Delta_0)$ and $u_{\tau}=\Phi(x,\Delta_\tau)$ are bumps of the $f_0$- and the $f_\tau$-field model.\
We let $K=1.5,$ $k=2,$ $M=m=1$(see Fig.\[Fig1\]), and chose $h=0.1$ and $\tau=0.05.$ Given these parameters and we found $\Delta_0=0.6633$ and two possible values of $\Delta_\tau:$ $0.1769$ and $0.5012$ (see Fig.\[Fig3\](a)). We fix $\Delta_\tau=0.1769,$ and denote $\Delta_\tau^{st}=0.5012.$ We notice here that $\omega(2\Delta_0)$ and $\omega(2\Delta_\tau^{st})$ are negative while $\omega(2\Delta_\tau)$ is positive, see Fig. \[Fig3\](b). By Theorem \[th:stability\], we conclude that $u_0(x)=\Phi(x,\Delta_0)$ and $u_\tau^{st}=\Phi(x,\Delta_\tau^{st})$ are linearly stable solution to $f_0$- and $f_\tau$-field models, while $u_\tau(x)=\Phi(x,\Delta_\tau)$ is a linearly unstable solution to $f_\tau$-field model. This explains upper index ’$st$’ in our notation.
Assumptions 2 - 5 has been verified numerically. Thus, we apply Theorem \[th:existence\]. We chose $f$ to be given as in in with $p=3.$ In Fig.\[Fig4\](a) we have plotted the fixed point $u^*(x)$ of the operator $T_f$ obtained by iterations from the restriction of $u_\tau(x)$ and $u_0(x)$ on $[\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0]$ as the initial values. From Corollary \[corollary:1\] we conclude that $u^*$ is, then, a unique solution of the fixed point problem for . We have plotted $u_0,$ $u_\tau,$ and $u^{st}_\tau$ on the same figure to illustrate the inequality $$\label{eq:u<u<u}
u^{st}_\tau\leq u^*\leq u_0.$$ Thus, $u^*$ is located in between of two stable bumps of the $f_0-$ and the $f_\tau$ field model on $[\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0]$. Based on [@A] we claim that $u^*$ is a restriction of the stable bump solution to $f-$field equation.
Fig.\[Fig4\](b) illustrates the dynamics of the iteration process. There we have plotted the numerical errors calculated as $$\label{eq:errors}
\varepsilon(n)=\max\limits_{x}|(T_f^{n}u_0)(x)-(T_f^{n}u_\tau)(x)|, \quad n=1,2,...,N,$$ where $T_f^{0}$ is equivalent to the identity operator, $n$ corresponds to the iteration number, and $N$ denotes the total number of iterations. We observe that in our calculations $\varepsilon(n)<10^{-5}$ for $n\geq 16.$
In Fig.\[Fig5\] we have plotted the graph of the bump solution to the $f$-field model obtained as the extension of $u^*$ from $[\Delta_\tau,\Delta_0]$ to ${\mathbb{R}},$ see Theorem \[th:extension\]
Assumptions 1-5 are satisfied for some set of parameters when $\omega$ is given as in . We, however, do not provide this example here.
Iteration Scheme II: Bumps Width Iteration {#sec:IIa}
==========================================
In an iteration procedure for construction of bump solutions to the $f$-field model has been worked out. However, a mathematical verification of the procedure has not been given. In the present section we introduce an iteration scheme which is based on the idea presented in and give a mathematical verification of this approach. we illustrate the results with a numerical example using the same parameters as in Section \[Sec:Numerics:1\].
For $t \in [0,\tau]$ we assume that there exist the excitation width $\Delta(t)$ such that a bump solution to $f$-field model, $u_\Delta (x),$ satisfies $$u_\Delta(\pm \Delta(t))=t+h.$$ Then $u_{\Delta}(x)$ can be described by $$\label{uDelta}
u_{\Delta}(x)=\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi) \int_{0}^{\Delta(\xi)}r(x,y)dy d\xi$$ using the representation .
Let ${{\mathcal B}}$ be a real Banach space with partial ordering $\geq$ defined by a cone $E=\{u\in {{\mathcal B}}| u(x)\geq 0\}.$ In this section we assume ${{\mathcal B}}=L_2([0,\tau]).$ Then, if a bump of the $f$-field is given by then $\Delta(t) \in \llbracket \Delta_\tau, \Delta_0 \rrbracket.$ The excitation width $\Delta$ satisfies the fixed point problem $$\label{x=Ax}
\Delta=A \Delta, \quad (A\Delta)(t) = \Delta(t) + k\left(u_\Delta(\Delta(t))-t-h\right), \quad k=\operatorname{const}\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$
\[th:Frechet\] The operator $A$ is Fréchet differentiable in $L_2[0,\tau]$ if $f \in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}})$.
Let us define the operator $$(G\Delta)(t)=u_{\Delta}(\Delta(t)).$$ We calculate the Fréchet derivative of the operator $G\Delta$. To do this we first compute its Gáteaux derivative $$\label{Gateaux_def}
g(\delta)=\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0}\dfrac{G(\Delta+\lambda \delta)-G(\Delta)}{\lambda}.$$ For any $\delta\in L_2[0,\tau]$ let us consider $$\label{eq:Gautex:nominator}
G(\Delta+\lambda \delta)-G(\Delta)=\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)I_1(\xi)d\xi,$$ where $$I_1(\xi)=\int_{0}^{\Delta(\xi)+\lambda \delta(\xi)}r(\Delta(t)+\lambda \delta(t),y)dy -
\int_{0}^{\Delta(\xi)}r(\Delta(t),y)dy.$$ Making use of the Taylor expansion for $r(\Delta(t)+\lambda \delta(t),y)$ as a function of $\lambda$ at $\lambda=0$ we have $$\begin{split}
I_1(\xi)&=\int_{0}^{\Delta(\xi)+\lambda \delta(\xi)}\left(r(\Delta(t),y)+ \lambda \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(\Delta(t),y) \delta(t)+ o(\lambda)\right)dy-\int_{0}^{\Delta(\xi)}r(\Delta(t),y)dy\\
&= \int_{\Delta(\xi)}^{\Delta(\xi)+\delta(\xi)}r(\Delta(t),y)dy+ \lambda \delta(t)\int_0^{\Delta(\xi)+\lambda \delta(\xi)} \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(y,\Delta(t)) dy+ o(\lambda).
\end{split}$$ Plugging $I_1$ into (\[eq:Gautex:nominator\]) and making use of the mean value theorem we get the following formula $$\label{eq:g(delta)}
g(\Delta,\delta(t))= \int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)\delta(\xi) r(\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi))d\xi+\delta(t) \int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi))d\xi.$$
Hence, we arrive at the conclusion that the Gáteaux derivative is a linear operator. In order to prove Fréchet differentiability of the operator $G$ we show, in accordance with [@Zeidler], that $g(\cdot,\delta): L_2[0,\tau]\rightarrow L_2[0,\tau]$ is a continuous operator for all $\delta \in L_2[0,\tau]$. The proof of this fact is technical and we therefore formulate it as a separate lemma:
The operator $g(\cdot,\delta): L_2[0,\tau]\rightarrow L_2[0,\tau]$ is continuous for all $\delta \in L_2[0,\tau].$
We consider the first and the second integral of separately as the operators of $\Delta.$ Using the Cauchy-Schwarz and Minkowskii inequalities we show that these operators are continuous and, thus, $g(\cdot,\delta)$ is continuous as well, for any $\delta \in L_2[0,\tau].$ We present the proof for the first integral operator. The proof of continuity for the second term proceeds in the same way and is omitted.
We introduce $$(F\Delta)(t)=\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)\delta(\xi) r(\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi))d\xi.$$ We obtain $$\begin{split}
(F\Delta_1- F\Delta_2)(t)=\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)\delta(\xi)& \left( r(\Delta_1(t),\Delta_1(\xi))- r(\Delta_1(t),\Delta_2(\xi))+\right.\\
&\left.+ r(\Delta_1(t),\Delta_2(\xi))- r(\Delta_2(t),\Delta_2(\xi))\right)d\xi=I_1(t)+I_2(t)
\end{split}$$ where by the mean value theorem $I_1$ and $I_2$ can be defined as $$I_1(t)=\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)\delta(\xi) \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial y}(\Delta_1(t),\tilde{\Delta}_1(\xi))(\Delta_1(\xi)-\Delta_2(\xi))d\xi$$ $$I_2(t)=\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi)\delta(\xi)\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(\tilde{\Delta}_2(t),\Delta_2(\xi))(\Delta_1(t)-\Delta_2(t))d\xi$$ with $\tilde{\Delta}_k=\lambda_k \Delta_1+(1-\lambda_k) \Delta_2,$ for some $\lambda_k \in [0,1],$ $k=1,2.$
We consider the norm of the difference. Using the Minkowskii inequality we get $$\begin{split}
||F\Delta_1-F\Delta_2||_{L_2[0,\tau]}=\left(\int_0^\tau(I_1(t)+I_2(t))^2dt\right)^{1/2} \leq \\
\leq \left(\int_0^\tau|I_1(t)|^2 dt \right)^{1/2}+ \left(\int_0^\tau|I_2(t)|^2 dt\right)^{1/2}
\end{split}$$ Applying the Cauchy - Schwarz inequality to each of the terms we have $$\begin{array}{l}
||F\Delta_1-F\Delta_2||_{L_2[0,\tau]}\leq\\
\leq \left(\int \limits_0^{\tau} \int\limits_0^\tau \left| \rho(\xi) \delta(\xi) \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial y}
(\Delta_1(t),\tilde{\Delta}_1(\xi))\right|^2 d\xi \, \int\limits_0^\tau |\Delta_1(\xi)-\Delta_2(\xi)|^2d\xi \,dt\right)^{1/2}+\\
+ \left(\int\limits_0^{\tau} \int\limits_0^\tau \left| \rho(\xi) \delta(\xi) \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial y}(\Delta_1(t),\tilde{\Delta}_1(\xi))\right|^2 d\xi \, \int\limits_0^\tau |\Delta_1(t)-\Delta_2(t)|^2 d\xi \,dt\right)^{1/2}
\end{array}$$ Since $r\in W^{1,\infty}({\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}}),$ $\rho \in L_\infty({\mathbb{R}})$, and $\delta \in L_2[0,\tau]$ the following estimate is valid $$\begin{array}{l}
\int\limits_0^\tau \left| \rho(\xi) \delta(\xi) \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial y}(\Delta_1(t),\tilde{\Delta}_1(\xi))\right|^2 d\xi \leq C^2/2\\
\int\limits_0^\tau \left| \rho(\xi) \delta(\xi) \dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}(\tilde{\Delta}_2(t),{\Delta}_1(\xi))\right|^2 d\xi \leq C^2/2
\end{array}$$ where $$C^2=2||\rho||_{L_{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})} \max \{||\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial x}||_{L_{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}})}, ||\dfrac{\partial r}{\partial y}||_{L_\infty({\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{R}})}\} ||\delta||_{L_2[0,\tau]}^2.$$ Therefore, we get the following inequality $$||F\Delta_1-F\Delta_2||_{L_2[0,\tau]}\leq |C|\sqrt{\tau} ||\Delta_1-\Delta_2||_{L_2[0,\tau]}$$ from which the continuity of $F$ follows.
For convenience we make redefinition: $g(\Delta,\delta)=G_{\Delta}'\delta.$ Obviously, the operator $A$ is Fréchet differentiable in any $\Delta \in L_2[0,\tau]$ and $$\label{eq:A'}
A_\Delta'=I+kG_{\Delta}'$$
We have the following lemma:
\[lemma:A’>0\] The operator $A_{\Delta}'\delta \geq 0$ for $\delta \geq 0$ and $\Delta \in \llbracket \Delta_\tau, \Delta_0 \rrbracket$ under Assumption \[As:2\] and \[As:3\] and $0<k<1/m,$ where $$\label{eq:m}
m=-\min \limits_{t,\xi \in [0,\tau]} \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi)).$$
First of all, we notice that $\partial \Phi/\partial x \in BC({\mathbb{R}}) \times BC({\mathbb{R}}).$ Thus, there exists a finite minimum of $\partial \Phi/\partial x$ on the given set. Moreover, this minimum is negative according to Assumption \[As:3\]. Therefore, $m$ given by is finite and positive, and the operator $A'_\Delta$ preserves positivity for $0<k<1/m.$
\[th:existence2\] Let the conditions of Theorem \[th:Frechet\] and Lemma \[lemma:A’>0\] be satisfied. Then the operator $A: \llbracket\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0 \rrbracket \rightarrow D \subset L_2[0,\tau]$ has a fixed point in $ \llbracket \Delta_\tau, \Delta_0 \rrbracket.$ Moreover, the sequences $\{A^n \Delta_\tau\}$ and $\{A^n \Delta_0\}$ converge to the smallest and greatest fixed point of the operator $A,$ respectively.
The operator $A$ is monotonically increasing. Indeed, we let $\Delta_2 \geq \Delta_1.$ Then $A \Delta_2 -A\Delta_1=A_{\Delta}'(\Delta_2-\Delta_1)$ where $\Delta \in \llbracket\Delta_1, \Delta_2 \rrbracket \subset \llbracket\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0 \rrbracket.$ Using Lemma \[lemma:A’>0\] we conclude that $A$ is monotone.
The operator $A$ is Fréchet differentiable, and hence continuous in $L_2[0,\tau]$ (see Lemma \[th:Frechet\]). Moreover, we have the following inequalities $$(A \Delta_0)(t)=\Delta_0+k(u_{\Delta_0}(\Delta_0)-t-h)= \Delta_0 + k(u_0(\Delta_0)-t-h)=\Delta_0-kt\leq \Delta_0.$$ and $$(A \Delta_\tau)(t)=\Delta_\tau+k(u_{\Delta_\tau}(\Delta_\tau)-t-h)= \Delta_\tau + k(u_\tau(\Delta_\tau)-t-h)=\Delta_0+k(\tau-t)\geq \Delta_\tau.$$ Applying Theorem \[th:G&L:1\]we complete the proof.
\[remark:1\] We prove Theorem \[th:existence2\] for the case when $D\in L_2[0,\tau]$ but do not consider the case $D\in C[0,\tau].$ The cone of positive functions in $C[0,\tau]$ is not regular. Therefore additional assumptions on the operator $A$ are required (see Theorem \[th:G&L:1\]). We notice that $A$ is not compact in $C[0,\tau].$ Indeed, the operator $A$ is a Fréchet differentiable with $A_\Delta'$ defined as in where $A_\Delta'$ is a sum of the identity operator and a compact operator, thus is not compact. Therefore, $A$ is not a compact operator, see [@Zeidler]. The operator $A$ does not seem to be condensing either, at least with respect to the Hausdorff measure. The case of more general measures of noncompactness is not considered here.
It remains to show that $u_\Delta,$ where $\Delta$ is the fixed point of , is a bump. The definition of $u_\Delta$ requires $\Delta(t)$ monotonically decreasing. We introduce the assumption.
[Assumption 3$'$]{} \[As:3’\] The partial derivative of $\Phi$ with respect to $x$ is negative for $x=\Delta(t),$ $y=\Delta(s)$ for $t,s \in [0,\tau]$ and $\Delta(t)$ is a fixed point of , i.e., $$\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(\Delta(t),\Delta(s))<0 ,\: \forall t,s\in [0, \tau].$$
The fixed point $\Delta(t)$ of operator $A$ is monotonically decreasing and differentiable on $[0,\tau]$ under Assumption 3$'$.
Since $\Delta(t)$ is a solution of the fixed point problem then $u_\Delta(\Delta(t))=t+h.$ We prove the lemma by direct differentiation of the last equality with respect to $t.$ We obtain $$\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi) \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi)) \Delta'(t) d\xi=1.$$ Thus, $$\Delta'(t)=\left(\int_0^\tau \rho(\xi) \dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi)) d\xi \right)^{-1} <0$$ as $\dfrac{\partial \Phi }{\partial x} (\Delta(t),\Delta(\xi))<0$ by Assumption 3$'$.
Assumption 3$'$ requires an apriori knowledge of $\Delta(t)$ and therefore can not be checked before $\Delta(t)$ is found. Thus, we suggest to replace this assumption with the following one:
[Assumption 3$''$]{} \[As:3”\] The partial derivative of $\Phi$ with respect to $x$ is negative for all $x,y\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0],$ i.e., $$\dfrac{\partial \Phi}{\partial x}(x,y)<0 ,\: \forall x,y\in [\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0].$$
The fulfillment of Assumption 3$''$ implies that Assumption 3 and Assumption 3$'$ are satisfied.
In addition to Assumption 3$'$ (or 3$''$) we have the following requirement:
[Assumption 5$'$]{} \[As:5’\] The function $\Phi$ is such that
- $\Phi(x,y) \leq h, \: \forall x> \Delta(0), \; y \in [\Delta(\tau), \Delta(0)],$\
- $\Phi(x,y) \geq h+\tau, \: \forall x \in [ 0,\Delta(\tau)],\; y \in [\Delta(\tau), \Delta(0)].$
\[th:extention2\] Let $\Delta$ be a fixed point refereed to in Theorem \[th:existence2\]. Then $u_\Delta$ defined as is a bump solution to under Assumptions 3$''$ and 5$'$.
We rewrite as $$u_\Delta(x)=\int_0^{\tau}\rho(\xi)\Phi(x,\Delta(\xi)) d\xi.$$ Next, we make use of Assumption 5$'$. Keeping in mind the normalization property of $\rho$ we show that $$\begin{array}{ll}
u_\Delta(x)\leq h, & \forall x> \Delta(0), \; y \in [\Delta(\tau), \Delta(0)],\\
\\
u_\Delta(x)\geq h+\tau, &\forall x \in [ 0,\Delta(\tau)],\; y \in [\Delta(\tau), \Delta(0)].
\end{array}$$
For operator $T_f$ we use Assumptions \[As:1\]-\[As:5\], and Assumptions \[As:1\]-\[As:2\], 3$''$ and 5$'$ for the operator $A.$ Assumptions 3$''$ and 5$'$ are more restrictive than Assumptions \[As:3\] and \[As:5\]. Moreover Assumption \[As:5\] needs information about the fixed point $\Delta(t)$ which is a disadvantage. On the other hand, the operator $T_f$ requires one extra assumption, Assumption \[As:4\].
Numerical example {#Sec:Numerics:2}
-----------------
Let $\omega(x),$ $h,$ $\tau$ and $\Delta_\tau,$ $\Delta_\tau^{st},$ $\Delta_0$ are chosen as in Section \[Sec:Numerics:1\]. Them, as we have mentioned before, Assumptions \[As:1\],\[As:2\], and \[As:3\] hold true. Hence, we can apply Theorem \[th:existence2\] and obtain $\Delta(t).$ In Fig.\[Fig6\](a) we illustrate the result of the iteration process. In Fig.\[Fig6\](b) we have plotted the errors calculated as $$\label{eq:errors:2}
\varepsilon(n)=\max\limits_{x}|(A^{n}|\Delta_0)(t)-(A^{n}\Delta_\tau)(t)|, \quad n=1,2,...,N.$$ Similar as in , $A^{0}$ defines the identity operator, $n$ corresponds to the iteration number, and $N$ denotes the total number of iterations. In our calculations $\varepsilon(n)<10^{-5}$ for $n\geq 13,$ and the minimal and maximal fixed points converges to each other. Thus, the fixed point is unique, see Corollary \[corollary:1\]. We also observe that the fixed point $\Delta(t)$ belongs to $\llbracket \Delta^{st}_\tau, \Delta_0 \rrbracket,$ see Fig.\[Fig6\](a).
Knowing $\Delta(t)$ we have checked that Assumption 5$'$ is fulfilled. Thus, by Theorem \[th:extention2\] we can obtain a bump solution to the $f$-field model .
We claim that that this bump coincides with the bump constructed in Section \[Sec:Numerics:1\]. To demonstrate this, we found $\delta(t)$ that solves $$u^*(\delta(t))=t+h, \quad t\in [0,\tau]$$ with $u^*$ being the fixed point of the operator $T_f,$ see Fig.\[Fig4\](a). We calculate the relative error as $$\epsilon=\max\limits_t \left|\frac{\Delta(t)-\delta(t)}{\delta(t)}\right|.$$ For our example we have obtained $\epsilon=2.5 \times 10^{-3}.$ We notice here that our implementation is not optimal and can be significantly improved. We do not pursue this problem here, however.
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
We have introduced two iteration schemes for finding a bump solution in the $f-$field of the Wilson-Cowan model: The first scheme is based on the fixed point problem formulated by Kishimoto and Amari [@KA]. The second one is described by the fixed point problem formulated for the interface dynamics of the bump. The latter formulation became possible due to the special representation of the firing rated function introduced by Coombes and Schmidt .
We have proved using the theory of monotone operators in Banach spaces that both iteration schemes converge under Assumption \[As:1\] and \[As:2\]. From the iterative procedures we obtain the solution on the finite interval $[\Delta_\tau, \Delta_0]$ (see Section \[Sec:II\]), and on $[\Delta(0),\Delta(\tau)]$ (see Section \[sec:IIa\]). Then it has been shown that under some additional assumptions on the connectivity function $\omega$ this solution determines a bump of the $f$-field on ${\mathbb{R}}.$
The assumptions imposed for the first method (see Section \[Sec:II\]) differ from the ones imposed for the second method (see Section \[sec:IIa\]). The evident disadvantage of Assumption 3$'$ and 5$'$ is that they contain information about the output of the iteration procedure, $\Delta(t)$. Assumption 3$'$ can be substituted with the more restrictive Assumption 3$''$, but not Assumption 5$'$. Thus, Assumption 5$'$ can not be checked in advance. On the other hand, the set of assumptions for the fixed point problem is in general less restrictive than the assumptions imposed on the fixed point method outlined in Section \[Sec:II\]. All assumptions (except Assumption 5$'$) are quite easy to check if $\omega(x)$ is given.
We show by a numerical example that both iterative schemes converge to the same solution. Moreover, from numerics it follows that this solution is unique and stable. Indeed, the maximal and minimal fixed points turn out to be equal for any trials and choice of parameters. Thus, by Corollary \[corollary:1\], the fixed point is unique. Moreover, the constructed fixed point solution is stable since it is located between stable solutions of the $f_0$- and $f_\tau$-field, [@KA]. Notice that we have not given a mathematical verification of these observations.
Notice also that we have looked for the bump solutions under the assumption $\Delta_\tau<\Delta_0$ and . Thus, even if the constructed solution is unique, it does not necessarily mean that there are no other stable or unstable solution. However, the same type of reasoning as we performed here are no longer valid if we relax on these assumptions. Therefore we leave this problem for a future study.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank Professor Stephen Coombes (School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom), and Professor Vadim Kostrykin (Johannes Gutenberg-University, Mainz, Germany) for many fruitful and stimulating discussions during the preparation of this paper. John Wyller and Anna Oleynik also wish to thank the School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham for the kind hospitality during the stay. This research was supported by the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The work has also been supported by The Research Council of Norway under the grant No. 178892 (eNEURO-multilevel modeling and simulation of the nervous system) and the grant No. 178901 (Bridging the gap: disclosure, understanding and exploitation of the genotype-phenotype map).
[50]{} H.R. Wilson and J.D. Cowan, Excitatory and inhibitory interactions in localized populations of model neurons, Biophysical Journal, 12:1-24, 1972. H.R. Wilson and J.D. Cowan, A mathematical theory of the functional dynamics of cortical and thalamic nervous tissue, Kybernetik, 13:55-80, 1973. S. Amari,Homogeneous nets of neuron-like elements. Biological Cybernetics, 17:211-220, 1975.
S. Amari, Dynamics of Pattern Formation in Literal-Inhibition Type Neural Fields, Biol. Cybernetics, 27:77- 87, 1977.
S. Coombes, Waves, bumps, and patterns in neural field theories, Biological Cybernetics, 93(91), 2005.
S. Coombes and M.R. Owen *Evans functios for integral field equations with Heavisite firing rate function* SIAM Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems, 34:574-600,2004.
K. Kishimoto, S. Amari, Existence and Stability of Local Excitations in Homogeneous Neural Fields, J.Math.Biology, 7:303-318, 1979. S. Coombes and H. Schmidt, Neural Fields with Sigmoidal Firing Rates: Approximate Solutions, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 28:1369-1379, 2010.
D.J. Pinto and G.B. Ermentrout, Spatially structured activity in synapticaly couple neuronal networks:II. Lateral inhibition and standing pulses, SIAM J.Appl.MAth, 62:226-243, 2001.
O. Faugeras, F.Grimbert, and J.-J. Slotine, Absolute stability and complete synchronization in a class of neural field models, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 63:205-250, 2008.
O. Faugeras, R. Veltz, and F. Grimbert, Persistent neural states: stationary localized activity patterns in nonliner continuous $n$-population, $q$-dimensional neural networks, Neural. Comp., 21:147-187, 2009.
P.S. Goldman-Rakic, Cellular basis of working memory, Neuron, 14:477-485, 1995.
A.J. Elvin, C.R. Laing, R.I.McLachlan, and M.G.Roberts, Exploiting the Hamiltonian structure of a neural field model,Physica D, 239:537-546, 2010.
C.R.Laing and W.C.Troy, PDE methods for nonlocal models, SIAM J.App.Dyn.Syst., 2:487-516, 2003.
E.P. Krisner, The link between integral equations and higher order ODEs, J.Math.Anal.Appl., 29:165-179, 2004.
C.R. Laing, W.C. Troy, B. Gutkin, G.B. Ermentrout, Multiple bumps in a neuronal network model of working memory, SIAM J. Appl. Math., 63:62-97, 2002.
Dajun Guo and V.Lakshmikantham, Nonlinear problems on abstract cones, Academic Press, Inc., 1988.
E. Zeidler, Nonlinear Functional Analysis, Vol.1: Fixed-Point Theorems, Springer, 1986.
A.N. Kolmogorov and S.V. Fomin, Introductory Real Analasis, Dover publications Inc., 1975. R. R. Akhmerov, M. I. Kamenskii, A. S. Potapov and B. N. Sadovskii, *Condensing operators*, Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 18(4): 551-592, 1982.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Waveguide arrays offer enormous potential to design circuit elements essential to fabricate optical devices capable to processing information codified by light. In this work we study the existence and stability of localized beams in one dimensional photonic lattices composed by a Kerr type waveguide array. We analyzed the case where discrete translation symmetry is broken in as much as one of the waveguides lacks a nonlinear response. Specifically, we determined the space of parameters where a coherent and robust mobility across the lattice is achieved. Moreover, we calculate the reflection and transmission coefficients when localized beams interact directly with the impurity, finding that it behaves as a variable filter depending of system parameters. Our results would shed light on develop solutions to keep unaltered information during its transmission within future optical devices.'
address: 'Programa de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad del Atlántico, Puerto Colombia 081007, Colombia.'
author:
- 'M A Sabogal, I C Parra, M Bandera, J Gallardo and Cristian Mejía-Cortés'
title: 'Mobility of localized beams in non-homogeneous photonic lattices'
---
Introduction
============
Localized modes have been studied extensively since middle of last century [@PhysRev.109.1492]. Many physical systems exhibit different phenomena which lead to formation of this kind of excitation. For example, the first system where light localization was predicted and observed was in optical fibers [@doi:10.1063/1.1654836]. Here, light pulses were able to travel long distances without distortion, due to a balance between nonlinear response of material and chromatic dispersion of light [@MO35250] . This kind of pulse received the name of [*optical soliton*]{} and since then they have been widely used in telecommunications [@Segovia_Cabrera_2015].
Optical periodic systems have attracted enormous attention during last three decades because they bear enormous potential in technological applications. Their underlying characteristics offer the possibility of manage the light behaviour either over long distances or short ones. For example, at big scale photonic crystal fibers, optical fibers with a micro structured cross sections [@Russell:06; @Russell358], can be employed in fiber-optics communications [@Roberts:05], but also they can be used as sensors with high resolution [@Cregan1537]. They also offer the possibility to manage light propagation in short scale. Logical operations similar to those involved with electron currents can be mimic in a completely optical “microprocessor” or photonic chip. It can be plausible due to the refractive index in theses systems possesses a periodical distribution, hence, there are forbidden regions for light propagation [@Joannopoulos]. Experimentally, photonic lattices has been implemented by creating waveguide arrays in several media. For example, by using a femto-second pulsed laser on an amorphous (non-crystalline) phase silicon glass, it can be possible to “write” waveguides by modifying the nominal refractive index around the area where it is has been focused [@Szameit_2010]. Photo-refractive crystals are systems where these waveguide arrays also can be written by and induction process, due to its refractive index changes by the light intensity variation, i.e., by a non-linear response of the electric field [@Armijo:14]. On the other hand, research on coherent transfer of light stays as a hot topic over the years due to its direct implications in design technological devices for controlled transport of information.
A change in the periodic distribution of the refractive index, by introducing an impurity into the lattice, results in the scattering of transverse traveling waves. For example, when the impurity comes from localized solutions, the scattering of plane waves by them has opened the possibility to observe Fano resonances [@PhysRev.124.1866]. In a nonlinear optical context, it has been observed that scattering of solitons in waveguide arrays moving towards impurity potentials, has a complex phenomenology [@PhysRevLett.99.133901]. Moreover, by adjusting the strength of linear impurities a completely trapping regime can be tailored [@Morales-Molina:06]. In the present study we address the case of nonlinear photonic lattices with an embedded linear impurity, which eventually improves the manipulation of light beam across the lattice. We hope that our results may be interesting in the design of optical limiters, barriers and gates for future photonic chips.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section \[model\], we introduce the model and develop the main formalism employed to identify nonlinear stationary solutions, as well as, a favorable domain in terms of system parameters to achieve coherent and robust mobility. In Section \[modes\], we report findings on the existence and stability of localized stationary solutions around the lattice impurity. Section \[mobility\] is devoted to estimate the optimal domain for coherent and robust mobility of nonlinear modes. The analysis on scattering problem between nonlinear modes and lattice impurity is presented in Section \[scattering\]. Finally, in Section \[conclusions\], we summarize and draw our main conclusions.
Model
=====
The Discrete Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation (DNLSE) represents one of the most important models in nonlinear physics. For example, in classical mechanics, this equation describes a particular model for a system of coupled anharmonic oscillators [@eilbeck2003discrete]. On the other hand, this model predict the existence of localized modes of excitation of Bose–Einstein condensates in periodic potentials such as those generated by counter-propagating laser beams in an optical lattice [@Franzosi_2011]. In nonlinear optics, this equation combines phenomena related to the dispersion and/or diffraction of electromagnetic waves with those generated by higher order electric polarization in periodical media [@khare2006discrete].
When impurities are introduce to the system the translational symmetry becomes broken, which leads to the formation of localized modes around the defects [@kevrekidis2009discrete]. For the case when the effect of impurity is the lack of nonlinear response in a specific waveguide, we can model the propagation, along the $\hat z$-axis, of the corresponding electric field amplitude present in the $n$-th guide, $E_ {n} (z)$, as a variant of a more general DNLSE $$i\frac{dE_{n}}{dz} + \zeta_{n+1}E_{n+1}+\zeta_{n-1}E_{n-1} +
\gamma(1-\delta_{n,n_{i}})|E_{n}|^{2}E_{n} = 0,
\label{eq1}$$ where $ i = \sqrt {-1} $ and $\delta_{n,n_{i}}$ is the Kronecker symbol. The nonlinear response of the media is represented by the parameter $\gamma$, which is proportional to the nonlinear refraction index of the medium. Here we assume that $\zeta_ {n}$, the coupling between waveguides, is the same for each $n$, i. e., $\zeta_ {n}= \zeta $. The Equation (\[eq1\]) has two conserved quantities, the generating function that corresponds to the Hamiltonian ($H$) $$H = -\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(\zeta E_{n}(z)E^{\ast}_{n+1}(z)+\text{c.c.} +
\frac{\gamma}{2}(1-\delta_{n,n_{i}})|E_{n}(z)|^{4}\right),
\label{eq2}$$ where the symbol $^\ast$ and c.c. denote the complex conjugate, and the norm or optical power ($P$) in the system $$P = \sum_{n=1}^{N}|E_{n}(z)|^{2}.
\label{eq3}$$ It is worth to mention here that these two conserved quantities will be monitored during all the calculations along this work, because they will serve to check the validity of our numerical findings.
Families of nonlinear modes {#modes}
===========================
We look for stationary solutions of Equation (\[eq1\]) in the form $ E_ {n} =
\phi_ {n} \exp {(i \lambda z)} $, where the amplitudes $ \phi_ {n} $ are real quantities that satisfy the following system of nonlinear algebraic equations $$-\lambda\phi_{n} + \zeta(\phi_{n+1}+\phi_{n-1}) + \gamma(1-\delta_{n,n_{i}})\phi_n^3=0,
\label{eq4}$$ being $\lambda $ the propagation constant of the stationary solutions. According on the sign of $\gamma$ the nonlinear effect of the system can be of the self-focusing type ($\gamma>0$) or self-defocusing type ($\gamma<0$). Throughout the rest of the paper, we assume to deal with self-focusing type media.
We solve the model (\[eq4\]) by implementing a Newton-Raphson scheme. We start from a localized seed around the impurity and in a few number of iterations the algorithm converges to localized stationary solutions. We check the stability of localized solutions by performing the standard linear stability analysis. From now on we use solid (dashed) lines to denote families with stable (unstable) solutions. It is interesting to study the consequences that the value of the nonlinear constant of the impurity of the lattice entails, specifically, the type of solutions that exist around the defect and its mobility around it. Recently, it has been found that modes centered at site are the only stable family of solutions that exist around the impurity [@mejia2019nonlinear], however, we found that the stability region of these modes depends on the value of the nonlinearity of impurity.
Figure \[fig1\](a) shows the families of solution in the space of ($P$,$\lambda$) for the even and odd modes far from the defect. Families for odd modes around the defect for ten values of $ \gamma_ {i} $ between $ 0 $ and $ 0.90 $ is displayed at Figure \[fig1\](b). It can be seem here that when nonlinearity for defect diminish there is a reduction in the region of existence and stability of this solutions. The inset in Figure \[fig1\](a) sketches the odd (c) and even (d) modes belonging to the families represented by solid and dashed curves, respectively. On the other hand, bottom inset at Figure \[fig1\](b) displays three modes around the impurity that belongs to the odd (e), even (f) and symmetrical (g) families of solution, when $\gamma=0$, for three different values of $\lambda$. Last two families are not illustrated in this work but they have been reported recently in reference [@mejia2019nonlinear].
![(a) $P$ vs $\lambda$ diagram for odd and even families of solutions far away from the impurity. Bottom inset displays both solutions for $ P $ = 3.00 and $\lambda$ = $2.85$ (c) and $2.62$ (d), respectively. (b) $P$ vs $\lambda$ diagram for odd families around impurity for different values of $\gamma$. Bottom inset displays three different type solutions, near to impurity for $ P $ = 3.00, $\gamma=0$ and $\lambda$ = $2.91$ for the odd mode (e), $\lambda$ = $2.66$ for even mode (f) and $\lambda$ = $2.28$ for symmetrical mode (g).[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1_corregida.png){width="100.00000%"}
Mobility of localized modes {#mobility}
===========================
With the aim to study the interaction between solitons and the linear impurity, it is mandatory to determine the zones in the space $(P,k)$ of powers and momentum, in which coherent mobility is guaranteed. It is well known that the mobility of discrete solitons is restricted by the Peierls-Nabarro (PN) barrier [@kevrekidis2009discrete], which exists due to the non-integrability of the DNLSE [@brazhnyi2013interaction; @peschel2002optical]. This barrier can be estimated as the difference in energy ($H$) between the solutions of the fundamental modes, sketched at top left inset in Figure \[fig1\](a). By applying a power constraint to the Newton-Raphson method we could compare the value of the Hamiltonian (energy) of the modes that have the same power [@lederer2008discrete]. In that way, we can identify those regions where $H$ is similar, both for odd and even modes, which implies that these solutions, previously endowed with momentum, can move across the lattice in an adiabatic way, i. e., they can transform dynamically into the another one almost without radiating energy and preserving their shape. It is well known that for the Kerr nonlinearity, there is a critical power where PN barrier is large enough for the soliton to be confined in the initial guide [@ahufinger2004creation]. In order to determine these zones, solitons with different configurations of $ k $ and $ P $ were propagated. For the case of good mobility, their effective displacement was quantified, in terms of their center of mass $CM \coloneqq \sum_{n = 1}^{N} n |\phi_ {n}|^2/P$, as shown in Figure \[fig2\](a).
It is clear that for power greater than $P\approx 3.00 $ the mobility of the soliton is almost zero no matter which was the impinged momentum on the mode. In order to select optimal parameter domain where coherent mobility is guaranteed we calculate the maximum variation of the velocity angle of the center of mass, along the propagation distance with respect to the initial angle. In Figure \[fig2\](b) it can be observed that for values greater than $ P \approx2.50$ the variation of the initial angle is greater than $ 5.00 $ degrees and independent of the momentum. We also refine our procedure by identifying the maximum distance at which the initial angle is conserved, undergoing a change of less than $ 10.00\% $ for different configurations of $ k $ and $ P $. As shown in Figure \[fig2\](c), for powers below $ P \approx 2.30 $ the criterion is fulfilled for the entire propagation distance. The above suggests that the range $ \mid k
\mid \leq \pi/9 $ and $ P <2.30 $ ensures a coherence mobility of the information.
![Effective displacement of the center of mass (a), maximum variation of the velocity angle of the center of mass (b) and maximum distance at which change in the velocity angle is below $ 10.00 \% $ (c), as function of $P$ and $k$. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2_corregida.png){width="100.00000%"}
Pulse transmission {#scattering}
==================
Let us now consider the interaction between a discrete soliton, endowed with a transverse momentum $k$, and one impurity located at $ n_i = N / 2 $. We numerically integrate the model (\[eq1\]) with a Runge Kutta scheme by taking as initial condition $\phi_n^k=\phi_n\exp{(ikn)}$, being $\phi_n$ a stationary mode of the system. When the soliton reaches the impurity, the radiation can be reflected, transmitted and/or captured. To analyze the soliton-impurity interaction we define the reflectance $ (R) $, transmittance $ (T) $ and the capture fraction $ (C) $ coefficients as $$R\coloneqq \frac{\sum_{n=1}^{n_{i}-\Delta}|\phi_{n}|^2}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}|\phi_{n}|^2},
\hspace{0.5cm}
T\coloneqq \frac{\sum_{n=n_{i}+\Delta}^{N}|\phi_{n}|^2}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}|\phi_{n}|^2},
\hspace{0.5cm}
C\coloneqq \frac{\sum_{n_{i}-\Delta}^{n_{i}+\Delta}|\phi_{n}|^2}{\sum_{n=1}^{N}|\phi_{n}|^2}.
\label{rtc}$$ Here $ \Delta $ is defined as the size of the impurity. As we are dealing with conservative systems, it is clear that the condition $ R + T + C = 1 $ must be fulfilled during beam evolution. It has been observed that when solitons of the same power with different $ k $ are sent toward the impurity, there is a critical momentum $ k_ {c} $ for which the soliton is trapped around the defect [@mejia2019nonlinear]. Therefore, for values $ k <k_ {c} $ the solitons are reflected and for $ k> k_ {c} $ they are transmitted. We observe a similar behavior here, by varying the optical power of the soliton with a fixed $ k $, which interacts with the impurity. As can be seen from Figure \[fig3\](a), it is clear that impurity behaves like a filter once the power of modes is near to $P_c\approx 1.674$, namely, the critical power. Around this value of $P_c$ there exist a narrow region where light can be trapped by the impurity \[cf. Figure \[fig3\](b)\] over significant distances of propagation. Below this critical power ($ P_ {c} $), the radiation becomes transmitted almost entirely as is illustrated in Figure \[fig3\](c).
![Reflection (a), Capture (b) and Transmission (c) coefficients as function of $P$ and $z$ near of the critical power $ P_ {c} = 1.6732 $, for $ k = \pi/18 $, $ \zeta = \gamma = 1.00 $ and $\gamma_{i}=0$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3_corregida.png){width="100.00000%"}
With the aim to have a more detailed landscape on how the optical power and the transverse momentum affect the soliton-impurity interaction, we analyze the propagation of solitons with different configurations of $ k $ and $ P $, moving towards the defect, for two different values of $\gamma_{i}$. In order to ensure a consistent estimation of $R$, $C$ and $T$ coefficients, we are going to calculate coefficients at the longitudinal distance $ z $, after the collision with the impurity, equal to the longitudinal distance that they had to travel before to collide with. Figure (\[fig4\]) display these coefficients for two values of nonlinear parameter; upper row for $\gamma_i=0.90$ and lower row for $\gamma_i=0.00$. Domains where total reflection $R$ and transmission $T$ are guaranteed in each case are displayed in first and third column, respectively. Likewise, sub-spaces where solitons can be trapped around the impurity correspond with bright spots in middle column. Finally, comparing the two cases, it is observed that by increasing the value of the nonlinearity of the defect, a shift or increase in the critical values for which the impurity behaves like a filter is obtained, approaching the homogeneous regime when the order between the nonlinear constant of the impurity and the network tends to one.
![Color map of the coefficients (R) Reflectance (C) Capture and (T) Transmittance as function of the transverse momentum $ k $ and the optical power, for $ \zeta = \gamma = 1.00 $ and $\gamma_{i}=0.90$ for the upper row and $\gamma_{i}=0.00$ for the lower row.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.png){width="100.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
In this work we address the problem of interaction between discrete solitons and a linear impurity in a photonic lattice composed by a one dimensional waveguides array. To do that, we begun calculating the stationary modes that exist around the defect. The analysis of the mobility of solitons far away from impurity allow us to determine the areas where the high mobility and coherence of information is guaranteed, as function of the transverse momentum and the optical power. The interaction between the impurity and the nonlinear modes displays a corpuscular dynamic. The regions of reflectance and total transmittance in which the impurity behaves as an optical limiter were determined. Besides, domains for critical power and momentum values in which the soliton is trapped around the impurity where identified. Depending of the subspace in the parameter space we observe drastic change in the reflectance and transmittance coefficients as function of $\gamma_{i}$. We hope that these results may be interesting in the design of optical limiters for solitons, that allow optimization of the manipulation and transmission of information within novel photonic chips. We pretend to extend this kind of analysis in systems with more dimensions, as well as, those ones with exotic dispersion relations.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
Anderson P W 1958 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**109**]{}(5) 1492–1505
Hasegawa A and Tappert F 1973 [*Applied Physics Letters*]{} [**23**]{} 142–144
Arévalo E, Ramírez C and Guzmán A 1995 [*MOMENTO*]{} [**0**]{}
Segovia F A and Cabrera E 2015 [*Redes de Ingeniería*]{} [**6**]{} 26–32
Russell P S 2006 [*J. Lightwave Technol.*]{} [**24**]{} 4729–4749
Russell P 2003 [*Science*]{} [**299**]{} 358–362
Roberts P J, Couny F, Sabert H, Mangan B J, Williams D P, Farr L, Mason M W, Tomlinson A, Birks T A, Knight J C and Russell P S 2005 [*Opt. Express*]{} [**13**]{} 236–244
Cregan R F, Mangan B J, Knight J C, Birks T A, Russell P S J, Roberts P J and Allan D C 1999 [*Science*]{} [**285**]{} 1537–1539
Joannopoulos J D, Villeneuve P R and Fan S 1997 [*Nature*]{} [**386**]{} 143–149
Szameit A and Nolte S 2010 [*Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics*]{} [**43**]{} 163001
Armijo J, Allio R and Mejía-Cortés C 2014 [*Opt. Express*]{} [**22**]{} 20574–20587
Fano U 1961 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**124**]{}(6) 1866–1878
Linzon Y, Morandotti R, Volatier M, Aimez V, Ares R and Bar-Ad S 2007 [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{}(13) 133901
Morales-Molina L and Vicencio R A 2006 [*Opt. Lett.*]{} [**31**]{} 966–968
Eilbeck J C and Johansson M 2003 The discrete nonlinear schr[ö]{}dinger [ *Proc. 3rd Conf.: Localization and Energy Transfer in Nonlinear Systems*]{} p 44
Franzosi R, Livi R, Oppo G L and Politi A 2011 [*Nonlinearity*]{} [**24**]{} R89–R122
Khare A, Rasmussen K [Ø]{}, Salerno M, Samuelsen M R and Saxena A 2006 [ *Physical Review E*]{} [**74**]{} 016607
Kevrekidis P G 2009 [*The discrete nonlinear Schr[ö]{}dinger equation: mathematical analysis, numerical computations and physical perspectives*]{} vol 232 (Springer Science & Business Media)
Mej[í]{}a-Cort[é]{}s C, Cardona J, Sukhorukov A A and Molina M I 2019 [ *Physical Review E*]{} [**100**]{} 042214
Brazhnyi V A, Jisha C P and Rodrigues A 2013 [*Physical Review A*]{} [**87**]{} 013609
Peschel U, Morandotti R, Arnold J M, Aitchison J S, Eisenberg H S, Silberberg Y, Pertsch T and Lederer F 2002 [*JOSA B*]{} [**19**]{} 2637–2644
Lederer F, Stegeman G I, Christodoulides D N, Assanto G, Segev M and Silberberg Y 2008 [*Physics Reports*]{} [**463**]{} 1–126
Ahufinger V, Sanpera A, Pedri P, Santos L and Lewenstein M 2004 [*Physical Review A*]{} [**69**]{} 053604
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The reactions $p+d\to p+p(\gamma n)$ and $p+d\to p+ d(\gamma)$ at 305 MeV are studied with the aim to search for supernarrow dibaryons. The experiments were carried out at the Moscow Meson Factory using a spectrometer TAMS, which detected two charged particles at various angles. Narrow structures in missing-mass spectra at 1905 and 1924 MeV have been observed. An analysis of the angular dependence of the experimental data shows that the resonance at $M$=1905 MeV most likely corresponds to the production of the isovector supernarrow dibaryon.'
author:
- |
L.V. Fil’kov$^a$, V.L. Kashevarov$^a$, E.S. Konobeevskiy$^b$,\
M.V. Mordovskoy$^b$, S.I. Potashev$^b$, V.M. Skorkin$^b$\
$a$ – [*Lebedev Physical Institute, Moscow, Russia*]{}\
$b$ – [*Institute of Nuclear Research, Moscow, Russia*]{}
title: 'Study of supernarrow dibaryon production in process $pd\to pX$'
---
=16.5cm =-1cm
Recently, a number of works have appeared in which narrow dibaryons were searched for in experiments on collisions of the nucleon and a few-body system at intermediate energies [@kom].
Early, we carried out measurements of missing-mass spectra in the reactions $pd\to pX\to pd(\gamma)$ and $pd\to pX\to pp(n\gamma)$ at an incident proton energy of 305 MeV [@filk1] using a double-arm spectrometer. The narrow structure in the missing-mass spectrum at 1905 MeV with a width equal to the experimental resolution 7 MeV was observed in this experiment.
Now, we present further results of the study of the reactions under consideration with the improved facility. The experiments were performed with the proton accelerator of the Moscow Meson Factory at 305 MeV. A proton beam alternately bombarded CD$_2$ and $^{12}$C targets. The $pd$-reaction contribution was determined by subtraction of the $^{12}$C spectrum from the CD$_2$ one. The two-arm spectrometer TAMS detected the scattered proton in coincidence with the second charged particle ($p$ or $d$).
The left movable spectrometer arm, being a single telescope $\Delta E-\Delta E-E$, was used to measure the energy and time of flight of the scattered proton at $\theta_L=72.5^{\circ}$ (or $70^{\circ}$ in another run). The right fixed arm detected the proton or the deuteron from the expected dibaryon decay. It consisted of three telescopes, which were located at $\theta_R=33^{\circ}$, $35^{\circ}$, and $37^{\circ}$. These angles correspond to the directions of motion of the produced dibaryons with the chosen mass ranges. Each telescope included a full absorption detector and two thin plastic $\Delta E$ detectors for a time-of-flight measurement. A trigger was generated by a coincidence of the $\Delta E$ detector signals of the left arm with those of any right-arm telescope. Selected by a coincidence, the $E$-signals of the scattered proton form its energy spectrum and, accordingly, a missing-mass spectrum. The spectrometer was calibrated using the peak of elastic $pd$ scattering [@ald].
The experimental missing-mass spectra obtained on the targets of deuteried polyethylene and carbon are shown in Figs. $1a-1c$. Each spectrum corresponds to a certain combination of outgoing angles of the scattered proton and the second charged particle. These combinations in Figs. $1b$ and $1c$ are consistent with the change in the emission angle $\theta_R$ of a dibaryon with the given mass when the angle $\theta_L$ is equal to $70^{\circ}$ or $72,5^{\circ}$. As evident from Fig. 1, resonance-like behavior of the spectra is observed in two mass regions for the CD$_2$ target, while the spectra for the carbon target are smooth enough [@izv].
There are $58\pm 13$ events in the peak at $1905\pm 2$ MeV which is shown in Fig. $1b$. The statistical significance of this resonance is 4.5 standard deviations. The spectrum in Fig. $1a$ shows the other peak with the mass $M=1924\pm 2$ MeV containing $79\pm 16$ events. The statistical significance of this structure is 4.7 S.D. The widths of both observed peaks correspond to the experimental resolution (3 MeV). The peak at 1924 MeV was only obtained for one spectrum close to the upper limit of the missing mass. In the other cases, this mass position was out of the range of measurement. Therefore, in the present work, we restrict ourselves only to an analysis of the peak at 1905 MeV.
The experimental missing-mass spectra in the range of 1895–1913 MeV, after subtracting the carbon contributions, are shown in Figs. $2a-2c$.
As seen from Figs. 1 and 2, the resonance behaviour of the cross section exhibits itself in a limited angular region.
If the observed structure at $M=1905$ MeV corresponds to a dibaryon decayed mainly into two nucleons, then the expected angular cone size of the emitted nucleons would be about 50$^{\circ}$. Moreover, the angular distributions of the emitted nucleons are expected to be very smooth in the angle region under consideration. Thus, even assuming the dibaryon production cross section to be equal to an elastic scattering one (40 $\mu$b/sr), their contribution to the missing-mass spectra in Fig. $2a-2c$ would be nearly the same and would not exceed a few events. Hence, the found peaks are hardly interpreted as a manifestation of the formation and the decay of such states.
In [@filk2; @ak; @ger; @al1] supernarrow dibaryons were considered, whose decay into two nucleons is suppressed by the Pauli exclusion principle. Such states with a mass $M<2m_N + m_{\pi}$ ($m_N$ and $m_{\pi}$ are the masses of the nucleon and the pion) can decay mainly with a photon emission.
Using the Monte Carlo simulation, we estimated the contribution of the supernarrow dibaryons with different quantum numbers and $M$=1905 MeV to the mass spectra at various angles of the left and right arms of our setup. The production cross section and branching ratio of these states were taken from [@filk1]. The obtained results are listed in the table.
-------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
$31^{\circ}$ $33^{\circ}$ $35^{\circ}$ $37^{\circ}$ $39^{\circ}$ $31^{\circ}$ $33^{\circ}$ $35^{\circ}$ $37^{\circ}$ $39^{\circ}$
$0,0^+\;\gamma pn$ 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 1
$0,0^+\;\gamma d $ 0 11 5 10 0 1 7 10 0 0
$0,0^-\;\gamma pn$ 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
$0,0^-\;\gamma d $ 0 6 3 5 0 1 4 5 0 0
$1,1^+\;\gamma pn$ 5 16 24 15 4 14 29 24 7 2
$1,1^-\;\gamma pn$ 9 36 53 33 8 31 64 52 15 4
-------------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- --------------
: The expected contributions of the supernarrow dibaryons into the mass spectra at various angles of the left and right arms of the setup.
This calculation showed that the angular cone of charged particles emitted from a certain dibaryonic state can be narrow enough. An axe of this cone is lined up with the direction of the dibaryon emission. Therefore, by placing the right spectrometer arm at an expected angle of the dibaryon emission, we essentially increase the signal-to-background ratio.
In Fig. $2a-2c$, the experimental spectra are compared with the predicted yields normalized to the maximum of the measured signal in Fig. $2b$. The solid and dashed curves in this figure correspond to states with isospin $T$=1 and $T$=0, respectively.
As seen from this figure and the table, the ratios of the calculated contributions to the given spectra are expected to be $0.3:1: 0.7$ if the state at 1905 MeV is interpreted as an isovector dibaryon \[$D(T=1,J^P=1^{+})$ or $D(1,1^-)$\]. This is in agreement with our experimental data within the errors. On the contrary, the signals from isoscalar dibaryons \[$D(0,0^+)$ or $D(0,0^-)$\] could be observed in Figs. $2b$ and $2c$ with the same probability.
The following conclusions could be drawn : 1) as a result of the study of the reactions $pd\to pd(\gamma)$ and $pd\to pp(\gamma n)$, two narrow structures at 1905 and 1924 MeV with widths of less than 3 MeV were observed in the missing-mass spectra; 2) the analysis of the angular dependence of the experimental and theoretical yields of the reactions under consideration showed that the found peak at 1905 MeV can be explained as the manifestation of the supernarrow dibaryons, the decay of which into two nucleons is suppressed by the Pauli exclusion principle; 3) it is most likely that the observed state has a isospin equal to 1.
[9]{} Komarov E.N., Proc. XI Int. Seminar on High Energy Physics Problem, Dubna, 1994, p.321. Fil’kov L.V., Konobeevski E.S., Mordovskoy M.V., Potashev S.I., and Skorkin V.M., Preprint of Institute for Nuclear Research, Russ. Acad. Sci., Moscow, 1996, No. 0923/96. J.C. Alder J.C. et al., Phys.Rev. C [**6**]{} (1972) 2010. Konobeevski E.S., Mordovskoy M.V., Potashev S.I et al., Izv. Akad. Nauk, Ser. Fiz., [**62**]{} (1998) 2171. Fil’kov L.V., Sov.J.Nucl.Phys. [**47**]{} (1988) 437. Akhmedov D.M., Fil’kov L.V., Nucl.Phys. A [**544**]{} (1992) 692. Gerasimov S.B., Ershov S.N., Khrykin A.S., Phys.At.Nucl. [**58**]{} (1995) 844. Alekseyev V.M., Cherepnya S.N., Fil’kov L.V., Kashevarov V.L., Preprint of Lebedev Inst. of Physics, Russ. Acad. Sci., Moscow, 1996, No 52; Kratk. Soobshch. Fiz., FIAN, No [**1**]{} (1998) 28.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We construct spaces of quantum increasing sequences, which give quantum families of maps in the sense of So[ł]{}tan. We then introduce a notion of quantum spreadability for a sequence of noncommutative random variables, by requiring their joint distribution to be invariant under taking quantum subsequences. Our main result is a free analogue of a theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski: for an infinite sequence of noncommutative random variables, quantum spreadability is equivalent to free independence and identical distribution with respect to a conditional expectation.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.'
author:
- Stephen Curran
title: A characterization of freeness by invariance under quantum spreading
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The study of random objects with distributional symmetries is an important subject in modern probability. Consider a sequence $(\xi_1,\xi_2,\dotsc)$ of random variables. Such a sequence is called *exchangeable* if its distribution is invariant under finite permutations, and *spreadable* if it is invariant under taking subsequences, i.e., if $$(\xi_1,\dotsc,\xi_k) \stackrel{d}{\sim} (\xi_{l_1},\dotsc,\xi_{l_k})$$ for all $k \in {\mathbb N}$ and $l_1 < \dotsb < l_k$. In the 1930’s, de Finetti gave his famous characterization of infinite exchangeable sequences of random variables taking values in $\{0,1\}$ as conditionally i.i.d. This was extended to variables taking values in a compact Hausdorff space by Hewitt and Savage [@hs]. It was later discovered by Ryll-Nardzewski that de Finetti’s theorem in fact holds under the apparently weaker condition of spreadability [@rn]. For a comprehensive treatment of distributional symmetries in classical probability, the reader is referred to the recent text of Kallenberg [@kal].
Free probability, developed by Voiculescu in the 1980’s, is based on the notion of *free independence* for random variables with the highest degree of noncommutativity. Remarkably, there is a deep parallel between the theories of classical and free probability. However, it is only quite recently that this parallel has been extended to the study of distributional symmetries. The breakthrough came with the work of Köstler and Speicher [@ksp], who discovered that, roughly speaking, in free probability one should consider *quantum* distributional symmetries. More specifically, they defined the notion of *quantum exchangeability* for a sequence $(x_1,x_2,\dotsc)$ of noncommutative random variables by requiring that for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$, the joint distribution of $(x_1,\dotsc,x_n)$ is invariant under the natural action of the *quantum permutation group* $A_s(n)$ of Wang [@wang2]. They then gave a free analogue of de Finetti’s theorem: for an infinite sequence of noncommutative random variables, quantum exchangeability is equivalent to free independence and identical distribution with respect to a conditional expectation. This has since been extended to more general sequences [@cur3], and to sequences invariant under actions of other compact quantum groups [@cur4; @bcs2]. (See also [@kos] for a detailed analysis of exchangeability and spreadability for sequences of noncommutative random variables).
The purpose of the present paper is to develop a notion of *quantum spreadability* for sequences of noncommutative random variables. The first problem is to find a suitable quantum analogue of an increasing sequence. The answer which we suggest here is similar to Wang’s notion of a quantum permutation. For natural numbers $k \leq n$ we construct certain universal C$^*$-algebras $A_i(k,n)$, which we call *quantum increasing sequence spaces*, whose spectrum is naturally identified with the space of increasing sequences $1 \leq l_1 < \dotsb < l_k \leq n$. These objects form *quantum families of maps*, in the sense of So[ł]{}tan [@soltan], from $\{1,\dotsc,k\}$ into $\{1,\dotsc,n\}$. Quantum spreadability is naturally defined as invariance under these familes of quantum transformations. This approach is justified by our main result, which is a free analogue of the Ryll-Nardzewski theorem for quantum spreadable sequences (see Sections \[background\] and \[qinvariant\] for definitions and motivating examples):
\[mainthm\] Let $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ be an infinite sequence of unital $*$-homomorphisms from a unital $*$-algebra $C$ into a tracial W$^*$-probability space $(M,\tau)$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is quantum exchangeable.
2. $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is quantum spreadable.
3. $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is freely independent and identically distributed with respect to the conditional expectation $E$ onto the tail algebra $$B = \bigcap_{n \geq 1} W^*\bigl(\{\rho_i(c): c \in C, i \geq n\}\bigr).$$
The equivalence of (i) and (iii) is the main result of [@ksp] in the case $C = {\mathbb C}[t]$, and was shown for general $C$ in [@cur3].
Observe that Theorem \[mainthm\] holds only for infinite sequences. In [@cur3], we have given an approximation to how far a finite quantum exchangeable sequence is from being free with amalgamation. As in the classical case, finite quantum spreadable sequences are more difficult, and we will not attempt an analysis here. For a treatment of classical finite spreadable sequences, see [@kal2].
Our paper is organized as follows. Section \[background\] contains notations and preliminaries. We recall the basic notions from free probability, and introduce Wang’s quantum permutation group $A_s(n)$. In Section \[qinc\], we introduce the algebras $A_i(k,n)$ and prove some basic results. In particular we show that $A_i(k,n)$ is a quotient of $A_s(n)$. In Section \[qinvariant\], we introduce the notions of quantum exchangeability and spreadability, and prove the implications (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) and (iii) $\Rightarrow$ (i) of Theorem \[mainthm\]. These implications hold in fact for finite sequences, and in a purely algebraic context. We complete the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\] in Section 4, by showing the implication (ii) $\Rightarrow$ (iii).
Background and notations {#background}
========================
**Notations**. Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra. Given an index set $I$, we let $$C_I = \mathop{\ast}_{i \in I} C^{(i)}$$ denote the free product (with amalgamation over ${\mathbb C}$), where for each $i \in I$, $C^{(i)}$ is an isomorphic copy of $C$. For $c \in C$ and $i \in I$ we denote the image of $c$ in $C^{(i)}$ as $c^{(i)}$. The universal property of the free product is that given a unital $*$-algebra $A$ and a family $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ to $A$, there is a unique unital $*$-homomorphism from $C_I$ to $A$, which we denote by $\rho$, such that $\rho(c^{(i)}) = \rho_i(c)$ for $c \in C$ and $i \in I$. We will mostly be interested in the case that $I = \{1,\dotsc,n\}$, in which case we denote $C_I$ by $C_n$, and $I = {\mathbb N}$ in which case we denote $C_I = C_\infty$.
**Free Probability.** We begin by recalling some basic notions from free probability, the reader is referred to [@vdn],[@ns] for further information.
1. A *noncommutative probability space* is a pair $(A,\varphi)$, where $A$ is a unital $*$-algebra and $\varphi$ is a state on $A$.
2. A *W$^*$-probability space* is a pair $(M,\tau)$, where $M$ is a von Neumann algebra and $\tau$ is a faithful normal state which is tracial, i.e., $\tau(xy) = \tau(yx)$ for $x,y \in M$.
Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra, $(A,\varphi)$ a noncommutative probability space and $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ a family of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ to $A$. The *joint distribution* of the family $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ is the state $\varphi_\rho$ on $C_I$ defined by $\varphi_\rho = \varphi \circ \rho$. $\varphi_\rho$ is determined by the *moments* $$\varphi_\rho(c_1^{(i_1)}\dotsb c_k^{(i_k)}) = \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k)),$$ where $c_1,\dotsc,c_k \in C$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_k \in I$.
\[motivation\]*Examples.*
1. Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}}, P)$ be a probability space, let $(S,{\mathcal{S}})$ be a measure space and $(\xi)_{i \in I}$ a family of $S$-valued random variables on $\Omega$. Let $A = L^{\infty}(\Omega)$, and let $\varphi:A \to {\mathbb C}$ be the expectation functional $$\varphi(f) = {\mathbb{E}}[f].$$ Let $C$ be the algebra of bounded, complex-valued, ${\mathcal{S}}$-measurable functions on $S$. For $i \in I$, define $\rho_i:C \to A$ by $\rho_i(f) = f \circ \xi_i$. Then $\varphi_\rho$ is determined by $$\varphi_\rho(f_1^{(i_1)}\dotsb f_k^{(i_k)}) = {\mathbb{E}}[ f_1(\xi_{i_1})\dotsb f_k(\xi_{i_k})]$$ for $f_1,\dotsc,f_k \in C$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_k \in I$.
2. Let $C = {\mathbb C}[t]$, and let $(x_i)_{i \in I}$ be a family of self-adjoint random variables in $A$. Define $\rho_i:C \to A$ to be the unique unital $*$-homomorphism such that $\rho_i(t) = x_i$. Then $C_I = C \langle t_i: i \in I\rangle$, and we recover the usual definitions of the joint distribution and moments of the family $(x_i)_{i \in I}$.
These definitions have natural “operator-valued” extensions given by replacing ${\mathbb C}$ by a more general algebra of scalars. This is the right setting for the notion of freeness with amalgamation, which is the analogue of conditional independence in free probability.
A *$B$-valued probability space* $(A,E)$ consists of a unital $*$-algebra $A$, a $*$-subalgebra $1 \in B \subset A$, and a conditional expectation $E:A \to B$, i.e., $E$ is a linear map such that $E[1] = 1$ and $$E[b_1ab_2] = b_1E[a]b_2$$ for all $b_1,b_2 \in B$ and $a \in A$.
\[bvalued\] Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra, $(A,E)$ a $B$-valued probability space and $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ a family of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into $A$.
1. We let $C_I^{B}$ denote the free product over $i \in I$, with amalgamation over $B$, of $C^{(i)} * B$, which is naturally isomorphic to $C_I * B$. For each $i \in I$, we extend $\rho_i$ to a unital $*$-homomorphism $\widetilde \rho_i:C * B \to A$ by setting $\widetilde \rho_i = \rho_i * \mathrm{id}$. We then let $\widetilde \rho$ denote the induced unital $*$-homomorphism from $C_I^{B}$ into $A$, which is naturally identified with $\rho *\mathrm{id}$. Explicitly, we have $$\widetilde \rho(b_0c_1^{(i_1)}b_1\dotsb c_k^{(i_k)}b_k) = b_0\rho_{i_1}(c_1)b_1\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k)b_k$$ for $b_0,\dotsc,b_k \in B$, $c_1,\dotsc,c_k \in C$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_k \in I$.
2. The *$B$-valued joint distribution* of the family $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ is the linear map $E_\rho:C_I * B \to B$ defined by $E_\rho = E \circ \widetilde \rho$. $E_\rho$ is determined by the *$B$-valued moments* $$E_\rho[b_0c_1^{(i_1)}\dotsb c_k^{(i_k)}b_k] = E[b_0\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k)b_k]$$ for $c_1,\dotsc,c_k \in C$, $b_0,\dotsc,b_k \in B$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_k \in I$.
3. The family $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ is called *identically distributed with respect to $E$* if $E \circ \widetilde \rho_i = E \circ \widetilde \rho_j$ for all $i,j \in I$. This is equivalent to the condition that $$E[b_0\rho_i(c_1)\dotsb \rho_i(c_k)b_k] = E[b_0\rho_j(c_1)\dotsb \rho_j(c_k)b_k]$$ for any $i,j \in I$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_k \in C$, $b_0,\dotsc,b_k \in B$.
4. The family $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ is called *freely independent with respect to $E$*, or *free with amalgamation over $B$*, if $$E[\widetilde \rho_{i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde \rho_{i_k}(\beta_k)] = 0$$ whenever $i_1 \neq \dotsb \neq i_k \in I$, $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_k \in C * B$ and $E[\widetilde \rho_{i_l}(\beta_l)] = 0$ for $1 \leq l \leq k$.
Voiculescu introduced the notion of freeness with amalgamation and developed its basic theory in [@voi0]. Freeness with amalgamation also has a rich combinatorial structure developed by Speicher [@sp1]. The basic objects, which we will now recall, are non-crossing set partitions and free cumulants. For further information on the combinatorial aspects of free probability, the reader is referred to the text [@ns].
1. A *partition* $\pi$ of a set $S$ is a collection of disjoint, non-empty sets $V_1,\dotsc,V_r$ such that $V_1 \cup \dotsb \cup V_r = S$. $V_1,\dotsc,V_r$ are called the *blocks* of $\pi$, and we set $|\pi| = r$. The collection of partitions of $S$ will be denoted ${\mathcal{P}}(S)$, or in the case that $S =\{1,\dotsc,k\}$ by ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$.
2. If $S$ is ordered, we say that $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}(S)$ is *non-crossing* if whenever $V,W$ are blocks of $\pi$ and $s_1 < t_1 < s_2 < t_2$ are such that $s_1,s_2 \in V$ and $t_1,t_2 \in W$, then $V = W$. The set of non-crossing partitions of $S$ is denoted by $NC(S)$, or by $NC(k)$ in the case that $S = \{1,\dotsc,k\}$.
3. The non-crossing partitions can also be defined recursively, a partition $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}(S)$ is non-crossing if and only if it has a block $V$ which is an interval, such that $\pi \setminus V$ is a non-crossing partition of $S \setminus V$.
4. Given $\pi,\sigma \in {\mathcal{P}}(S)$, we say that $\pi \leq \sigma$ if each block of $\pi$ is contained in a block of $\sigma$.
5. Given $i_1,\dotsc,i_k$ in some index set $I$, we denote by $\ker \mathbf i$ the element of ${\mathcal{P}}(k)$ whose blocks are the equivalence classes of the relation $$s \sim t \Leftrightarrow i_s= i_t.$$ Note that if $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}(k)$, then $\pi \leq \ker \mathbf i$ is equivalent to the condition that whenever $s$ and $t$ are in the same block of $\pi$, $i_s$ must equal $i_t$.
Let $(A,E)$ be a $B$-valued probability space.
1. For each $k \in {\mathbb N}$, let $\rho^{(k)}:A^{\otimes_B k} \to B$ be a linear map (the tensor product is with respect to the natural $B-B$ bimodule structure on $A$). For $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\pi \in NC(n)$, we define a linear map $\rho^{(\pi)}: A^{\otimes_B n} \to B$ recursively as follows. If $\pi$ has only one block, we set $$\rho^{(\pi)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n] = \rho^{(n)}(a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n)$$ for any $a_1,\dotsc,a_n \in A$. Otherwise, let $V = \{l+1,\dotsc,l+s\}$ be an interval of $\pi$. We then define, for any $a_1,\dotsc,a_n \in A$, $$\rho^{(\pi)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n] = \rho^{(\pi \setminus V)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_{l}\cdot \rho^{(s)}(a_{l+1} \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_{l+s}) \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n].$$ For example, if $$\pi = \{\{1,5,8\},\{2,4\},\{3\},\{6,7\},\{9,10\}\} \in NC(10),$$ $$\setlength{\unitlength}{0.6cm} \begin{picture}(9,4)\thicklines \put(0,0){\line(0,1){3}}
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){7}} \put(8,0){\line(1,0){1}}\put(9,0){\line(0,1){3}} \put(8,0){\line(0,1){3}} \put(7,0){\line(0,1){3}}
\put(1,1){\line(1,0){2}} \put(3,1){\line(0,1){2}}\put(1,1){\line(0,1){2}} \put(6,1){\line(0,1){2}}
\put(2,2){\line(0,1){1}} \put(3,2){\line(0,1){1}} \put(4,0){\line(0,1){3}}
\put(5,1){\line(0,1){2}} \put(5,1){\line(1,0){1}}
\put(-0.1,3.3){1} \put(0.9,3.3){2} \put(1.9,3.3){3}
\put(2.9,3.3){4} \put(3.9,3.3){5} \put(4.9,3.3){6} \put(5.9,3.3){7} \put(6.9,3.3){8}
\put(7.9,3.3){9} \put(8.7,3.3){10}
\end{picture}$$ then $\rho^{(\pi)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_{10}]$ is given by $$\rho^{(3)}(a_1\cdot \rho^{(2)}(a_2\cdot \rho^{(1)}(a_3) \otimes a_4) \otimes a_5 \cdot \rho^{(2)}(a_6 \otimes a_7) \otimes a_8)\cdot \rho^{(2)}(a_9 \otimes a_{10}).$$
2. For $k \in {\mathbb N}$, define the *$B$-valued moment functions* $E^{(k)}:A^{\otimes_B k} \to B$ by $$E^{(k)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_k] = E[a_1\dotsb a_k].$$
3. The *$B$-valued cumulant functions* $\kappa_E^{(k)}:A^{\otimes_B k} \to B$ are defined recursively for $\pi \in NC(k)$, $k \geq 1$, by the *moment-cumulant formula*: for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a_1,\dotsc,a_n \in A$ we have $$E[a_1\dotsb a_n] = \sum_{\pi \in NC(n)} \kappa_E^{(\pi)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n].$$
The cumulant functions can be solved for in terms of the moment functions by the following formula: for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ and $a_1,\dotsc,a_n \in A$, $$\kappa_E^{(\pi)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n] = \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(n)\\ \sigma \leq \pi}} \mu_n(\sigma,\pi)E^{(\sigma)}[a_1 \otimes \dotsb \otimes a_n],$$ where $\mu_n$ is the *Möbius function* on the partially ordered set $NC(n)$.
The key relation between $B$-valued cumulant functions and free independence with amalgamation is that freeness can be characterized in terms of the “vanishing of mixed cumulants”.
[([@sp1])]{.nodecor} Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra, $(A,E)$ be a $B$-valued probability space and $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ a family of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into $A$. Then the family $(\rho_i)_{i \in I}$ is free with amalgamation over $B$ if and only if $$\kappa_{E}^{(\pi)}[\widetilde \rho_{i_1}(\beta_1)\otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde \rho_{i_k}(\beta_k)] = 0$$ whenever $i_1,\dotsc,i_k \in I$, $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_k \in C * B$ and $\pi \in NC(k)$ is such that $\pi \not\leq \ker \mathbf i$.
\[vancum\] Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra, $(A,E)$ a $B$-valued probability space and $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ a family of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into $A$. Then $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is freely independent and identically distributed with respect to $E$ if and only if $$E[\widetilde \rho_{i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde \rho_{i_k}(\beta_k)] = \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(k)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \kappa_E^{(\pi)}[\widetilde \rho_{1}(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde \rho_{1}(\beta_k)]$$ for every $k \in {\mathbb N}$, $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_k \in C * B$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_k \in I$.
**Quantum Permutation Group.** Wang introduced the following noncommutative analogue of $S_n$ in [@wang2], and showed that it is the quantum automorphism group of a set with $n$ points. For further information see [@bbc],[@bc2].
A matrix $(u_{ij})_{1 \leq i,j, \leq n} \in M_n(A)$, where $A$ is a unital C$^*$-algebra, is called a *magic unitary* if
1. $u_{ij}$ is a projection for each $1 \leq i,j \leq n$.
2. $u_{ik}u_{il} = 0$ and $u_{kj}u_{lj} = 0$ if $1 \leq i,j,k,l \leq n$ and $k \neq l$.
3. For each $1 \leq i,j \leq n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^n u_{ik} &= 1, & \sum_{k=1}^n u_{kj} &= 1.\end{aligned}$$
Note that the second condition in fact follows from the third. The *quantum permutation group* $A_s(n)$ is defined as the universal C$^*$-algebra generated by elements $\{u_{ij}: 1 \leq i,j \leq n\}$ such that $(u_{ij})$ is a magic unitary. $A_s(n)$ is a compact quantum group in the sense of Woronowicz [@wor1], with comultiplication, counit and antipode given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(u_{ij}) &= \sum_{k=1}^n u_{ik} \otimes u_{kj}\\
\epsilon(u_{ij}) &= \delta_{ij}\\
S(u_{ij}) &= u_{ji}.\end{aligned}$$ The existence of these maps is given by the universal property of $A_s(n)$.
Quantum increasing sequences {#qinc}
============================
In this section we introduce objects $A_i(k,n)$ which we call *quantum increasing sequence spaces*. As with Wang’s quantum permutation group, the idea is to find a natural family of coordinates on the space of increasing sequences $1 \leq l_1 < \dotsb < l_k \leq n$ and “remove commutativity”.
For $k, n \in {\mathbb N}$ with $k \leq n$, we define the *quantum increasing sequence space* $A_i(k,n)$ to be the universal unital C$^*$-algebra generated by elements $\{u_{ij}: 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ such that
1. $u_{ij}$ is an orthogonal projection: $u_{ij}^* = u_{ij} = u_{ij}^2$.
2. each column of the rectangular matrix $u = (u_{ij})$ forms a partition of unity: for $1\leq j \leq k$ we have $$\sum_{i = 1}^n u_{ij} = 1.$$
3. increasing sequence condition: $$u_{ij}u_{i'j'} = 0$$ if $j < j'$ and $i \geq i'$.
We note that the algebra $A_i(k,n)$, together with the morphism $\alpha:{\mathbb C}^n \to {\mathbb C}^k \otimes A_{i}(k,n)$ defined by $$\alpha(e_i) = \sum_{j=1}^k e_j \otimes u_{ij},$$ gives a *quantum family of maps* from $\{1,\dotsc,k\}$ to $\{1,\dotsc,n\}$, in the sense of So[ł]{}tan [@soltan].
The motivation for the above definition is as follows. Consider the space $I_{k,n}$ of increasing sequences $\mathbf{l} = (1 \leq l_1 < \dotsb < l_k \leq n)$. For $1 \leq i \leq n$, $1 \leq j \leq k$, define $f_{ij}:I_{k,n} \to {\mathbb C}$ by $$f_{ij}(\mathbf l) = \begin{cases} 1, &l_{j} = i\\0, &l_j \neq i\end{cases}.$$ The functions $f_{ij}$ generate $C(I_{k,n})$ by the Stone-Weierstrass theorem, and clearly satisfy the defining relations among the $u_{ij}$ above. Moreover, it can be seen from the Gelfand theory that $C(I_{k,n})$ is the universal *commutative* C$^*$-algebra generated by $\{f_{ij}: 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ satisfying these relations. In other words, $C(I_{k,n})$ is the abelianization of $A_i(k,n)$.
A first question is whether $A_i(k,n)$ can be larger than $C(I_{k,n})$, i.e., “do quantum increasing sequences exist”? Clearly $A_i(k,n)$ is commutative and hence equal to $C(I_{k,n})$ for $k =1$. Using Lemma \[zcoords\] below, it is not hard to see that $A_i(k,n)$ is also commutative at $k = n$ and $n-1$. In particular we have $A_i(k,n) = C(I_{k,n})$ whenever $n \leq 3$.
However, if $p,q$ are arbitrary projections in any unital C$^*$-algebra then the following gives a representation of $A_i(2,4)$: $$\begin{pmatrix}
p & 0\\
1-p & 0\\
0 & q\\
0 & 1-q
\end{pmatrix}$$ In particular, the free product $C({\mathbb Z}_2) * C({\mathbb Z}_2)$ is a quotient of $A_i(2,4)$ and hence $A_i(2,4)$ is infinite-dimensional.
Observe that if $(1 \leq l_1 < \dotsb < l_k \leq n)$ then we must have $l_{j'} - l_{j} \geq j' - j$ for $1 \leq j \leq j' \leq k$. In terms of the coordinates $f_{ij}$ on $C(I_{k,n})$, this means that $f_{ij}f_{i'j'} = 0$ if $i' -i < j' - j$. This relation also holds for the coordinates $u_{ij}$ on $A_i(k,n)$, which will be useful to our further analysis.
\[zcoords\] Fix $k,n \in {\mathbb N}$ with $k \leq n$, and let $\{u_{ij}:1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ be the standard generators of $A_i(k,n)$. Then
1. $u_{ij}u_{i'j'} = 0$ if $1 \leq j \leq j' \leq k$ and $i' - i < j'-j$.
2. $u_{ij} = 0$ unless $j \leq i \leq n-k+j$, or equivalently $k+i - n \leq j \leq i$.
\(1) is trivial for $j=j'$, so fix $1 \leq j < j' \leq k$ and set $m = j'-j-1 \geq 0$. Then we have $$u_{ij}u_{i'j'} = u_{ij} \biggl(\prod_{l=1}^{m} \sum_{i_l=1}^n u_{i_l(j+l)}\biggr) u_{i'j'} = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_{m} \leq n} u_{ij}u_{i_1(j+1)}\dotsb u_{i_m(j+m)}u_{i'(j+m+1)}.$$ From the increasing sequence condition, each term in the sum is zero unless $i < i_1 < \dotsb < i_m < i'$, which implies $i' - i \geq m+1 = j'-j$.
For (2), note that from (1) we have $u_{l1}u_{ij} = 0$ if $i-l < j-1$, or equivalently $l > i-j + 1$. So if $i < j$ then $u_{l1}u_{ij} = 0$ for $l=1,\dotsc,n$ and we then have $$u_{ij} = \biggl(\sum_{l=1}^n u_{l1}\biggr) \cdot u_{ij} = 0.$$ Likewise we have $u_{ij}u_{lk} = 0$ if $l < k+i-j$, so if $i > n-k+j$ then this holds for $l =1,\dotsc,n$ and $$u_{ij} = u_{ij} \cdot \biggl(\sum_{l=1}^n u_{lk}\biggr) = 0,$$ which completes the proof.
Now observe that any increasing sequence $1 \leq l_1 < \dotsb < l_k \leq n$ can be extended to a permutation in $S_n$ which sends $j$ to $l_j$ for $1 \leq j \leq k$. One way to create such an extension is to set $\pi(j) = l_j$ for $1 \leq j \leq k$, then inductively define $\pi(k+m)$, for $m=1,\dotsc,n-k$, by setting $\pi(k+m)$ to be the least element of $\{1,\dotsc,n\} \setminus\{\pi(1),\dotsc,\pi(k+m-1)\}$. After a moment’s thought, one sees that $m \leq \pi(k+m) \leq m+k$ and that $\pi(k+m) = m +p$ exactly when $l_{p} < m+p$ but $l_{p+1} > m+p$ for $1 \leq m \leq n-k$ and $0 \leq p \leq k$, where we set $l_0 = -\infty, l_{k+1} = \infty$.
This gives an inclusion of the space $I_{k,n}$ of increasing sequences into $S_n$, which dualizes to a unital $*$-homomorphism $C(S_n) \to C(I_{k,n})$. Consider the natural coordinates $\{f_{ij}: 1\leq i,j \leq n\}$ on $S_n$ and $\{g_{ij}: 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ on $I_{k,n}$. Clearly this map sends $f_{ij}$ to $g_{ij}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, $1 \leq j \leq k$. From the remark at the end of the previous paragraph, it follows that $f_{i(k+m)}$ is sent to 0 unless $i = m+p$ for some $0 \leq p \leq k$, and that $$f_{(m+p)(k+m)} \mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m+p-1} g_{ip} - g_{(i+1)(p+1)},$$ where we set $g_{00} = 1$ and $g_{i0} =g_{0i} = g_{i(k+1)} = 0$ for $i \geq 1$.
For example, when $k=2$ and $n = 4$ the matrix $(f_{ij})$ is as follows: $$\begin{pmatrix}
g_{11} & 0 & 1-g_{11} & 0\\
g_{21} & g_{22} & g_{11}-g_{22} & 1-g_{11}-g_{21}\\
g_{31} & g_{32} & g_{22} & g_{11}+g_{21} - g_{22} - g_{32}\\
0 & g_{42} & 0 & g_{22}+g_{32}
\end{pmatrix}$$
We can now use this formula to define a $*$-homomorphism from $A_s(n)$ to $A_i(k,n)$, which we might think of as “extending quantum increasing sequences to quantum permutations”.
\[qext\] Fix natural numbers $k < n$. Let $\{v_{ij}: 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$, $\{u_{ij}: 1 \leq i,j \leq n\}$ be the standard generators of $A_i(k,n)$, $A_s(n)$, respectively. Then there is a unique unital $*$-homomorphism from $A_s(n)$ to $A_i(k,n)$ determined by
- $u_{ij} \mapsto v_{ij}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, $1 \leq j \leq k$.
- $u_{i(k+m)} \mapsto 0$ for $1 \leq m \leq n-k$ and $i < m$ or $i > m+k$.
- For $1 \leq m \leq n-k$ and $0 \leq p \leq k$, $$u_{(m+p)(k+m)} \mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m+p-1} v_{ip} - v_{(i+1)(p+1)},$$ where we set $v_{00} = 1$ and $v_{i0} = v_{0i} = v_{i(k+1)} = 0$ for $i \geq 1$.
Let $(v_{ij})$ be the standard generators of $A_i(k,n)$, and define $\{u_{ij}: 1 \leq i,j \leq n\}$ in $A_i(k,n)$ by
- $u_{ij} = v_{ij}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, $1 \leq j \leq k$.
- $u_{i(k+m)} = 0$ for $1 \leq m \leq n-k$ and $i < m$ or $i > m+k$.
- For $1 \leq m \leq n-k$ and $0 \leq p \leq k$, $$u_{(m+p)(k+m)} = \sum_{i=0}^{m+p-1} v_{ip} - v_{(i+1)(p+1)},$$ where we set $v_{00} = 1$ and $v_{i0} = v_{0i} = v_{i(k+1)} = 0$ for $i \geq 1$.
We need to show that $(u_{ij})_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}$ satisfies the magic unitary condition, and the result will then follow from the universal property of $A_s(n)$.
First let us check that $u_{ij}$ is an orthogonal projection for $1 \leq i,j \leq n$. The only non-trivial case is $u_{(m+p)(k+m)}$ for $1 \leq m \leq n-k$ and $0 \leq p \leq k$. Here we just need to check that $$v_{l(p+1)} \leq \sum_{i=0}^{m+p-1} v_{ip}$$ for $1 \leq l \leq m+p$. The cases $p = 0, k$ are trivial, so let $0 < p < k$. We have $$v_{l(p+1)} = v_{l(p+1)} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^n v_{ip} = v_{l(p+1)} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{l-1} v_{ip},$$ where we have applied the increasing sequence condition $v_{l(p+1)}v_{ip} = 0$ for $i \geq l$. So we have $$v_{l(p+1)} \leq \sum_{i=1}^{l-1} v_{ip} \leq \sum_{i=0}^{m+p-1} v_{ip}$$ as desired.
Now we need to check that the sum along any row or column of $(u_{ij})$ gives the identity. For the first $k$ columns, this follows from the defining relations of $v_{ij}$. For $m= 1,\dotsc,n-k$, the sum along column $k+m$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=1}^n u_{l(k+m)} &= \sum_{p=0}^{k} u_{(m+p)(k+m)} \\
&= \sum_{p=0}^k \sum_{i=0}^{m+p-1}v_{ip} - v_{(i+1)(p+1)}\\\end{aligned}$$ Now since $v_{ip} = v_{(i+1)(p+1)} = 0$ if $i < p$, we continue with $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{p=0}^k \sum_{i=p}^{m+p-1}v_{ip} - v_{(i+1)(p+1)} &= \sum_{p =0}^k \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} v_{(i+p)p} - v_{(i+p+1)(p+1)}\\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \sum_{p=0}^k v_{(i+p)p} - v_{(i+p+1)(p+1)}\\
&= \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} v_{i0} - v_{(i+k+1)(k+1)}\\
&= 1,\end{aligned}$$ since the only nonzero term in the last sum is $v_{00} = 1$.
It now remains only to show that the sum along any row of $(u_{ij})$ gives the identity. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=1}^n u_{ij} &= \sum_{j=1}^k u_{ij} + \sum_{m = 1}^{n-k} \sum_{\substack{0 \leq p \leq k\\ m +p = i}} u_{i(k+m)}\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^k u_{ij} + \sum_{m= \max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} u_{i(k+m)}\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^k v_{ij} + \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} \sum_{l=0}^{i-1} v_{l(i-m)}-v_{(l+1)(i-m+1)}\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^k v_{ij} + \biggl(\; \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} v_{0(i-m)}-v_{i(i-m+1)}\biggr) + \sum_{l=1}^{i-1} \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} v_{l(i-m)}-v_{l(i-m+1)}\\
&= \sum_{j=1}^k v_{ij} + \biggl(\; \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} v_{0(i-m)}-v_{i(i-m+1)}\biggr) + \sum_{l=1}^{i-1} v_{l\max\{0,k+i-n\}} - v_{l\min\{k+1,i\}}.\end{aligned}$$ Now note that if $1 \leq l \leq i-1$ then $v_{l\min\{k+1,i\}} = 0$, indeed this is true by definition if $\min\{k+1,i\} = k+1$, and if $\min\{k+1,i\} = i$ then $v_{li} = 0$ since $l < i$. Also we have $v_{ij} = 0$ unless $k+i-n \leq j \leq i$. Plugging this in above and rearranging terms, we have $$\sum_{j = \max\{1,k+i-n\}}^{\min\{k,i\}}v_{ij} - \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} v_{i(i-m+1)} + \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} v_{0(i-m)} + \sum_{l=1}^{i-1} v_{l\max\{0,k+i-n\}}.$$ After reindexing the second sum and combining with the first, we obtain $$\sum_{j=\max\{1,k+i-n\}}^{\max\{1,k+i+1-n\}-1} v_{ij} + \sum_{m=\max\{i-k,1\}}^{\min\{i,n-k\}} v_{0(i-m)} + \sum_{l=1}^{i-1} v_{l\max\{0,k+i-n\}}.$$ Now if $i \leq n-k$, then the first and third sums are zero while the second is 1. If $i > n - k$ then the second sum is zero and the first and third combine as $$\sum_{l=1}^{i}v_{l(k+i-n)}.$$ Now since $v_{l(k+i-n)} = 0$ if $l > n - k + (k+i-n) = i$, we have $$\sum_{l=1}^{i}v_{l(k+i-n)} = \sum_{l=1}^{n}v_{l(k+i-n)} = 1.$$ So $(u_{ij})$ does indeed satisfy the magic unitary condition, which completes the proof.
Quantum invariant sequences of random variables {#qinvariant}
===============================================
In this section we introduce the notions of quantum exchangeability and quantum spreadability for sequences of noncommutative random variables, and prove the implications (i)$ \Rightarrow$ (ii) and (iii) $\Rightarrow$ (i) in Theorem \[mainthm\]. First let us recall the notion of quantum exchangeability from [@ksp] (see also [@cur3]).
Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra. For each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ there is a unique unital $*$-homomorphism $\alpha_n:C_n \to C_n \otimes A_s(n)$ determined by $$\alpha_n(c^{(j)}) = \sum_{i=1}^n c^{(i)} \otimes u_{ij}$$ for $c \in C$ and $1 \leq j \leq n$, indeed this follows from the relations in $A_s(n)$ and the universal property of the free product $C_n = C^{(1)} * \dotsb * C^{(n)}$. Moreover $\alpha_n$ is a right coaction of $A_s(n)$ in the sense that $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha_n \otimes \mathrm{id}) \circ \alpha_n &= (\mathrm{id} \otimes \alpha_n) \circ \alpha_n\\
(\mathrm{id} \otimes \epsilon) \circ \alpha_n &= \mathrm{id},\end{aligned}$$ see [@cur3] for details. The coaction $\alpha_n$ may be regarded as “quantum permuting” the $n$ copies of $C$ inside $C_n$.
Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra, $(A,\varphi)$ a noncommutative probability space and $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ a sequence of unital $*$-homomorphisms of $C$ into $A$. We say that the distribution $\varphi_\rho$ is *invariant under quantum permutations*, or that the sequence is *quantum exchangeable*, if $\varphi_\rho$ is invariant under the coaction $\alpha_n$, i.e., $$(\varphi_\rho \otimes \mathrm{id})\alpha_n(c) = \varphi_\rho(c)1_{A_s(n)}$$ for any $c \in C_n$.
This is extended to infinite sequences $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ by requiring that $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum exchangeable for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$.
*Remarks*.\[qexcdef\]
1. More explicitly, this amounts to the condition that $$\sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k))u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k} = \varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_k}(c_k))\cdot 1$$ for any $c_1,\dotsc,c_k \in C$ and $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_k \leq n$, where $u_{ij}$ are the standard generators of $A_s(n)$.
2. By the universal property of $A_s(n)$, the sequence $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum exchangeable if and only if the equation in (1) holds for any family $\{u_{ij}:1 \leq i,j \leq n\}$ of projections in a unital C$^*$-algebra $B$ such that $(u_{ij}) \in M_n(B)$ is a magic unitary matrix.
3. For $1 \leq i,j \leq n$, define $f_{ij} \in C(S_n)$ by $f_{ij}(\pi) = \delta_{i\pi(j)}$. The matrix $(f_{ij})$ is a magic unitary, and the equation in (1) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_k}(c_k))1_{C(S_n)} &= \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_n}(c_n))f_{i_1j_1}\dotsb f_{i_kj_k}.\end{aligned}$$ Evaluating both sides at $\pi \in S_n$, we find $$\varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_k}(c_k)) = \varphi(\rho_{\pi(j_1)}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{\pi(j_k)}(c_k)),$$ so that quantum exchangeability implies invariance under classical permutations.
It is shown in [@ksp] that any sequence $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ which is freely independent and identically distributed with respect to a conditional expectation which preserves $\varphi$ is quantum exchangeable. For the convenience of the reader we include a sketch of the proof, and refer to that paper for details. Note that the implication (iii) $\Rightarrow$ (i) in Theorem \[mainthm\] follows immediately.
Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra and $(\rho_1,\rho_2,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ a sequence of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into a noncommutative probability space $(A,\varphi)$. Let $B \subset A$ be a unital $*$-subalgebra and suppose that there is a $\varphi$-preserving conditional expectation $E:A \to B$ such that $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is freely independent and identically distributed with respect to $E$. Then $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum exchangeable.
Let $c_1,\dotsc,c_k \in C$ and $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_k \leq n$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n} \negthickspace \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k))u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k} = \negthickspace \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n} \varphi(E[\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k)])u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k}\\
= \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n} \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(k)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \varphi(\kappa_E^{(\pi)}[\rho_{1}(c_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \rho_{1}(c_k)])u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k}\\
= \sum_{\pi \in NC(k)} \varphi(\kappa_E^{(\pi)}[\rho_1(c_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \rho_1(c_k)] )\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf i}} u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k},\end{gathered}$$ where in the second line we have applied Corollary \[vancum\]. It can be seen from induction on the number of blocks of $\pi$ that $$\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf i}} u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k} = \begin{cases} 1_{A_s(n)}, & \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j\\ 0, & \text{otherwise}\end{cases},$$ and it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_k \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_k}(c_k))u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_kj_k} &= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(k)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \varphi(\kappa_E^{(\pi)}[\rho_1(c_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \rho_1(c_k)] )1_{A_s(n)}\\
&= \varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_k}(c_k))1_{A_s(n)},\end{aligned}$$ where again we have applied Corollary \[vancum\].
We will now introduce the quantum spreadability condition. Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra, then for any natural numbers $k \leq n$ there is a unique unital $*$-homomorphism $\alpha_{k,n}:C_k \to C_n \otimes A_{i}(k,n)$ determined by $$\alpha_{k,n}(c^{(j)}) = \sum_{i=1}^n c^{(i)} \otimes u_{ij}$$ for $c \in C$ and $1 \leq j \leq k$, indeed this follows as above from the relations in $A_i(k,n)$ and the universal property of $C_k$.
Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra and $(\rho_1,\rho_2,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ a sequence of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into a noncommutative probability space $(A,\varphi)$. We say that the distribution $\varphi_\rho$ is *invariant under quantum spreading*, or that the sequence is *quantum spreadable*, if for each $k = 1,\dotsc,n$ the distribution $\varphi_\rho$ is invariant under $\alpha_{k,n}$ in the sense that $$(\varphi_\rho \otimes \mathrm{id})\alpha_{k,n}(c) = \varphi_\rho(c)1_{A_{i}(k,n)}$$ for any $c \in C_k$.
An infinite sequence $(\rho_1,\rho_2,\dotsc)$ is called *quantum spreadable* if $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum spreadable for each $n$.
1. Explicitly, the condition is that for each $k = 1,\dotsc,n$ we have $$\label{qspread}
\varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m)) \cdot 1 = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)) \cdot u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m}$$ for all $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_m \in C$, where $(u_{ij})$ denote the standard generators of $A_i(k,n)$.
2. From the universal property of $A_i(k,n)$, the sequence $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum spreadable if and only if for each $1\leq k \leq n$, equation (\[qspread\]) holds for any family $\{u_{ij}:1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ of projections in a unital C$^*$-algebra $B$ which satisfy the definining relations of $A_i(k,n)$.
3. Let $(f_{ij})$ denote the generators of $C(I_{k,n})$ introduced in Section \[qinc\]. Plugging $f_{ij}$ into equation (\[qspread\]) and applying both sides to $\mathbf l = (1 \leq l_1 < \dotsb < l_k \leq n)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m)) &= \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)f_{i_1j_1}(\mathbf l)\dotsb f_{i_mj_m}(\mathbf l)\\
&= \varphi(\rho_{l_{j_1}}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{l_{j_m}}(c_m))\end{aligned}$$ for any $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$. So $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_k)$ has the same distribution as $(\rho_{l_1},\dotsc,\rho_{l_k})$, and hence quantum spreadability implies classical spreadability. In particular, quantum spreadable sequences are identically distributed.
We can now prove the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (ii) of Theorem \[mainthm\], this holds in fact for finite sequences and in a purely algebraic context:
Let $C$ be a unital $*$-algebra and $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ be a sequence of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into a noncommutative probability space $(A,\varphi)$. If the sequence $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum exchangeable, then it is quantum spreadable.
Fix $1 \leq k \leq n$ and let $\{v_{ij}: 1\leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ and $\{u_{ij}: 1\leq i,j \leq n\}$ be the standard generators of $A_i(k,n)$ and $A_s(n)$, respectively. Assume $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum exchangeable, and fix $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_m \in C$. We have $$\varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m))1_{A_s(n)} = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)) \cdot u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m}.$$ By Proposition \[qext\], there is a unital $*$-homomorphism from $A_s(n)$ to $A_i(k,n)$ which sends $u_{ij}$ to $v_{ij}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, $1 \leq j \leq k$. Applying this map to both sides of the above equation, we obtain $$\varphi(\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m))1_{A_i(k,n)} = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \varphi(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)) \cdot v_{i_1j_1}\dotsb v_{i_mj_m},$$ so that $(\rho_1,\dotsc,\rho_n)$ is quantum spreadable as desired.
Quantum spreadability implies freeness with amalgamation {#ryll}
========================================================
In this section we will complete the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\]. Throughout this section we will assume that $C$ is a unital $*$-algebra, and that $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is an infinite sequence of unital $*$-homomorphisms from $C$ into a W$^*$-probability space $(M,\tau)$. $B$ will denote the tail algebra: $$B = \bigcap_{n \geq 1} W^*\bigl(\{\rho_i(c):c \in C, i \geq n\}\bigr).$$ $L^2(M)$ will denote the Hilbert space given by the GNS-representation for $\tau$. Since $\tau$ is a trace, there is a unique conditional expectation $E:M \to B$ given my $E[m] = P(m)$, where $P$ is the orthogonal projection of $L^2(M)$ onto $L^2(B)$.
We will assume without loss of generality that $M$ is generated by $\rho_\infty(C_\infty)$, i.e., $$M = W^*\bigl( \{\rho_i(c): i \in I, c \in C\} \bigr).$$ Observe that if the sequence $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is spreadable and hence stationary, the linear map determined by $$U(\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)) = \rho_{i_1+1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m+1}(c_m)$$ for $i_1,\dotsc,i_m \in {\mathbb N}$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_m \in C$, is well-defined and extends to an isometry $U:L^2(M) \to L^2(M)$.
Recall from Definition \[bvalued\] that we set $\widetilde \rho_i = \rho_i * \mathrm{id}:C *B \to M$. We will begin by showing that if $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is quantum spreadable, then the $B$-valued distribution of $(\widetilde \rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is also invariant under quantum spreading. By this we mean that the joint distribution $E_\rho$ is invariant under the $*$-homomorphisms $\widetilde \alpha_{k,n}: C_k * B \to (C_n * B) \otimes A_{i}(k,n)$ determined by $$\widetilde \alpha_{k,n} (b_0c_1^{(j_1)}b_1 \dotsb c_m^{(j_m)}b_m) = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} b_0c_1^{(i_1)}b_1\dotsb c_m^{(i_m)}b_m \otimes u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m}$$ for all $k \leq n$, $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$, $b_0,\dotsc,b_m \in B$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_m \in C$.
Note that if $1 \leq j \leq k$, $b_0,\dotsc,b_m \in B$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_m \in C$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde \alpha_{k,n}(b_0c_1^{(j)}\dotsb c_m^{(j)}b_m) &= \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} b_0c_1^{(i_1)}\dotsb c_m^{(i_m)}b_m \otimes u_{i_1j}\dotsb u_{i_mj}\\
&= \sum_{i=1}^n b_0c_1^{(i)}\dotsb c_m^{(i)}b_m \otimes u_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ from which it follows that if $\beta \in C * B$ then $$\widetilde \alpha_{k,n}(\beta^{(j)}) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \beta^{(i)} \otimes u_{ij}.$$
\[expspread\] Suppose that the sequence $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is quantum spreadable. Then the joint distribution of $(\widetilde{\rho}_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ with respect to $E$ is invariant under quantum spreading. Explicitly, for each $k \leq n$, $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$ and $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_m \in C * B$ we have $$E[\widetilde{\rho}_{j_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{j_m}(\beta_m)] \otimes 1_{A_i(k,n)} = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} E[\widetilde{\rho}_{i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{i_m}(\beta_m)] \otimes u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m},$$ where the equality holds in $B \otimes A_i(k,n)$.
We need to show that if $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$, $b_0,\dotsc,b_m \in B$ and $c_1,\dotsc,c_m \in C$ then $$E[b_0\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m)b_m] \otimes 1 = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} E[b_0\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)b_m] \otimes u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m}.$$ Since $E$ preserves the faithful state $\tau$, it suffices to show that $$\tau(b_0\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m)b_m) \otimes 1 = \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \tau(b_0\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)b_m) \otimes u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m}.$$ We will show that this in fact holds for $b_0,\dotsc,b_m$ in $W^*(\{\rho_i(c): i > k, c \in C\})$. By Kaplansky’s density theorem, it suffices to consider the case that $b_0,\dotsc,b_m$ are elements of the form $\rho_{l_1}(d_1)\dotsb \rho_{l_r}(d_r)$ for $k < l_1,\dotsc,l_r \leq N$ and $d_1,\dotsc,d_r \in C$.
To show this, we extend $(u_{ij})$ to a $(n+N) \times (k+N)$ matrix by setting $$v_{ij} = \begin{cases} u_{ij}, & 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\\
\delta_{(i-n)(j-k)}, &i > n, j > k\\
0, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ Observe if $b = \rho_{l_1}(d_1)\dotsc \rho_{l_r}(d_r)$ is as above, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_r \leq n+N} \rho_{i_1}(d_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(d_r) \otimes v_{i_1l_1}\dotsb v_{i_rl_r} &= \rho_{l_1+(n-k)}(d_1)\dotsb \rho_{l_r+(n-k)}(d_r) \otimes 1_{A_i(k,n)}\\
&= U^{(n-k)}(b) \otimes 1_{A_i(k,n)}.\end{aligned}$$ Now it is clear that $(v_{ij})$ satisfies the defining relations of $A_{i}(k+N,n+N)$, so applying the quantum spreadability condition with $(v_{ij})$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\tau(b_0\rho_{j_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{j_m}(c_m)b_m)\\
= \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \tau\bigl(U^{(n-k)}(b_0)\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)U^{(n-k)}(b_m)\bigr) \otimes u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m}.\end{gathered}$$ But since $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is spreadable, the right hand side is equal to $$\sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} \tau\bigl(b_0\rho_{i_1}(c_1)\dotsb \rho_{i_m}(c_m)b_m\bigr) \otimes u_{i_1j_1}\dotsb u_{i_mj_m},$$ which completes the proof.
The key ingredient in our proof that an infinite quantum spreadable sequence is free with amalgamation is a “measure” on the space of quantum increasing sequences, i.e., a state on $A_i(k,n)$. Unlike in the classical case, there does not appear to be a good notion of “uniform” measure on this quantum space. Instead, we will use the measures induced by a certain representation of $A_i(k,k\cdot n)$.
\[measure\] Fix $k,n \in {\mathbb N}$. Then there is a state $\psi_{k,n}:A_i(k,k\cdot n) \to {\mathbb C}$ such that:
1. $$\psi_{k,n}(u_{l_1j_1}\dotsb u_{l_mj_m}) = 0$$
unless $(j_r-1)\cdot n < l_r \leq j_r\cdot n$ for $r=1,\dotsc,m$.
2. $$\psi_{k,n}(u_{((j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1)j_1}\dotsb u_{((j_m-1)\cdot n+i_m)j_m}) = \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(m) \\ \sigma \leq \pi \wedge \ker \mathbf i}} \mu_m(\sigma,\pi) n^{-|\sigma|}$$
for all $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$ and $1\leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n$.
Let $\{p_{ij}: 1 \leq i \leq n, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ be projections in a C$^*$-probability space $(A,\varphi)$ such that
1. The families $(\{p_{i1}: 1 \leq i \leq n\},\dotsc, \{p_{ik}:1 \leq i \leq n\})$ are freely independent.
2. For $j =1,\dotsc,k$, we have $$\sum_{i=1}^n p_{ij} = 1,$$ and $\varphi(p_{ij}) = n^{-1}$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$.
Define $\{u_{lj}: 1 \leq l \leq kn, 1 \leq j \leq k\}$ by $u_{lj} = 0$ unless $(j-1)\cdot n < l \leq j\cdot n$, and $$u_{((j-1)\cdot n + i)j} = p_{ij}$$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, so that $(u_{lj})$ is given by the following matrix: $$\begin{pmatrix}
p_{11} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
p_{1n} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
0 & p_{21} & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & p_{2n} & \cdots & 0\\
0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \cdots & p_{k1}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
0 & 0 & \cdots & p_{kn}
\end{pmatrix}$$
Clearly $(u_{lj})$ satisfies the defining relations of $A_i(k,k\cdot n)$ and so we obtain a unital $*$-homorphism from $A_i(k,k\cdot n)$ into $A$. Composing with $\varphi$ gives a state $\psi_{k,n}:A_i(k,k\cdot n) \to {\mathbb C}$, and we need only show that $(u_{lj})$ in $(A,\varphi)$ has the distribution appearing in the statement.
\(1) is trivial, as $u_{l_1j_1}\dotsb u_{l_mj_m} = 0$ unless $(j_r-1)\cdot n < l_r \leq j_r\cdot n$ for $r=1,\dotsc,m$. For (2), we need to show that $$\varphi(p_{i_1j_1}\dotsb p_{i_mj_m}) = \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(m) \\ \sigma \leq \pi \wedge \ker \mathbf i}} \mu_m(\sigma,\pi) n^{-|\sigma|}.$$ Now by freeness, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi(p_{i_1j_1}\dotsb p_{i_mj_m}) &= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \kappa^{(\pi)}[p_{i_1j_1} \otimes \dotsb \otimes p_{i_mj_m}]\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(m)\\ \sigma \leq \pi}} \mu_m(\sigma,\pi)\varphi^{(\sigma)}[p_{i_1j_1} \otimes \dotsb \otimes p_{i_mj_m}].\end{aligned}$$ Now since for $1 \leq j, l_1,\dotsc,l_s \leq n$ we have $$\varphi(p_{l_1j}\dotsb p_{l_sj}) = \begin{cases} n^{-1}, &l_1 = \dotsb = l_s\\ 0, & \text{otherwise} \end{cases},$$ it follows that if $\sigma \leq \ker \mathbf j$ then $$\varphi^{(\sigma)}[p_{i_1j_1} \otimes \dotsb \otimes p_{i_mj_m}] = \begin{cases} n^{-|\sigma|}, &\sigma \leq \ker \mathbf i\\ 0, & \sigma \not\leq \ker \mathbf i \end{cases}.$$ Combining this with the previous equation yields the desired result.
Observe that the formula in (2) above has a very similar structure to the highest order expansion of the *Weingarten formula* for evaluating integrals over the quantum permutation group $A_s(n)$ with respect to its Haar state, see [@bc2; @cur3].
The final tool which we require to complete the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\] is von Neumann’s mean ergodic theorem. This will allow us to give a formula for the expectation functionals $E^{(\sigma)}$ as certain weighted averages. We note that the unpleasant indices which appear are chosen as to correspond to the formula in Proposition \[measure\].
\[ergodic\] Suppose that the sequence $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is quantum spreadable. Then for any $j \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\beta \in C * B$, we have $$E[\widetilde \rho_1(\beta)] = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \widetilde \rho_{(j-1)\cdot n + i}(\beta),$$ with convergence in $|\;|_2$.
Since $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is spreadable, we have $$\tau(m_1m_2) = \tau(m_1U(m_2))$$ whenever $m_1 \in W^*(\{\rho_i(c): 1 \leq i \leq n, c \in C\})$ and $m_2 \in W^*(\{\rho_{i}(c):i > n, c \in C\})$. It follows that $$\tau(mb) = \tau(mU(b))$$ for $m \in M$ and $b \in B$, hence $b = U(b)$. It follows easily that $$U(\widetilde \rho_i(\beta)) = \widetilde \rho_{i+1}(\beta)$$ for any $i \in {\mathbb N}$ and $\beta \in C * B$.
Since it is clear that any vector fixed by $U$ must lie in $L^2(B)$, we have in fact the equality $$L^2(B) = \{\xi \in L^2(M): U\xi = \xi\}.$$ By von Neumann’s mean ergodic theorem, we have $$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} U^i = P,$$ where $P$ is the orthogonal projection of $L^2(M)$ onto $L^2(B)$ and the limit holds in the strong operator topology. Therefore for any $m \in M$ we have $$E[m] = P(m) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} U^i(m),$$ with the limit holding in $|\;|_2$. Since $U$ is contractive in $|\;|_2$, we have also for any $j \in {\mathbb N}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} U^{(j-1)\cdot n + i}(m) &= \lim_{n \to \infty} U^{(j-1)\cdot n} \biggl(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} U^i(m)\biggr)\\
&= \lim_{n \to \infty} U^{(j-1)\cdot n} P(m)\\
&= E[m],\end{aligned}$$ since $U \cdot P = P$. Applying this to $m = \widetilde \rho_1(\beta)$ gives the desired result.
\[expform\] Suppose that the sequence $(\rho_i)_{i \in {\mathbb N}}$ is quantum spreadable. Fix $j_1,\dotsc,j_m \in {\mathbb N}$ and choose $\sigma \in NC(m)$ such that $\sigma \leq \ker \mathbf j$. Then for any $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_m \in C * B$, we have $$E^{(\sigma)}[\widetilde{\rho}_1(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde{\rho}_1(\beta_m)] = \lim_{n \to \infty} n^{-|\sigma|} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n\\ \sigma \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m -1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m),$$ with convergence in $|\;|_2$.
We will use induction on the number of blocks of $\sigma$. If $\sigma = 1_m$ has only one block, then $\sigma \leq \ker \mathbf j$ implies $j_1 = \dotsb = j_m$ and we have $$\lim_{n \to \infty} n^{-|\sigma|}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n\\ \sigma \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m -1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i}(\beta_1\beta_2 \dotsb \beta_m).$$ By Lemma \[ergodic\], this converges in $|\;|_2$ to $$E[\widetilde\rho_1(\beta_1\beta_2 \dotsb \beta_m)] = E^{(\sigma)}[\widetilde{\rho_1}(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde\rho_1(\beta_m)].$$
Now let $\sigma \in NC(m)$ and let $V = \{l+1,\dotsc,l+s\}$ be an interval of $\sigma$, and let $j$ be the common value of $j_{l+1},\dotsc,j_{l+s}$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
n^{-|\sigma|}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n\\ \sigma \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m -1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m) \\
= n^{-|\sigma\setminus V|}\negthickspace\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_l,\\ i_{l+s+1},\dotsc,i_m \leq n\\ \sigma \setminus V \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \widetilde{\rho}_{(j-1)\cdot n + i}(\beta_{l+1}\dotsb \beta_{l+s})\Bigr)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m -1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m) \end{gathered}$$ As above, the interior sum converges to $E[\widetilde \rho_1(\beta_{l+1}\dotsb \beta_{l+s})]$ in $|\;|_2$ as $n \to \infty$. Now for any $\beta \in C* B$, since the variables $\widetilde{\rho}_i(\beta)$ are identically $*$-distributed with respect to the faithful trace $\tau$, it follows that $\|\widetilde{\rho}_i(\beta)\|$ is independent of $i$. Therefore there is a constant $D$ such that $$|\widetilde\rho_{i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde\rho_{i_l}(\beta_l) \cdot \xi \cdot \widetilde\rho_{i_{l+s+1}}(\beta_{l+s+1})\dotsb \widetilde \rho_{i_m}(\beta_m)|_2 \leq D|\xi|_2$$ for any $\xi \in L^2(M)$ and $i_1,\dotsc,i_m \in {\mathbb N}$. It follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\lim_{n \to \infty} n^{-|\sigma\setminus V|}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_l,\\ i_{l+s+1},\dotsc,i_m \leq n\\ \sigma \setminus V \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \Bigl(\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \widetilde{\rho}_{j}(\beta_{l+1}\dotsb \beta_{l+s})\Bigr)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m -1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m) \\
= \lim_{n \to \infty} n^{-|\sigma\setminus V|}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_l,\\ i_{l+s+1},\dotsc,i_m \leq n\\ \sigma \setminus V \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb E[\widetilde \rho_1(\beta_{l+1}\dotsb \beta_{l+s})]\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m -1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m).\end{gathered}$$ By induction, this converges in $|\;|_2$ to $$E^{(\sigma \setminus V)}[\widetilde \rho_1(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde \rho_1(\beta_l)\cdot E[\widetilde \rho_1(\beta_{l+1}\dotsb \beta_{l+s})] \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde \rho_1(c_m)],$$ which is precisely $E^{(\sigma)}[\widetilde \rho_1(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde \rho_1(\beta_m)]$, as desired.
We can now complete the proof of Theorem \[mainthm\].
Fix $\beta_1,\dotsc,\beta_m \in C * B$ and $1 \leq j_1,\dotsc,j_m \leq k$. By Proposition \[expspread\], for each $n \in {\mathbb N}$ we have $$E[\widetilde{\rho}_{j_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{j_m}(\beta_m)] \otimes 1_{A_i(k,k\cdot n)} = \sum_{1 \leq l_1,\dotsc,l_m \leq kn} E[\widetilde{\rho}_{l_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{l_m}(\beta_m)] \otimes u_{l_1j_1}\dotsb u_{l_mj_m}.$$ Applying $(\mathrm{id} \otimes \psi_{k,n})$, with $\psi_{k,n}$ from Proposition \[measure\], to each side of the above equation, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
E[\widetilde{\rho}_{j_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{j_m}(\beta_m)] \\
= \sum_{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n} E[\widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m-1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m)] \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(m) \\ \sigma \leq \pi \wedge \ker \mathbf i}} \mu_m(\sigma,\pi)n^{-|\sigma|}\\
= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(m)\\ \sigma \leq \pi}}\mu_m(\sigma,\pi)E\Bigl[n^{-|\sigma|} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_1,\dotsc,i_m \leq n \\ \sigma \leq \ker \mathbf i}} \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_1-1)\cdot n + i_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{(j_m-1)\cdot n + i_m}(\beta_m)\Bigr].\end{gathered}$$ Letting $n \to \infty$ and applying Proposition \[expform\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
E[\widetilde{\rho}_{j_1}(\beta_1)\dotsb \widetilde{\rho}_{j_m}(\beta_m)] &= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \sum_{\substack{\sigma \in NC(m)\\ \sigma \leq \pi}}\mu_m(\sigma,\pi) E^{(\sigma)}[\widetilde{\rho}_1(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde{\rho}_1(\beta_m)]\\
&= \sum_{\substack{\pi \in NC(m)\\ \pi \leq \ker \mathbf j}} \kappa_E^{(\pi)}[\widetilde{\rho}_1(\beta_1) \otimes \dotsb \otimes \widetilde{\rho}_1(\beta_m)],\end{aligned}$$ and the result now follows from Corollary \[vancum\].
I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Dan-Virgil Voiculescu, for his continued guidance and support while completing this project.
[10]{}
, Quantum permutation groups: a survey, in Noncommutative harmonic analysis with applications to probability, vol. 78 of Banach Center Publ., Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw, 2007, 13–34.
, Integration over quantum permutation groups, J. Funct. Anal., [**242**]{} (2007), 641–657.
, De [F]{}inetti theorems for easy quantum groups, Ann. Probab., to appear. [[arXiv:0907.3314 \[math.OA\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3314), 2009.
, Quantum exchangeable sequences of algebras, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**58**]{} (2009), 1097–1126.
, Quantum rotatability, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**362**]{} (2010), 4831–4851.
, Symmetric measures on [C]{}artesian products, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**80**]{} (1955), 470–501.
, Spreading-invariant sequences and processes on bounded index sets, Probab. Theory Related Fields [**118**]{} (2000), 211–250.
, [Probabilistic symmetries and invariance principles]{}, Probability and its Applications, Springer, New York, 2005.
, A noncommutative extended de [F]{}inetti theorem, J. Funct. Anal. [**258**]{} (2010), 1073–1120.
, A noncommutative de [F]{}inetti theorem: invariance under quantum permutations is equivalent to freeness with amalgamation, Comm. Math. Phys. [**291**]{} (2009), 473–490.
, [Lectures on the combinatorics of free probability]{}, vol. 335 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
, On stationary sequences of random variables and the de [F]{}inetti’s equivalence, Colloq. Math. [**4**]{} (1957), 149–156.
, Quantum families of maps and quantum semigroups on finite quantum spaces, J. Geom. Phys. [**59**]{} (2009), 354–368.
, Combinatorial theory of the free product with amalgamation and operator-valued free probability theory, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., [**132**]{} (1998), x+88.
, Symmetries of some reduced free product [$C^\ast$]{}-algebras, in Operator algebras and their connections with topology and ergodic theory, vol. 1132 of Lecture Notes in Math., Springer, Berlin, 1985, 556–588.
, [Free random variables]{}, vol. 1 of CRM Monograph Series, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1992.
, Quantum symmetry groups of finite spaces, Comm. Math. Phys. [**195**]{} (1998), 195–211.
, Compact matrix pseudogroups, Comm. Math. Phys. [ **111**]{} (1987), 613–665.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: Kasteelpark Arenberg 10
author:
- Yanxiang
bibliography:
- 'thesis.bib'
- 'polar\_asscc16.bib'
- 'thesis\_online.bib'
- 'Yanxiang.bib'
date: 'September 12, 2017'
title: 'Cross-Layer Optimization for Power-Efficient and Robust Digital Circuits and Systems'
---
=1
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The groundbreaking digital revolution has refined the work and life styles of every individual. However, the gap between great application requirements and the enabling CMOS technology limitations is prominent. Therefore, design techniques to balance the quality and the power consumption of integrated circuits are demanded in the nano-CMOS era. This work promotes cross-layer optimizations for power and quality trade-off. It accepts errors that traditional designers advocated avoiding at all cost. The CMOS devices are working at their extremes with fewer safety margins. This enables extra power saving without noticeable quality degradations. This chapter introduces this work.
The chapter is structured as follows: Section \[sec:intro\_motivation\] describes the motivation of this thesis. It reviews the contradiction between the need and the reality of current digital circuits and systems. A cross-layer optimization approach is therefore promoted (Section \[sec:intro\_shape\]). Section \[sec:intro\_scope\] summarizes the scope of this thesis. Section \[sec:intro\_contribution\] lists the main contributions of this work. Finally, Section \[sec:intro\_structure\] presents the structure of this thesis.
Context: motivation for power consumption and reliability trade-offs {#sec:intro_motivation}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The ubiquitous digital infrastructure and services have totally changed our way of life, leisure and our means of communication and information. The new generation is enjoying the conveniences offered by the computers, phones, gadgets, and varieties of smart IoT devices that exceed the visions of last generation’s craziest sci-fi movies. The immersion of digital world is playing a key role in human lives (Fig. \[fig:intro\_usage\]). According to [@hoursonline], adults are spending more than 12 hours accessing digital data in 2017.
![The world is immersed in digital services ([@simon2017]).[]{data-label="fig:intro_usage"}](usage.png){width="85.00000%"}
The digital reality cannot be realized without the development of the enabling technologies. For the past few decades, we have seen marvelous breakthroughs in the domains such as personal computers, the internet, and mobile communications. Those breakthroughs, not only redefine the frontier of technologies but also expedite the mass adoption of them. For instance, almost three-quarters of the world’s population now use a mobile phone, with the total number of unique global mobile users rapidly approaching 5 billion [@simon2017]. The advance of technology is now spreading to the applications as artificial intelligence, smart vehicle, and IoT devices.
### Demand: performance and power efficiency improvements {#sec:intro_demand}
Consumers are demanding higher data volume, in a faster rate. For instance, the world monthly mobile data traffic goes steeply from 3.7 EB (Exabytes) in 2015, to 9.9 EB in 2017, and will increase to 30.6 EB by 2020 [@index2016global]. The exponential growth of wireless data services driven by the mobile internet and smart devices has triggered the investigation of the 5G cellular network. The mobile phone of the future has to provide seamless connectivity anywhere and anytime. Around 2020, the new 5G mobile networks are expected to be deployed [@andrews2014will]. These networks will support multimedia applications with a wide variety of requirements, including higher peak and user data rates (more than 100 megabits per second for metropolitan areas [@6815890]), reduced latency (less than 1 ms [@best2014race]), enhanced indoor coverage, improved energy efficiency and so on.
Powering up those digital services requires a big amount of energy. Worldwide, data centers use about 400 terawatt-hours of electricity each year [@andrae2015global]. That’s a little more electricity than all of the United Kingdom uses. Already, they have mushroomed from virtually nothing 10 years ago to accounting for about 2 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions [@datacenter]. That gives it the same carbon footprint as the airline industry. If left unchecked, they could use almost 8,000 terawatt-hours by 2030. That’s about the amount of electricity all of Europe and Africa and much of Asia use today. Another optimistic estimation predicts that the global IT services will consume 15% electricity production world-wise by 2025 [@greenit]. Considering the continuing demands for increased digital services, the energy efficiency for digital computation must be improved accordingly.
In the past few decades, the demands of increasing performance and power efficiency were realized with the CMOS technology progress. The complexity of integrated circuits has approximately doubled every 18 months; the cost per function has decreased several thousand-fold. The exponential growth has fit to the well-known Moore’s Law (prediction) [@moore1998cramming]. In the computer sector, the CPU had kept pace with the Dennard’s scaling [@dennard1974design], which suggests that the performance per watt also grows exponentially (Fig. \[fig:intro\_moore\]). However, CPU performance, which is largely coupled with the clock speed, has stalled at around 2005, since the 65nm CMOS process. This suggests the end of the free lunch brought by the CMOS scaling [@sutter2005free].
![The free lunch of CMOS scaling is over [@sutter2005free].[]{data-label="fig:intro_moore"}](moore.JPG){width="70.00000%"}
The power consumption (too high), heat (too much of it and too hard to dissipate), and current leakage problems are among the biggest challenges for the continuing of free-lunch scaling. Multicore parallelisms are employed to keep improving the performance, which eventually leads to new power challenges (dark silicon) that may end the multicore era [@esmaeilzadeh2011dark]. Nowadays, power consumption has become an, arguably the most, important metric for digital computing devices.
Apart from saving energy, another motivation to minimize power consumption is to fit digital chips into ubiquitous IoT devices, much of which are powered by batteries or energy harvesters [@bravos2005energy; @gyselinckx2005human++; @rawat2014wireless]. Looking to the future, Cisco IBSG predicts there will be 25 billion devices connected to the Internet by 2015 and 50 billion by 2020 [@evans2011internet].
In summary, the increased IT service calls for, in addition to advanced CMOS technologies, successful enhancement in design of digital circuits and systems, to fulfill the performance and power efficiency requirements.
### Reality: device and application uncertainties endanger successful designs {#sec:intro_reality}
The variability has become a major roadblock to CMOS scaling (Fig. \[fig:intro\_overview\]). Below the sub-65nm regime, transistors no longer act deterministically as a consequence of fluctuations in device parameters. This phenomenon is caused by the process challenges (lithography, etching, chemical mechanical polishing, etc.) [@ghosh2010parameter]. These process challenges not only alters chip parameters (speed, area, power, etc.), they also result in functionality failures, e.g. stuck-in fault. The time-zero manufacturing process is not the only source of device uncertainties, chips also face aging problems during lifetimes. Worse still, the aging phenomena are uncertain in themselves. They heavily depend on the environment or workloads [@mintarno2013workload].
![Digital designs must cope with permanent (time-zero and time-dependent) and temporary (environmental and runtime) uncertainties (variations), to reach a balance between power consumption and output quality.[]{data-label="fig:intro_overview"}](overview.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Apart from these (semi-) permanent effects, environment [@unsal2006impact] (voltage, temperature, cosmic particle strikes, etc.) and runtime (timing errors, software, and user) variations also add uncertainties to chip designs. For instance, high energy particle strikes can lead to random bit flippings on storage elements. VOS (Voltage Over-Scaling) circuits [@hegde2004voltage; @jeon2012design] tries to save power by operates at a riskily-low supply voltage [^1], which produces uncertain errors. In summary, these uncertainties share a similarity that they only affect the IC temporaries.
The time-zero and time-dependent challenges are often regarded as a yield problem, which is mainly tackled by the IC foundries [@tsai2004yield]. In contrast, the fast changing runtime uncertainties are so dynamical that they cannot be simplified solved by traditional post-silicon testing [@nithin2010dynamic]. Therefore, runtime uncertainties management is a domain that is still wide open and much profitable for digital circuits and systems designers. The fact that these uncertainties only leads to temporary effects makes trading quality for power savings possible.
The source and effects of them are further explained in Section \[sec:variation\_pvt\]. To conclude, careful consideration of all those uncertainties is essential for successful digital circuit and system design.
Calling for cross-layer optimizations {#sec:intro_shape}
-------------------------------------
### Traditional pyramid-shaped design
Traditionally, the digital design flow follows a top-down procedure (Fig. \[fig:intro\_pyramid\]). That is, the top-level design specs, e.g. quality, speed, power consumption, are assigned by system architects. The algorithm and circuit-level designers are forced to come up with solutions to fulfill these requirements. This rigid task dividing simplifies the design process, as fewer confusions during design are expected.
![The traditional pyramid-shaped design flow leads to over-design at all levels (derived from [@hennessy2011computer]).[]{data-label="fig:intro_pyramid"}](pyramid.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Following this design flow, the variations are traditionally tackled in particular levels. For instance, the process, voltage, and temperature (PVT) variations are packed up together and guaranteed with worst-corner safety margins at the circuit level (Section \[sec:variation\_wc\]). Temporal degradation issues are hidden in the time-zero variations margins, albeit early works on designing with accurate time-dependent models [@liu2017comprehensive] start to gain popularity.
A variety of safety margins are inserted in all levels of the design for manufacturing cost, reliable computing, acceptable device lifetime, device performance, etc [@austin2008reliable]. If keeps inserting margins and being pessimistic, the gain obtained by the CMOS scaling will reduce and might eventually diminish (Fig. \[fig:variability\_khang\]).
![Over-designed guardbands diminish the benefits of CMOS scaling [@kahngdesign].[]{data-label="fig:variability_khang"}](khang.JPG){width="70.00000%"}
The drawback is that, following the traditional pyramid-shaped design flow, smart engineering on quality and power consumption is usually limited to specific design levels, leading to only local optimal solutions. The application-level and the algorithm-level designs call for error-free results from lower levels, which makes lower level designs (e.g., at the architecture and circuit-level) unnecessarily complex sometimes. For example, chips should work at any temperature within the specification range, and thus transistors delays are pre-characterized on all temperatures. Circuits designers always try to avoid uncertainties and constrain chips to work equally on that (wide) delay range, which is not easy. Not many “if-then-else” cross-layer co-optimization are possible conventionally. The waste of resources of this worst-case guard-band is reviewed in Section \[sec:variation\_wc\].
Considering that the lower levels are utilizing too much resources to provide the higher level application service, the design flow is named as a pyramid-shaped method. In summary, the lack of information across design levels leads to wasted resources (in terms of power consumption and area cost). It is therefore calling for a new design and optimization paradigm.
### Cross-layer optimization
To exploit the resource waste in the pyramid-shaped design, this thesis promotes a cross-layer optimization design approach [^2]. With this optimization paradigm, information are sharing across design layers for power savings or quality improvements. As will be demonstrated in the rest of this thesis, by extending optimization across different design levels, the over-design can be much reduced. This provides an advantage in conserving area and power consumption at the silicon foundation and increasing performance and quality at the application-level. This paradigm is named as a tower-shaped design flow (Fig. \[fig:intro\_tower\]), reflecting the aim that each design layer is utilizing just-needed resources, which avoids over-designs.
![Promoted tower-shaped cross-layer design approach reduces unnecessary power and area waste. This is achieved by exchanging information across design levels. Comparing with the pyramid-shaped cartoon (Fig. \[fig:intro\_pyramid\]), the new paradigm requires less space at the low level, yet provides more rooms at the top of the tower (hence a tower rather than a pyramid). Chapter 3 and 4 transfers information from higher levels to circuit and micro-architecture levels. Chapter 5 and 6 mitigates lower level errors at algorithm and application levels.[]{data-label="fig:intro_tower"}](tower.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
In contrast of the tower-shaped design, errors are often permitted in the context of cross-layer optimizations. [@djahromi2007cross] showed that by allowing data bearing memories to have a controlled number of errors, significant gains in power consumption are possible. In fact, for a 3GPP modem, power savings of up to 17.5% are achievable assuming a 32nm technology. The Razor [@razor03] and ANT [@ant99] techniques are excellent cross-layer optimization examples. They are discussed in details in Section \[sec:variation\_vos\].
[@carter2010design; @mitra2010cross; @gimmler2013cross] overviewed of the design techniques for cross-layer resilience. They highlights that distributing resilience and reliability across the system stack can improve performance and reduce power and area costs by taking advantage of the strengths of each layer and exploiting the characteristics of individual applications.
Admittedly, the design effort of this new paradigm is larger because a cross-layer information should be shared and evaluated. Though, its benefits are worth the effort. This thesis demonstrates that the cross-layer approach brings considerable benefits for digital circuits and systems, with limited design effort increase. For example, lower-level designs assume (predicate) some properties of the higher-level, which reduce the power cost once predicated successfully; lower-level designs generate some errors under the worst situations, which will be handled by the higher-level designs.
Thesis scope {#sec:intro_scope}
------------
This thesis aims to reduce safety margins and saving power. Runtime adjusting approaches are employed to exploit those margins. More specifically, this work mainly handles the environmental and runtime uncertainties. The reason is that, these uncertainties are so dynamical that they cannot be simplified solved by traditional post-silicon testing [@tsai2004yield; @nithin2010dynamic]. It not only responses to the environmental changes as the DVFS techniques (Section \[sec:variation\_adaptive\]), but also allows occasional errors to propagate through different levels (e.g. Section \[sec:algo\]). Techniques in this work, however, also exploit margins for slowly changing process variations (time-zero and time-dependent), assuming that they are already packed in the safety margin. The permanent breakdowns are not covered in the thesis. This is because time-zero breakdowns are classified as yield problems and are mostly taken care of by semiconductor foundries; workload-dependent aging effects are considered by EDA tools recently [@karapetyan2015integrating].
The targeted applications of this thesis are soft-quality requirement digital signal processing devices. These cross-layer optimizations are particularly beneficial in the context of soft-quality requirement systems. In these systems, errors are acceptable as long as the system output still meets the requirements. For instance, the transient error in a wireless communication application can easily be tolerated by the symbol detector, considering that the error vector magnitude is allowed [@karakonstantis2012exploitation]. This distinguishes from the general-purpose computer case [@carter2010design] where usually no errors are permitted. Another example is video processing applications, where skipping few erroneous pixels can be tolerated [@driscoll2003byzantine]. This leaves plenty of spaces for quality-power trade-offs.
Therefore, in this work, the uncertainties incurred errors are allowed to propagate to the algorithmic and application-level. The end result is a good balance between the quality and power consumption. In specific, Chapter \[sec:model\] firstly models the algorithm-level impact of random errors, in the circuit-level, without digging into the algorithm. It then provides valuable guidelines to selectively harden designs against random errors at the circuit-level. Chapter \[sec:arch\] predicates programs’ behavior, and modifies the microarchitectural structure, which leads to power savings for typical usages. Chapter \[sec:algo\] mitigates circuit-level errors at the microarchitecture and eventually the algorithm-level, leading to a graceful quality degradation. Chapter \[sec:system\] demonstrates that lower-level generated errors can be handled at the application-level. This provides opportunities to embrace hardware uncertainties for power saving. It takes the Massive MIMO wireless communication application as a case-study and demonstrates its resilience to lower-level errors. The chapter, therefore, encourages to use low-power yet erroneous components in the Massive MIMO.
Main contributions {#sec:intro_contribution}
------------------
This work has contributed to better power solutions of digital designs in scaled CMOS, through a cross-layer optimization. These approaches were demonstrated in the content of wireless communication applications. The main research contributions of this thesis are summarized below. A more elaborate version of the main messages is provided in Chapter \[sec:con\].
- Introduction of an analytical circuit-level random error effects model (Chapter \[sec:model\]). This thesis proposed a graph travel approach that solves the model. It is shown how a graph based scheme can identify the sensitivity of indivisual Flip-Flops. This helps to selectively protect only those. It also demonstrated the scalability and effectiveness of the model on ISCAS and ITC benchmark circuits. Finally, this work validated the benefits of the model on an FFT processor design that reduces soft-error hardening overhead. This work was unveiled in [@huang16dac-serial].
- Proposed a novel fine-grain hardware-switch scheme to save power in embedded processors (Chapter \[sec:arch\]). The thesis applied the proposed scheme to the multiplier unit of an OpenRISC processor. This technique competes with the idea of VLIW based SIMD instructions that requires large compiler modification. It demonstrated power savings on 11 typical signal processing applications, e.g. FFT, IIR, AES, JPEG. This work was published in [@huang16el-hardware-switch].
- Application of Razor circuit-level error detection techniques with error mitigation achieved through an algorithmic approach. Proposed a novel computation-skip scheme to mitigate errors for recursive applications (Chapter \[sec:algo\]). It saves power saving by reducing the supply voltage, exploiting not only the error-free but also error resilient safety marigns. This is achieved by skipping part of the computation and sacrificing some accuracy. The thesis implemented the scheme on a CORDIC hardware accelerator in 28nm CMOS technology with standard digital design flow. The work was published in [@huang14sips-error-resilient], and elaborated in [@huang16jsps-error-resilient].
- Investigation of application-level error absorption and handling for Massive MIMO wireless communication applications (Chapter \[sec:system\]). It demonstrated the error resiliency of Massive MIMO systems under hardware errors and even antenna outage. It also proposed a damage control strategy for Massive MIMO applications. The work is published in [@huang17icassp-mimo-dfe].
List of publications {#list-of-publications .unnumbered}
--------------------
The list of publications can be found in the attached Curriculum Vitae section.
Thesis structure {#sec:intro_structure}
----------------
In this thesis, cross-layer optimization are performed for digital circuits and systems for power consumption and reliability trade-off (Fig. \[fig:intro\_structure\]).
Chapter \[sec:variation\] reviews techniques for power and quality tradeoffs. It starts with device-level phenomena of variations. The chapter then reviews the worst-case design and the adaptive scaling method that tunes supply voltage to save power. Finally, the benefit of the cross-layer VOS (Voltage Over-Scaling) approach is justified.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:intro\_tower\], Chapter \[sec:model\] develops a gate-level random error model, SERIAL. It models the importance of flip-flops regarding their impact on algorithm outputs. The efficiency and effectiveness of the model are shown in typical circuits, including ISCAS and ITC benchmarks, and an LDPC decoder. Finally, the model is applied to design a reliable FFT processor.
In Chapter \[sec:arch\], a microarchitecture-level fine-grain hardware-switch scheme for embedded processors power savings is proposed. In specific, the chapter modifies the multiplier unit of the OpenRISC platform. It demonstrates power savings on typical signal processing applications.
Chapter \[sec:algo\] proposes a method for cross-layer error interplay between the circuit-level and the algorithm-level. It presents a computation-skip scheme to mitigate errors in recursive applications. The error mitigation scheme, together with the state-of-the-art timing error detection benchmark, are applied to a hardware CORDIC accelerator. The CORDIC accelerator is processed and verified in a standard 28nm CMOS process with only standard-cells.
Chapter \[sec:system\] presents the application-level error absorption and handling. It focuses on a Massive MIMO communication case-study. This chapter assesses hardware random errors (VOS) and antenna outage impacts. Finally, damage control strategies are proposed.
![Structure of the thesis and overview of the chapters.[]{data-label="fig:intro_structure"}](structure.pdf){width="98.00000%"}
Background: pessimistic safety margins should be exploited {#sec:variation}
==========================================================
This chapter reviews techniques for power and quality trade-offs. It firstly introduces PVT (process, voltage, and temperature) variations and reliability threats. It then reviews the worst-case design and the adaptive scaling method that tunes supply voltage to save power. Finally, the benefit of the cross-level VOS (Voltage Over-Scaling) approach is discussed.
The rest of this chapter is structured as follows: Section \[sec:variation\_pvt\] explains the variations from process, environment and runtime changes. Section \[sec:variation\_voltage\] analyses two conventional methods, i.e. the worst-case approach, and dynamical voltage scaling, which handle variability. The limitation of the worst-case approach is pointed out. The benefits and disadvantages of adaptive scaling are also reviewed. Section \[sec:variation\_vos\] discusses adventurous VOS methods that reach a balance between power consumption and output quality. Finally Section \[sec:variation\_con\] concludes this chapter.
Uncertainties in circuit paramaters {#sec:variation_pvt}
-----------------------------------
IC design has always been subject to variations which make it impossible at design time to determine exactly how a circuit will perform. Worse still, these uncertainties have become increasingly significant as a result of the scaling of technology. To cope with those variations, the concept of design margin has been introduced in the design process.
This section reviews the cause, and more importantly the effects, of the long-term and short-term variations, from a digital circuits and systems designer’s perspective. This thesis does not try to model for these variations directly. Instead, it saves power by reducing over-pessimistic safety margins.
### Process variations and aging effects {#sec:variation_p}
Process variations and aging effects are long-term or permanent uncertainties for IC. They result to parametric variability (in area, speed, power consumption) and functional breakdowns. The parametric variability effects are reviewed in this subsection, because they usually lead to pessimistic parametric safety margins. Functional breakdowns, e.g., stuck-in errors, electrical stress, burn-in, [@veendrick2008nanometer], are not covered in this work. The reason is that those extra threats have very specific characteristics that require individual studies. Another reason is that, most of them have already been addressed properly in the subjects of design-for-testability [@fujiwara1985logic] and design-for-manufacturability [@strojwas1989design; @chiang2007design; @orshansky2007design].
#### Time-zero process variations
Spatial process variations are deviations of IC parameters compared to their targeted values at the design time. They are created by the limited controllability of a manufacturing process [@nourani2006testing]. The origins of these variations are categorized into inter-die (global) and intra-die (local) components [@ghosh2010parameter]. As plotted in Fig. \[fig:variation\_variation\], the global components consist of between-lots, between-wafers, and within-wafer variations. The local components are the within-die variations.
![Spatial process variations consist of global and local components.[]{data-label="fig:variation_variation"}](variation.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Global variability refers to the parameter changes for identical devices/interconnects separated by a longer distance, or fabricated at a different time, that result from factors such as processing temperature, equipment/tool properties, etc. between different runs, lots, wafers and dies [@saha2010modeling]. Therefore, they impact equally on all transistors and interconnects on a die [@bowman2009impact].
On the other hand, local variability causes parameter mismatch between identically designed devices/interconnects across a short distance within a die [@saha2010modeling; @ohnari2013and]. Typical causes are fluctuations in length, width, oxide thickness, flat band control, and the number of dopants [@herr1986statistical].
Conventionally, the main focus was on global variations. This is convenient for designers, as all transistors on the same IC can be modeled with an equal offset. However, local variations have recently entered into the interest zone, and have been pronounced more as a consequence of the aggressive technology scaling, increased chip area, clock frequency, and leakage power distributions [@boning1996statistical; @tschanz2002adaptive; @bowman2002impact]. Moreover, it was observed that local variations can have a much higher impact compared to global variations, e.g. lithography and etch technology can achieve 5% mismatch of wafer-scale metal width uniformity, whereas within-die variations were reported on the order of 15% [@dai2001timing]. The most prominent sources of the variabilities in nano-CMOS transistors are analyzed in [@wang2011statistical; @asenov2007simulation], which are Front-end-of-the-line (FEOL) random process variability sources, namely Random Discrete Doping (RDD), Line Edge Roughness (LER); PolySilicon (Poly-Si) Granularity (PSG), Metal Gate Granularity (MGG), and Oxide Thickness Variation (OTV).
The time-zero spatial process variations impact delays of a deeply scaled technology. Fig. \[fig:variation\_distribution\] shows the circuit speed with randomized transistor width and depth, using the Monte-Carlo method. It demonstrates that transistor width and depth variations lead to 25% speed difference ($3\sigma$) in the standard 28nm CMOS process.
![The speed (inverse delay) of 28nm fan-out of 4 (FO4) ring oscillators (RO) follows a Gaussian distribution because of process variability. Global and local variations are applied to the width and depth of transistors. The vertical lines indicate the mean speed and the $3\sigma$ speed.[]{data-label="fig:variation_distribution"}](distribution.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
#### Time-dependent aging effects {#sec:variation_temporal}
A device will degrade over time, according to not only temperature impacts, but also workloads (e.g. voltage, frequency, duty-cycle) [@kukner2013impact; @stamoulis2016capturing]. These problems are prominent than ever before in the sub-20nm technology nodes [@wilson2013international]. A throughout model that contains both reliability characteristics and system-level behavior modeling is thus required. An example is illustrated in [@chen2014system].
As of today, the de-facto solution to the temporal degradation, during design, is to add another layer of margin. This margin is therefore stacked onto the existing process voltage and temperature (PVT) margins (discussed in Section \[sec:variation\_pvt\]). While temporal degradations are not directly addressed in this thesis, the model introduced in Chapter \[sec:model\] can extend to temporal degradation impacts. Furthermore, the trade-offs between reliability (quality) and power savings (by margin shaving) in Chapter \[sec:algo\] and Chapter \[sec:system\] can also include temporal degradation margins.
### Environmental and runtime uncertainties
In addition to (semi-) permanent variations, plenty of environmental and runtime threats also put the digital system quality in danger. These uncertainties are very difficult to model at design time. Therefore, they are assumed with the worst-case corner at design time. Luckily, they usually only affect IC behavior temporarily. Once the uncertainty resources are removed, the circuitry will return to normal condition. Therefore, those uncertainties only modify the circuit computation results, without permanent damages. Occasionally operating outside the specified region is acceptable, as long as the according errors are handled. Although some environmental or runtime conditions (e.g., permanent dose radiation error, mechanical vibrations and shocks, and electrostatic discharge) will fail chips irreversibly, those impacts are easier to deal with. Those permanent environmental impacts are beyond the scope of this work.
#### Supply voltage variation {#sec:variation_v}
Voltage variation is caused by non-idle power generators/regulators and IR-drop in the power delivery network. Fig. \[fig:variation\_regulator\] shows that the voltage fluctuation from a 28nm power regulator can be as high as 100 mV (peak-to-peak).
![The supply voltage of an IC is fluctuating. The output of a state-of-the-art 28nm power regulator is shown [@rachala2016modeling]. Curves represent different output voltage targets.[]{data-label="fig:variation_regulator"}](regulator.JPG){width="55.00000%"}
In addition to the power source, the power delivery network also leads to voltage drop when currents are flowing through. This is called IR drop. This effect can be modeled with EDA tools so that the delay of each gate is modeled with an individual voltage.
#### Temperature variation {#sec:variation_t}
Integrated chips are also affected by the temperature. The usual temperature environment of an IC is -40 to 120 $^{\circ}C$. Furthermore, the circuit consumes energy and hence dissipates heat. This heats up the IC locally and temperature hotspots are produced. Counter-measures are needed for temperature variation, especially for complex multi-core processors [@chaparro2007understanding].
The temperature and voltage combined effects on 28nm circuit speed is plotted in Fig. \[fig:variation\_tempa\]. In the regime of sub-1.1 V, higher temperature boosts up circuit speed. Reducing voltage decreases circuit speed linearly, down to threshold voltage ($V_{th}$).
![The speed of a 28nm circuit changes along with temperature and supply voltage.[]{data-label="fig:variation_tempa"}](tempa.pdf){width="75.00000%"}
#### SEU (Single Error Upset) {#sec:variation_seu}
SEU is logic bits flipping triggered by external high-energy cosmic rays (e.g. protons and neutrons), and by $\alpha$-particles from package [@pavlov2008cmos]. It is also called soft-errors. Fortunately, the earth magnetic fields shield a majority of the cosmic rays. Consequently, in the past, soft-errors are only relevant to space applications [@baumann2002impact; @lesea2005rosetta]. Nonetheless, this view has been challenged, mainly due to the following two reasons. Firstly, with more and more data processed and stored in the cloud, the memory in these data centers easily exceeds hundreds of petabyte. Even though the individual error-rate is still negligible, the combined reliability threat should never be overlooked [@feng2010shoestring; @kleeberger2013cross]. Secondly, the amount of mission-critical applications has or will increase substantially, spreading from the conventional niche industrial control market to daily usage scenarios. For the autonomous driving application, every decision in every car is critical [@marchio2014automotive]. In these systems, soft-errors become an issue that must be solved.
Soft-errors can be mitigated by using redundant circuits or systems, in the hope that they will not all fail at the same time. For instance, Chapter \[sec:model\] presents a model to help design systems with less redundancy. Note that high-energy particle rays also lead to permanent degradations. This degradation is not covered in this thesis because those degradations are mostly relevant to space applications, which is out of the scope of this work.
#### VOS (Voltage Over-Scaling) hardware errors {#sec:variation_vos_error}
The other transient reliability threats are errors caused by hardware operating at risky situations. This category is different from the previous two in that, the reliability risks can be tackled at design time, but they are intentionally kept risky, knowing that they can be handled by higher level designs.
By applying VOS [@hegde2004voltage], the energy consumption reduces quadratically according to the voltage, $V_{dd}$, while the delay only increases linearly. Although energy savings are achieved, the drawback lies in the mis-captured data for the memory elements that are caused by the reduced delay. For instance, designs with Razor FF error detectors [@razor03] produce sparse timing-errors that need to consider. The ANT techniques [@ant1999] intentionally introduce computation errors, in the hope that they will be removed at higher levels.
The Razor FF and the ANT techniques are further investigated in Chapter \[sec:algo\]. In that chapter, error resilient VOS designs are employed to save power for a digital accelerator with algorithm-level optimization. Moreover, Chapter \[sec:system\] presents a power reduction potential in a Massive MIMO application, by embracing light-weight but erroneous hardware.
Adjust supply voltage to trade quality for power savings {#sec:variation_voltage}
--------------------------------------------------------
The dynamic power consumption of a digital IC scales with ${V_{dd}}^2$, where $V_{dd}$ is the supply voltage. Therefore, digital circuit designers usually reduce $V_{dd}$ (VOS) for power savings. The savings are error-free, as long as the signal setup timing constraint is satisfied [@7062936]. However, the critical (minimum) $V_{dd}$ that guarantees setup-timing closure cannot be determined at the design-time due to permanent and temporary variations. Consequently, hardware errors might be introduced: for logic components, the signal from the longest propagation paths are mis-captured [@6569370]; for memory components, this leads to incorrect write/read data/address or data loss [@karl2005timing].
As shown in Fig. \[fig:variation\_vdd\], methods for selecting the $V_{dd}$ are summarized into three categories, i.e., the worst-case corner, adaptive scaling, and error-resilient VOS (Voltage Over-Scaling).
![Worst-case corner, adaptive scaling, and error resilient VOS (Voltage Over-Scaling) approaches all cope with speed variability. The worst-case corner leaves energy savings on the table. The adaptive scaling (DVFS and AVFS) provides just needed $V_{dd}$ for error-free operation. Continuing to reduce $V_{dd}$ (VOS) saves more power, but errors will occur. This calls for error-resilient design techniques.[]{data-label="fig:variation_vdd"}](vdd.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
### Limitations to the worst-case corner approach {#sec:variation_wc}
Conventionally, the worst-case corner approach is applied to manage the supply voltage. All chips are set to a fixed and more-than-enough $V_{dd}$, to meet the rarely occurring worst cases. Corner-files are usually used for circuit guard-banding. An example on describing the corner cases of process variations is drawn in Fig. \[fig:variation\_corner\]. These files describe the worst-case, the typical-case, and the best-case delay values of standard-cells.
![Spatial process variability are described by slow and fast corner-case files. This figure can be seen as a top-view of the pyramid in Fig. \[fig:intro\_pyramid\], where at the application-level TT is desired while all corners are ensured at the circuit-level.[]{data-label="fig:variation_corner"}](corner.pdf){width="55.00000%"}
With the worst-case design approach, logic synthesis is performed for the slow-case process corner. However, these corner files lack detailed information on local within-die variations. Instead, global on-chip variation margins [@chang2012design; @stine2007freepdk] are added for all transistors. The global timing margins assume pessimistically that all devices within a die are performing according to their worst-case process conditions. Another pessimistic assumption is that all chips always operate at the worst-case in terms of voltage and temperature. The gap between the worst-case and the typical case is large. For instance, Fig. \[fig:variation\_famx\] shows that for a 28nm digital circuit, the performance difference (in terms of speed) is as large as 2.2x.
![The speed of a 28nm circuit exhibits a 2.2x difference between the typical-case and worst-case corners. Results are obtained by Spice simulation. The worst-case assumes the most pessimistic PVT variations.[]{data-label="fig:variation_famx"}](fmax.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
These worst-case conditions are often extremely rare combinations of complex interactions across an IC, which are almost impossible to predict at design time. Hence, as is often stated, the conventional worst-case design style leaves too much performance and power efficiency on the table.
### Adaptive supply voltage schemes {#sec:variation_adaptive}
Adaptive supply voltage schemes minimize the worst-case supply voltage margin used to account for PVT variations, using a suitable feedback signal to close the control loop. It finds the most optimal $V_{dd}$ for each chip, at chip setup stage (post-silicon) [@kulkarni2006statistical], or periodically (runtime) adjust depending on the workload [@pillai2001real; @martin2002combined; @horvath2007dynamic], and environments [@martin2002combined; @das2006self; @herbert2009variation; @miro2014fine]. This method reduces the $V_{dd}$ and hence reduces the power consumption.
A stereotypical scaling scheme is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:variation\_top\]. At run-time, the speed detector checks whether the DUT circuit has failed. This information is fed to a supply voltage control unit to adjust the $V_{dd}$. If no or very few errors are detected, the $V_{dd}$ will be scaled down to save power. The supply voltage controller adjusts the $V_{dd}$ slowly (in a coarse-grained temporal manner, e.g. every thousands/millions of cycles), for two main reasons: i) slowly adjusting saves power in the supply voltage controller itself; ii) the transition delay for modifying $V_{dd}$ is inherently much larger than the clock period of the core circuit.
![The dynamical scaling method handles speed variability. Moreover, the error-resilient $V_{dd}$ scheme also handles circuit timing-errors. The dynamical scaling approach utilizes speed monitors and $V_{dd}$ controllers. The VOS approach equips extra error detection and correction/mitigation units.[]{data-label="fig:variation_top"}](top.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
The runtime adaptive schemes are divided into two sub-categories: dynamical voltage frequency scaling (DVFS) [@nowka200232; @skadron2004hybrid; @calhoun2006ultra] and adaptive voltage frequency scaling (AVFS) [@burd2000dynamic; @das2006self; @elgebaly2007variation; @miro2014fine]. DVFS uses what’s called open-loop scaling. A system with DVFS schemes listens to the change of system requirements. The hardware vendor determines the optimal voltage for the chip based on the target application and frequency. DVFS is not calibrated to any specific chips. Instead, vendors create a statistical model that predicts what voltage level a chip that’s already verified as good will need to operate at a given frequency. For example, our LDPC decoder designs [@li15asscc-ldpc; @li15el-ldpc] are characterized for different throughput-voltage combinations. Therefore, the system can opt to reduce $V_{dd}$, at run-time, if the required throughput is low. Note that these frequency-voltage sets are verified at the worst-case corner. So timing margins remain.
Although sometimes used interchangeably, AVFS, in contrast, uses a closed-loop system in which on-die hardware mechanisms manage the voltage — by taking real-time measurements of the junction temperature and current frequency, and adjusting the voltage to match them. This method eliminates the power waste discussed above by reducing the traditional guard bands that are required to ensure proper operation of every piece of silicon. AVFS can detect the circuit speed directly or indirectly. Indirect methods are observing the temperature and supply voltage that affects the circuit speed [@tschanz2007adaptive]. A replica circuit [@replica02] provides direct hints to the circuit speed. By monitoring the replica circuit, the actual speed of the circuit, which might be difficult to measure, can be guessed. However, these prediction schemes suffer from the delay mismatch between the replica and the actual critical path caused by within-die variations. In another word, the inaccuracy of the timing prediction limits the full exploitation of the variability design margin.
Therefore, in-situ timing-error detectors are proposed to measure the circuit speed. Canary FF [@canary04] compares the results on a flip-flop (FF) with a redundant FF that captures a delayed input. It warns the circuit when potential timing-errors are about to occur. The operating condition when the first warning is produced is called the point of first warning (PoFW). The circuit design of Canary FF is explained in Section \[sec:algo\_cscircuit\]. Chapter \[sec:algo\] uses canary FF as the benchmark to demonstrate the power savings of the margin shaving.
An example of potential adaptive scaling benefits is shown in the Appendix A (published in [@huang16asscc-polar-dfe]). It presents a digital front-end for a polar RF transmitter, that demonstrates 70% speed gain or 33% power saving potential if the adaptive scaling method is applied.
![The operation region of a digital front-end IC can be much wider than conservatively assumed. The IC is measured at $25\celsius$. Orignal data is published in [@huang16asscc-polar-dfe].[]{data-label="fig:variation_polar_yeild"}](polar_yeild.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
These adaptive scaling schemes provide error-free power savings. However, because of transient degradation, e.g. supply voltage noises (IR drop), $V_{dd}$ will drop occasionally [@dietel2014compact]. To avoid errors, the circuit either boosts $V_{dd}$ up again quickly or guards with an additional margin from the PoFW. Both methods waste power. Therefore, a more aggressive version of adaptive scaling, VOS, is proposed. It shaves more design margins at the cost of infrequent timing violations.
Cross-layer error-resilient voltage over-scaling schemes {#sec:variation_vos}
--------------------------------------------------------
The third $V_{dd}$ adjustment method is VOS with error resilient designs. When $V_{dd}$ is further scaled down (lower than the safe operating condition), infrequent setup timing-errors occur. However, through adequate error resilient designs, these errors are be detected and corrected. In other words, the cross-layer optimizations are performed to handle errors. This goes beyond the dynamical scaling scheme where only environmental and runtime information is shared across design levels.
An error-resilient VOS scheme operates in a closed-loop as shown in Fig. \[fig:variation\_top\]. In addition to $V_{dd}$ adjustment loop, it also utilizes an error detection and correction loop. The most popular error resilient approaches, i.e., in-situ error detection and corrections, and ANT techniques, are discussed in the following subsections.
Signals on timing critical paths take longer to propagate. Therefore, they call for more consideration during VOS, since they are more likely to fail during VOS. An example is shown in Fig. \[fig:variation\_error\_position\], where the MSB usually has a higher error possibility than the LSB for a digital adder. This is especially true for carry-ripple adders, in which the carry propagates from the LSB to the MSB, making the delay of MSB longer [@liu2010computation].
![With VOS, errors firstly occur at MSB for carry-ripple adders.[]{data-label="fig:variation_error_position"}](error_position.pdf){width="0.65\linewidth"}
### In-situ error detection and corrections {#sec:variation_detection}
For error detection, timing checks on flip-flops (FF) have been proposed and widely utilized. This scheme modifies the FF in the circuit. In-situ FF based schemes [@razor03; @bowman09; @nicolaidis2013adda; @bubble13] are suggested to overcome this mismatch for microprocessors. Razor I [@razor03] detects a timing-error by employing an extra shadow latch. In contrast to Canary FF, the Razor can find the exact timing slack for design margin shaving. The details of Razor flip-flops and its variants are discussed in Chapter \[sec:algo\].
For error correction, counter-flow [@razor03] and instruction-replay [@bowman09], that issues extra clock cycles, are proposed. They result in multiple-cycle throughput penalties once a timing-error is detected. Bubble Razor [@bubble13] reduces the throughput penalty to 1 cycle. However, the design is based on two-phase latches, which is difficult to be incorporated into mainstream EDA tools. Global clock gating scheme [@razor03] also achieves one cycle penalty. Nevertheless, it is difficult to implement for large area high-speed circuits. Recently, a local 1-cycle error correction scheme is proposed [@shin13]. However, the timing constraint for its error flag signal becomes a challenge for multiple fan-in situations.
The Razor techniques [@razor03; @5654663; @bull2011power; @fojtik2012bubble] predicts the PVT variation at circuit-level and exploits the design margin by providing minimum but sufficient $V_{dd}$ to the chip. [@bull2011power] reports 30% and 52% power consumption saving on a typical die and a fast die, respectively; [@fojtik2012bubble] achieves 54% saving on a typical die and 60% saving on a fast one. A potential hazard of applying this technique is massive throughput reduction when $V_{dd}$ is dropped lower than the sufficient voltage. In this situation, the signal processor would terminate the processing to meet the throughput requirement, which leads to output quality degradation.
The infrequent errors, occurred in the time frame of nano seconds, are resolved by micro-architectural level error correction schemes. The supply voltage controller adjusts may the $V_{dd}$ every tens of seconds,
### Arithmetic noise tolerance {#sec:variation_ant}
The arithmetic noise tolerance (ANT) techniques [@Shim2004; @hegde2004voltage; @narayanan2010scalable; @karakonstantis2009system] save power in digital signal processors by gracefully sacrificing the signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR), admitting that a certain amount of errors might occur. They detect errors by algorithmic comparison. For example, [@hegde2004voltage] detects errors by observing the error-prone results, to check if it is within a reasonable range. The mitigation is accomplished by temporal or spatial redundancies. As a consequence, the setup timing-errors during $V_{dd}$ scaling are translated into graceful signal quality degradation.
ANT is applied to systems that deal with soft output requirements. That is, the output quality is not measured as a yes or no criteria. Instead, it is in the gray zone for quality. For instance, signals in a wireless communication system are measured by their SNR, EVM, or BER; signals in an audio player are measured by the PESQ value. In these soft output systems, a certain degradation can be acceptable.
Numerous designs [@hegde2004voltage; @narayanan2010scalable; @karakonstantis2009system; @huang14sips-error-resilient; @Shim2004; @huang16jsps-error-resilient] are proposed to reduce the hardware errors at a given power budget. For instance, Fig. \[fig:power\_fir\] provides an example of energy saving in 65nm COMS FIR filter brought by VOS, at the cost of SNR degradation. Besides, [@Shim2004] utilizes reduced precision redundancy to reduce the power consumption by 40% on a digital FIR filter at the cost of slightly degrading the 23 dB SNR signal into 22 dB, and by 35% for a 64-point FFT when lowering the SNR from 55.5 dB to 55 dB.
![VOS with error resilient techniques save power on FIR filter, at the cost of signal quality degradations [@liu2010computation].[]{data-label="fig:power_fir"}](power_fir_vector.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:variation_con}
----------
PVT and other environmental and runtime variations challenge the quality of digital circuits and system. The traditional worst-case, which introduces big safety margin, waste power consumption. In 28nm CMOS technology, the safety margin is as high as 2.2x the speed potential. Consequently, careful trade-offs on power and quality that considers across all design levels are encouraged.
Dynamical and adaptive scaling with on-chip timing-error monitors saves power by providing a just-needed supply voltage. The power saving will be maximized when the voltage is scaled down more aggressively where errors occur. In these situations, error-resilient designs are crucial to mitigate errors and ensure quality.
Gate-level error impacts modeling analysis for random error mitigation {#sec:model}
======================================================================
This chapter presents a gate-level random error model. The model, named as SERIAL – SignificancE RankIng ALgorithm, is an analytical approach that eliminates the pain of traditional time-costly Monte-Carlo simulation. It ranks the FF in a digital circuit according to their contribution to the outcome. The efficiency and effectiveness are shown on benchmark circuits. For instance, the computation of the algorithm can be finished within 30 seconds for a 64-point FFT accelerator (52k gates). With the ranking, circuit designers have the opportunity to selectively ensure the most important FF (e.g. FF hardening, VOS margin), without excessive hardening overheads. On an FFT circuitry, the algorithm helps to reduce the hardening overhead of 100% FF into 45%. The work in this chapter is unveiled in [@huang16dac-serial].
The rest of this chapter is organized as follows: Section \[sec:model\_intro\] presents the motivation. Section \[sec:model\_work\] reviews pre-existing approaches and highlights the contribution of the proposed SERIAL model. Section \[sec:model\_serial\] explains the model and the algorithm to calculate it. Section \[sec:model\_result\] verifies the scalability and effectiveness of the model. Section \[sec:model\_apply\] applies the model to facilitate the design of an FFT processor. Finally, Section \[sec:model\_con\] concludes this chapter.
Demands for a reliability model {#sec:model_intro}
-------------------------------
System reliability has been a major concern since the beginning of electronic design age [@siewiorek2014reliable]. Traditional major threats are yield-related manufacturing faults (stuck-at) [@mei1974bridging], space-radiation incurred soft-errors [@hazucha2000impact], and wearing out/aging degradation [@yamabe1985time; @vattikonda2006modeling]. Recently, VOS techniques introduce another reliability threat. These techniques save energy by design-margin shaving, e.g. Razor [@razor03] and ANT [@ant99]. However, errors are deliberately introduced during the margin shaving process. These traditional and newly introduced reliability threats need to be handled. Otherwise, system quality is at risk.
Circuit and system designers used to takes a ‘best effort’ design flow. They apply reliability enhancement techniques with the best effort to ensure reliability. The most effective methods include ECC on memory [@slayman2005cache], FF and SRAM hardening [@jahinuzzaman2009soft], design rule check (DRC) modification and other safety margin insertion methods. The enhancement overhead ranges from as low as 12% for a SECDED (Single Error Correction and Double Error Detection) Hamming code [@richter2008new], to as high as 200% for TMR (Triple Module Redundancy). Designers usually verify the application-level reliability at the very end of the design process. Following this design flow, designers usually have no knowledge of which unit contributes the most to the system reliability, which is to say, we cannot distinguish which part is necessary and which part is over-design.
The ‘best effort’ design flow, although easy to implement, either leaves safety margin wasted, or requires modifications at the very end (sometimes even leads to another round of IC process tape-out). A more efficient design flow is to model the reliability factor in every phase of the design process. As a consequence, methods to tackle these issues can be performed effectively and timely.
To tackle the reliability threat, a model to quantify impacts of reliability threats is needed. With the help of the model, RTL designers can provide just-needed reliability counter-measures, avoiding over-designing margin in chip power and area. The following section discusses prior modeling studies.
Modeling and enhancement techniques for reliability {#sec:model_work}
---------------------------------------------------
Reliable system design depends on accurate and easy-to-use reliability models. Besides, it also requires effective and low-cost techniques to enhance reliability, once the system fails to meet the reliability target. This section discusses works on both aspects, as a background for this chapter.
### Error modeling
The works on reliability modeling consist of two categories: i) error generation and ii) error propagation (Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_level\]). The partitioning is the same for both traditional errors (e.g. soft-error and stuck-at error) and VOS-induced errors.
![Modeling process and structure for error impacts.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_level"}](rank_level.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
#### Error generation
The principal difference among various error sources lays in the error generation. The error-generation model of soft-errors demands radiation-testing experiment and device-level simulation. It also requires standard-cell level analysis of error production. The model is finalized by the layout-level (e.g. Spice) single-cycle analysis to address effects of logical masking, electrical masking, and vulnerable window [@ebrahimi2015comprehensive].
In contrast, to model VOS-induced error generation, device-level reliability issues and timing (signal delay) degradation are analyzed at reduced $V_{dd}$ and IR-drop noise. The layout is simulated (e.g. using Spice), to provide error generation information.
#### Error propagation
The error propagation model describes the error impact on algorithm output, or on application-level performance. Therefore, the propagation model is uniform, regardless of the source of errors (soft-error and VOS error).
Several estimation techniques for reliability have been proposed to investigate the behavior of circuits under faults. For instance, ad-hoc investigations into digital circuits are carried out for specific applications [@gaisler2002portable; @karakonstantis2012exploitation; @may2008case; @murali2005analysis]. However, they require an in-depth understanding of both reliability and the circuit design, which are not always available.
Therefore, a more generic design approach is coveted. Within this context, the Monte-Carlo simulation (e.g. [@holcomb2009design; @clark1995fault; @mirkhani2015depth]), taking the pre-computed error generation information, has become the most popular method for gate-level error propagation modeling.
Whole system simulation on AVF (Architectural Vulnerability Factor) modeling [@mukherjee2003systematic] are performed, taking the results from gate-level models. Recently, [@biswas2008computing; @wang2013accurate] discuss the vulnerability behavior of faulty structures at the architectural level. [@polian2011modeling] suggests a transient error model. It analyzes the possibility that soft-errors reflect on the output. Although it predicts the occurrence rate of an output error, it cannot model the consequent severity of errors, which however is essential.
### Reliability enhancement techniques
This subsection discusses reliability enhancement techniques that will be utilized when the modeling is complete.
Many reliability enhancement techniques have been proposed [@6905763; @5236054]. At gate level, [@matush2010area; @5236054] introduced hardened flip-flops (FF hardening), which replace the traditional flip-flops, to reduce single-event upset without large area and power overhead.
Various mitigation schemes to cope with the impact of soft-error have been investigated. For memories and communication systems, errors can be corrected by redundant data, e.g. error correction code [@4212048; @mitra2005robust]. For digital circuits, selective triple modular redundancy [@samudrala2004selective; @Bolchini2007] is effective in reducing the chance of transferring the circuit-level faults to micro-architectural level errors.
Besides the efforts in reducing the application-level occurrence of errors, designing systems that operate reliably even with the presence of errors is also of great interest. In these soft-quality requirements systems, errors are acceptable as long as the system output still meets the requirements. For instance, the transient error in a wireless communication system can easily be tolerated by the symbol detector, as long as the error vector magnitude is allowed [@karakonstantis2012exploitation].
Despite the green-power benefit of VOS, the circuit reliability is at risk of timing-errors and noise contamination. Therefore, it is either suggested to apply an additional margin to guarantee reliability [@kunitake2011possibilities] or to implement error handling schemes [@razor03]. Both methods introduce overhead.
Considering that all the error mitigation methods discussed above introduce area and power expenses for the system, circuit designers must carefully investigate the probability and characteristics of reliability risks, as well as their consequences, to provide just-needed reliability enhancement efforts.
Although methods for error mitigation are proposed, they do not provide systematically guideline on which part should harden. This chapter identifies the bottlenecks in random error hardening, and serves as a guideline for selectively hardening.
Contributions of this chapter
-----------------------------
The error propagation model method is essential in judging the impact of reliability threats. It can analysis errors with various generation mechanism. However, the general Monte-Carlo method does not scale to large circuits because of runtime constraints, even with the help of grouping of similar gates. In summary, it is of immense interest to provide analytical approaches to investigate logic gate behavior under faults.
This chapter presents an analytical approach (SERIAL) for gate-level modeling. The approach efficiently identifies the most significant flip-flops that contribute mostly to the output quality. As a result, all flip-flops (FF) and input ports are sorted out based on their significance to the final output. It analyzes algorithmic effects of errors (error magnitude), in contrast to [@polian2011modeling] where only the chance of detectable errors were covered.
This chapter focuses only on finding out the most significant FF because they are the starting and end point of logic signals. Soft errors can be mostly eliminated locally by applying FF hardening [@ramanarayanan2003analysis]. Once the most significant FF are identified, circuit designers can exploit extra redundant FF or the corresponding logic (e.g. double/triple modular redundancy), to alleviate the reliability issue. From the VOS errors point of view, finding out the most significant FF helps to understand which FF need to be protected (from VOS errors). The only difference, compared to soft errors, is the error occurrence data, which can be obtained by Spice simulation.
This algorithm is challenging: errors might occur in random situations, and their impact is highly dependent on the circuit’s states. Therefore, this work assumes that the input data and circuit’s states are completely random. Another assumption is that signals coming from different FF to the same FF are independent. These assumptions make the model unrealistic at first sight. However, it still provides very useful information: the identified most significant FF are usually the clock-gating controllers, the state recording registers and loop controller, which are always essential for the system’s reliability, regardless of input data and states. By only hardening the most significant FF (a small percentage of FF), the system’s reliability will improve remarkably.
For an absolute correct result, all FF should function correctly, which is difficult to guarantee due to area/power constraints. This work answers the question which FF to protect, when only a small portion of protected is allowed due to overhead restricts. Note that the result of SERIAL serves as a relevant guidance for circuit designers to choose which FF to harden, yet, it does not provide a guaranteed reliability model.
This approach focuses on the effects of faults in digital circuits, rather than specific consequences of soft-errors. Therefore, it can analyze the effect of soft errors, VOS errors, and even the conventional stuck-at faults, provided that the corresponding error generation model is given.
SERIAL – a SignificancE RankIng ALgorithm for error effects modeling {#sec:model_serial}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed algorithm, SERIAL, takes the netlist of the digital circuits as the input, extracts the connection information between FF and in/out ports, and ranks all FF regarding their contribution to the final output. This section explains the algorithm in detail.
In this chapter, individual values are denoted by normal math symbols (e.g. $df$). The corresponding collections, e.g. sets, vectors, and matrices are denoted as upper case math symbols (e.g. $DF$).
The **significance** of an FF or an in/out port is defined as the impact of its state change on the output. An FF with high significance implies radical system failure, once it is infected by an error. Therefore, to guarantee the system performance, circuit designers must identify the FF with high significance and then harden them. The significance on the output is initialized by the user of SERIAL users. The algorithm distributes the significance to all FF and input ports.
To compute the significance, the notion of significance graph is introduced. Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_netlist\] shows an example of converting a netlist into significance graph.
![A significance graph inverses the signal direction of the corresponding netlist. Each node in the significance graph distribute its significance $S$ to its neighbors through the arrows.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_netlist"}](rank_netlist.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
A **significance graph** is a weighted directed graph, which is formally modeled as a tuple <$O$, $I$, $F$, $S$, $DF$, $DW$>. The elements are explained as follows:
- *Nodes*, which include:
- *Source* ($O$): the output ports for the digital circuit are regarded as sources, since they distribute the significance to their neighbors;
- *Sink* ($I$): the input ports;
- *Internal* ($F$): the FF, as the intermediate nodes for the significance graph.
- *Significance* ($S$): The $s_i$ of each node represents its contribution to the final output.
- *Arrows* represent the $s$ distribution between nodes. Each arrow has two features:
- *Distribution Factor* ($DF$): it represents the portion of $s$ distributed from one node to its adjacent tails. Therefore, the sum of the $df_{ij}$ that start from the same node is normalized to a unity 1, representing the significance of the node is distributed to its adjacent nodes. For instance, in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_netlist\], $df_{75}+df_{76}=1$.
- *Distribution Weight* ($DW$): it denotes the distributed $s$ in the arrow. Therefore, $DW = S \cdot DF$.
The $S$ of each node is determined by its adjacent heads, determined by the $DF$, which is shown as Equation \[eq:model\_s\]: $$\begin{bmatrix}
S_F \\
S_I
\end{bmatrix}
- DF *
\begin{bmatrix}
S_O \\
S_F
\end{bmatrix}
= \epsilon \approx 0,
\label{eq:model_s}$$
where $S_F$ denotes the $S$ of the $FF$ ($n$ in total); $S_I$ represents the $S$ of the $m$ inputs, $S_O$ is the significance of the $k$ outputs; $\epsilon$ is the computational error (which is 0 for the exact solution); and $DF$ is the transfer matrix (size \[$n$+$m$, $k$+$m$\]) for $S$: $$S_F =
\begin{bmatrix}
S_{f_1} \\
S_{f_2} \\
\vdots \\
S_{f_n}
\end{bmatrix};
S_I =
\begin{bmatrix}
S_{i_1} \\
S_{i_2} \\
\vdots \\
S_{i_m}
\end{bmatrix};
S_O =
\begin{bmatrix}
S_{o_1} \\
S_{o_2} \\
\vdots \\
S_{o_k}
\end{bmatrix};
\label{eq:model_s1}$$
$$DF =
\begin{bmatrix}
DF_{O \rightarrow F} & DF_{F \rightarrow F} \\
DF_{O \rightarrow I} & DF_{F \rightarrow I}
\end{bmatrix}.
\label{eq:model_s2}$$
The sum in each column of $DF$ is 1. The initial values of $S_O$ in Equation \[eq:model\_s\] are initialized by users. By default, they are all set to 1, implying the equal importance of the output ports.
The designer is free to set these initial values, according to the application requirement. For instance, if the output represents a 2’s complementary binary number, it is advised to set the significance to $2^i$ for some applications, where $i$ is the bit position.
The matrix $DF$ is determined by the combinational logic between nodes in the significance graph, which is extracted from the netlist.
Equation \[eq:model\_s\] shows $n$+$m$ independent linear equations with $n$+$m$ unknowns ($S_F$ and $S_I$). The number of unknowns is huge for practical digital circuits. For example, there are more than 1M unknowns for a 1 $mm^2$ circuit in 28nm. This makes the exact solution ($\epsilon=0$) unrealistic. However, $DF$ is usually sparse, since not all FF are directly connected. This chapter proposes to use a heuristic algorithm to get an accurate-enough $S$ ($\epsilon$ close enough to 0) for all FF. The structure of the method is summarized in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_system\].
![The SERIAL model consist of two procedures. It computes the connectivity before determining the significance.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_system"}](rank_system.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The solver of the SERIAL model consists of the following components:
- Initialize: set initial values $S$ for output ports ($S_O$);
- Compute *$DF$* (Procedure 1): determine the $df$ from each node to all adjacent tails of it;
- Compute *$S$* (Procedure 2): breadth-first search to update $DW$ for each arrow, and hence $S$ for each node ($S_I$ and $S_F$).
### Determine the distribution factor $DF$ {#sec:df}
For one node, its adjacent tails inherit different portions of $S$, since the combinational logic is different. Procedure 1 computes $DF$ for one node (a row of $DF$). Therefore, it should be executed for every node to obtain the complete $DF$.
The notation of a **logic graph** is introduced. Similar to the significance graph, it also reverses the signal transferring direction of the netlist. The **logic graph** is modeled as a tuple <$O$, $I$, $G$, $LS$, $LDF$, $LDW$>:
- *Nodes*, which include:
- *Source* ($O$): the aim of this logic is to compute the $DF$ for this node;
- *Sink* ($I$): all input ports and sequential FF;
- *Internal* ($G$): the combinational logic gates are the intermediate nodes for the graph.
- *Logic Significance* ($LS$) for each node in the logic graph.
- *Arrows* denote the $LS$ distribution between nodes. Arrows have two features:
- *Logic Distribution Factor* ($LDF$): the portion of $LS$ distributed from a node to its tails.
- *Logic Distribution Weight* ($LDW$): the $LS$ on the arrow.
The logic graph is a directed weighted graph. It contains branches and conjunctions, as the netlist might have branches and multi-port logic gates. The internal nodes are combinational logic gates, implying that the logic significance graph is non-cyclic (otherwise, the corresponding netlist contains cycles in combinational logics).
A head node distributes its $LS$ to its tail nodes along the arrows. The distribution factor $ldf$ is determined by the gate type: **$ldf$** is defined as the normalized possibility that an changed input data leads to changed output data. The input port corresponds to the tail node in the logic graph. The output port corresponds to the head node in the logic graph. Note that since the logic significance can only be distributed, the summation of $ldf$ from a node is a normalized 1.
For instance, the procedure of computing the $ldf$ for a 3-input AND gate (see Table \[tab:model\_truth\_example\]) is discussed with its truth table. For the input port A, if the signal is independently changed from 0 to 1, the state of the AND gate might change from state \[1->5, 2->6, 3->7, 4->8\], respectively, depending on the initial signal of port B and C. Of all four possible changes, only the state change 4->8 leads to a changed output Z. This also applies to changing port A from 1 to 0. Therefore, for port A, the $ldf$ before normalization is 2/8, meaning that 2/8 of random changes in port A result to port Z value change. Considering that for input B and C the $ldf$ are both 2/8 (by symmetry), the normalized $ldf$ is therefore 1/3, since the sum of $ldf$ for any node is 1. In fact, for any symmetrical logic gates, the normalized $ldf$ is $1/n$, where $n$ is the number of input ports. This implies that all inputs contribute equally to the output.
---------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(l)[1-2]{} (l)[3-10]{} A $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
(l)[2-2]{} (l)[3-10]{} B $0$ $0$ $1$ $1$ $0$ $0$ $1$ $1$
(l)[2-2]{} (l)[3-10]{} C $0$ $1$ $0$ $1$ $0$ $1$ $0$ $1$
(l)[1-2]{} (l)[3-10]{} out Z $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $1$
---------------------------- --- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
: Truth table of a 3-input AND gate.[]{data-label="tab:model_truth_example"}
One possible approach to computing $DF$ is enumerating the paths from the source node to each sink node. However, the number of unique paths increases exponentially with the number of branches and conjunctions, making the enumeration approach impractical. Therefore, this chapter proposes a heuristic breadth-first graph traversal algorithm to compute the $DF$ (see **Procedure 1**). It records the $LS$ for each node and visits each node for only once during an iteration.
**Input**: logic graph of $node_i$ **Output**: $DF$ for all arrows of $node_i$ push $node_i$ to the empty *stack*; pop a $node_j$ from *stack*; **visit**($node_j$); mark $node_k$ as visited; push $node_k$ to the *stack*; return $node_i.node_j.df \gets node_j.ls$ $\Delta \gets node_j.ls * arrow_k.ldf - arrow_k.ldw$; error $arrow_k.\epsilon_1 \gets \Delta / arrow_k.ldw * 100\%$; $arrow_k.ldw \gets arrow_k.ldw + \Delta$; $node_k.ls \gets node_k.ls + \Delta$;
When visiting a node, the algorithm updates the $LS$ of its adjacent tails, as well as the weight for the adjacent arrows ($LDW$). Besides, the $LDW$ change rate ($\epsilon_1$) is recorded as the metric of computational error (see Procedure 1). $\epsilon_1$ is checked at the end of each iteration to determine whether additional iterations are required.
Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\] shows an example of computing $DF$ for a specific FF ($node_b$). The netlist is converted to the logic graph in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\](b) (Note the direction of the arrows). The number of the node indicates the $S$, and the number on the arrow denotes the $LDW$. Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\](c)-(f) shows the significance update in the first iteration.
![An example of computing the distribution factor $DF$ (Procedure 1). (a): Netlist of the logic gates and FF within a pipeline stage; (b-f): Computing $DF$ using Procedure 1 in the first iteration. The procedure distributes the $S=1$ at $FF_b$ to $FF_d$-$FF_g$.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_example"}](rank_example.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
A mismatch is observed in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\](f), in which the logic significance of $node_j$, $ls_j$=0.375, is not equal to the sum of the $ldw$ of its adjacent arrows (0.125+0.125). This is because $node_j$ was visited in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\](e), where its $ldw$ is updated. Therefore, $node_j$ will not be visited afterwards, even though its $ls$ is updated in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\](f). Note that in the second iteration, the mismatch error on $node_j$ will be eliminated, since when visiting $node_j$, its $ls$ is already correct.
The mismatch is generated because of the conjunction of arrows from different layers (nodes in the same layer means they have the same logic depth). For example, $node_i$ (in $layer_2$) and $node_k$ (in $layer_3$) are both connected to $node_j$ (in $layer_4$), which results in the mismatch in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\](f). The magnitude of the computation error $\epsilon_1$ is used to estimate the mismatch of the computation procedure.
To reach zero mismatches (zero error $\epsilon_1$) for the logic graph, the maximum number of iterations is equal to the maximum logic depth. This is because, after each iteration, the correct logic significance from nodes of the same layer will at least propagate to the nodes of the next layer. In reality, $\epsilon_1$ converges more quickly than the maximum bound, because, by the time a node is visited, it has probably got the correct update information ($ldw$) from all of its adjacent heads.
### Determine the significance $S$
This section discusses the algorithm to solve Equation \[eq:model\_s\], which determines the significance for all nodes. **Procedure 2** shows the algorithm.
**Input**: the significance graph. **Output**: $s$ for all nodes. push output ports (sources) to the empty *stack*; pop a $node_j$ from *stack*; **visit**($node_j$); mark $node_k$ as visited; push $node_k$ to the *stack*; return $node_j.s$ $\Delta \gets node_j.s * arrow_k.df - arrow_k.dw$; error $arrow_k.\epsilon_2 \gets \Delta / arrow_k.dw * 100\%$; $arrow_k.dw \gets arrow_k.dw + \Delta$; $node_k.s \gets node_k.s + \Delta$;
Similar to Procedure 1, it is also a heuristic breadth-first algorithm. However, this problem is more complicated than Procedure 1, because the significance graph contains not only branches and conjunctions but also loops. By applying Procedure 2, each node is only visited once in an iteration, eliminating the situation of the algorithm being trapped in the loop.
Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_loop\] shows the example of computing the significance during the first and the second iteration. The initial significance $s$ at $O_1$ is set as an unity 1, and the $s$ for $O_2$ is 2. In Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_loop\](d), a mismatch can be observed on $F_7$ due to loops. This mismatch is measured by computational error $\epsilon_2$, and it will reduce in future iterations: during the first iteration, $F_7$ obtains a $\Delta$ of 0.25 from $arrow_{F_5 \rightarrow F_7}$ (Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_loop\](c)): $$S_{F_7} = 1 + \Delta = 1 + \frac{1}{4}.$$ The same $\Delta$ $arrow_{F_5 \rightarrow F_7}$ becomes 0.25/$2^2$ in the second iteration (Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_loop\](g)): $$S_{F_7} = 1 + \Delta_1 + \Delta_2 = 1 + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{16}.$$ This is because the loop $F_7$->$F_5$->$F_7$ contains 2 branches, i.e. $F_7$ and $F_5$ both have two adjacent tails. When the number of iterations goes to infinite, the $\Delta$ forms geometric progression with a common ratio of $1/4$, causing the final significance of $F_7$ to converge: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{F_7} &= 1 + \Delta_1 + \Delta_2 + \Delta_3 + \cdots \nonumber\\
&= 1 + \frac{1}{4} + \frac{1}{16} + \frac{1}{64} + \cdots = 1.3\dot3.\end{aligned}$$
![An example of computing the significance (Procedure 2) for the netlist in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_netlist\]. (a-d): the first iteration; (e-h): the second iteration.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_loop"}](rank_loop.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Since every loop must contain branches (otherwise the corresponding loop in the netlist does not contain influx/conjunctions, as the graph reverses the direction of the netlist), the common ratio of $\Delta$ must be smaller than 1, preventing the significance to go to infinity. Therefore, the computational error $\epsilon_2$ is reduced with every iteration. Unlike Procedure 1 where a zero-$\epsilon_1$ result can be expected after a fixed amount of iterations, graphs with loops can only produce zero error after infinite iterations. However, in practical digital circuits, loops are usually very large (lots of branches in the loop, and hence the common ratio is very small), the breadth-first approach ensures that the algorithm converges faster. This is demonstrated with benchmark circuits in Section \[sec:rank\_speed\]. Moreover, the most significant FF normally have very high fan-in rates in the significance graph. As a consequence, they emerge on the top of the significance ranking list after several iterations.
Loops in the graph might result in a larger significance value for internal nodes than that of sources, e.g. $SF_7$ is greater than $SO_1$. One example in digital circuits is the loop controller, which is more significant than the output ports, and thus should be protected more carefully.
Another important feature worth mentioning is the **confidence factor**. It is defined as the portion of significance each node absorbs from the arrow coming towards it. Typically it is fixed to 1, implying full absorbance from the head. If it is set to 0, the tail node of the arrow receives no significance (or logic significance) distribution from the corresponding head node. As a result, the significance only allocates to other interested FF. This is used for situations when circuit designers assure certain paths/components are secure (or important), where the significance is saved to the insecure components. In this work, the *clk* port and the *reset* port are assumed as hardened and thus are free from errors. Therefore, the confidences for the arrows connecting to them are fixed to 0.
Experimental verification {#sec:model_result}
-------------------------
A proof-of-concept program written in Python was built to verify the proposed approach experimentally. It parses the input netlist into logic graphs and the significance graphs.
For benchmarking purpose, SERIAL is analyzed on a number of representative benchmark circuits: 6 ISCAS’89 circuits (e.g. s27) [@brglez1989combinational], 3 ITC’99 benchmarks (microprocessors e.g. b14) [@corno2000rt], 8-bit 32-point and 16-bit 64-point FFT processors (FFT32 and FFT64[^3]) (developed from [@ShuoLi2015]), and a commercial-ready low density parity check (LDPC) decoder (developed from [@li15el-ldpc]). The ITC’99 circuits and LDPC are deliberately selected for their high complexity as each FF is connected to various FF.
### Scalability {#sec:rank_speed}
When performing Procedure 1 for one node, the visited gates are formed in tree-structure (see Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_example\]). Therefore, $$\#gate\_visited \sim degree_{node}^2,$$ where $degree_{node}$ is the average degree of connectivity for the graph (it represents the number of nodes that one node, i.e. I/O and FF, connects to). Since the runtime for each gate is the product of mean iteration number ($iter_1$) and the $\#gate\_visited$, the overall complexity for all nodes of Procedure 1 ($T_1$) is summarized as: $$T_1 \sim \#nodes * iter_1 * degree_{node}^2.$$ Note that $\#nodes$ scales linearly with the circuit size, while $iter_1$ and $degree_{node}$ depend on the circuit characteristics.
The runtime for Procedure 2 is summarized as $$T_2 \sim iter2 * \#node * degree_{node},$$ where $degree_{node}$ implies the runtime for visiting one node, $\#node * degree_{node}$ suggests the runtime for one iteration, and $iter2$ is the number of total iterations for Procedure 2.
To measure the scalability of the algorithm, the SERIAL algorithm was applied to all benchmark circuits, on a desktop PC with Intel i7 CPU and 8 GB memory. The runtime analysis is shown in Table \[tab:model\_rank\_runtime\]. The benchmark complexity metrics that affect the algorithm execution time is listed.
--------------------------------------------------- ---------- ------ ----------------- ------ --------- --------
Procedure 2
(l)[2-4]{} (l)[5-6]{} (l)[7-7]{} $\#gate$ $degree_{node}$ runtime
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-4]{} (l)[5-6]{} (l)[7-7]{} s27 28 8 2.6 2.25 0.2 ms 0.1 ms
s510 315 32 3.3 2.8 2 ms 0.8 ms
s641 392 78 6.6 3.5 9 ms 3.4 ms
s5378 3.3k 263 9.3 2.6 39 ms 18 ms
s13207 9.7k 852 6.3 2.6 97 ms 44 ms
s38584 28k 1.8k 12.5 2.8 292 ms 160 ms
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-4]{} (l)[5-6]{} (l)[7-7]{} b14 9.6k 233 90.7 14.4 5.7 s 158 ms
b20 21k 546 115 14.0 10 s 325 ms
b21 22k 546 129 14.6 12 s 369 ms
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-4]{} (l)[5-6]{} (l)[7-7]{} FFT32 11k 2.2k 8.8 2.8 0.63 s 188 ms
FFT64 52k 8.6k 12.6 2.9 6.1 s 965 ms
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-4]{} (l)[5-6]{} (l)[7-7]{} LDPC 778k 59k 136.9 4.2 1424 s 40 s
--------------------------------------------------- ---------- ------ ----------------- ------ --------- --------
: SERIAL model solver runtime analysis for benchmark circuits.[]{data-label="tab:model_rank_runtime"}
For Procedure 1, the runtimes for SERIAL on all ISCAS’89 circuits are all well below 1s. The runtime for the 52k-gate FFT64, comparing with FFT32, increases linearly with the node number, and quadratically with the $degree_{node}$. For LDPC and ITC’99 circuits, the runtime is relatively large, due to their high $degree_{node}$, which is the unique property of their memory addressing units. Note that the runtime for Procedure 1 can be substantially reduced by parallelism as the computing processes for all node are independent. For all circuits, the number of iterations to reach zero $\epsilon_1$ for Procedure 1 are all small, confirming our assertion in Chapter \[sec:df\].
For Procedure 2, the runtime per iteration is reasonably small for all circuits. Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_delta\] shows the computational error $\epsilon_2$ convergence w.r.t. iterations. Naturally, $\epsilon_2$ reduces with more iterations performed. After 40 iterations, even the most demanding circuit, LDPC, reaches a maximum of 3% computational error $\epsilon_2$ for all arrows in the graph, which is very precise for the significance ranking. This also demonstrates the fast convergence of $\epsilon_2$, despite all the branches, conjunctions and cycles in the graph for practical circuits.
![In Procedure 2, the mismatch error $\epsilon_2$ converges rapidly towards 0.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_delta"}](rank_delta.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
In summary, considering that $degree_{node}$ does not change with the circuit size, the SERIAL algorithm scales linearly with the circuit size ($\#nodes$). The only time-consuming case is the exceptional circuit, LDPC, of which the $degree_{node}$ is high. Despite that, the algorithm for all benchmark circuits finishes reasonably fast.
### Validation on an LDPC decoder
After applying the SERIAL to the LDPC, each FF is labeled with its ranking order regarding significance. Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_ldpc\] (left y-axis) shows the significance distribution. A small portion (around 100) of FF has an extra-high significance value. These FF are mostly found in the control logic and clock-gating units. These high significance FF control lots of outputs. Moreover, the faults generated by these components cannot be flushed away easily.
![On an LDPC decoder circuit, errors on FF with high significance values leads to worse BER. The output quality is measured as BER, when random soft-errors are injected into FF. At each run, 100 neighboring FF with similar significance are under soft-errors, while the rest are free from soft-errors.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_ldpc"}](rank_ldpc.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
For comparison, a Monte-Carlo method is applied to simulate the LDPC under soft-error (randomly fault injection). The simulator randomly flips the Q port for every selected FF at a chance of 0.1% (1 in every thousand cycles) for each FF. For each run (denoted as a circle in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_ldpc\]), 100 FF with similar significance (e.g. $FF_{1000}$ to $FF_{1099}$, or $FF_{2000}$ to $FF_{2099}$) are selected for fault injection. Each chosen flip-flops is flipped during a randomly-chosen clock cycle with a uniform fault injection rate of 0.1% (1 in every thousand cycles). The output decoded bit error rate (BER) is denoted as the system’s output quality.
If faults are injected to FF with significance ranking smaller than 300 (high significance), the output degrades significantly (BER = 0.18). This is because once errors are introduced in these most significant nodes, a huge amount of FF are affected, and the output results are gradually degraded. The significance of most FF are smaller than the defined output significance (defined as 1), suggesting that they are less sensitive to errors. This reflects the error absorbent capability of the LDPC circuit. Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_ldpc\] shows a good coherence between the rank of the significance and the severity of soft-errors on the corresponding FF.
Note that the BER curse is not monotonously decreasing around the Flip-Flop ID \# 3k. This shows that the ranking cannot guarantee a node with higher significance is more important than others. The inaccuracy can be because of a lack of statistical and run-time logic state information, and mismatches in the significance distribution, etc. Despite that, the ranking serves as a guideline to distinguish which nodes are more important that should be protected, from the statistical point of view, as shown in Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_ldpc\].
Application to harden an FFT design {#sec:model_apply}
-----------------------------------
With the help of SERIAL, selective hardening can be performed on the FF with the highest significances. The FFT64 is simulated under random errors on FF, to capture its output SNR (Fig. \[fig:model\_rank\_fft\]).[^4] It easily represents the scenario when chips are enduring soft-error when the error generation is uniform across all FF. It can also mimic the error of VOS, with some extra modeling of the error generation.
An error rate of $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-4}$ is assumed for all basic FF, except for the hardened FF, where no error is assumed. A logical method to increase the reliability of a system under this threat is selective FF hardening, until the point that the reliability (in this case output quality) demand is met.
Comparing with the hardening without the help of SERIAL, where randomly selecting FF for protection is the viable option, hardening with the guidance of SERIAL yields much better SNR even at a lower hardening coverage (smaller overhead). For instance, if the target SNR is 20dB under the fault rate of $10^{-4}$, only 45% FF are required for hardening, compared with the almost 100% hardening need for the random selection approach. Considering that hardening an FF doubles the FF area, the selective hardening saves more than half of the hardening overhead.
![Compared with hardening randomly, selective hardening with SERIAL increases the SNR, at the same hardening ratio.[]{data-label="fig:model_rank_fft"}](rank_fft.pdf){width="100.00000%"}
That proves that for the same reliability/quality target, the FFT that hardened with the help of SERIAL can be superior in power consumption and area cost.
Conclusion {#sec:model_con}
----------
In this chapter, an analytical approach to estimate the effect of error occurrence at gate-level is presented. The main novel idea in the proposed method is to pursue a heuristic approach to find out the controlling logics that is too important to fail. This serves as a guidance for circuit designers to selectively harden the design by methods such as FF hardening and design margin insertion, and consequently reduce the power overhead of error-hardening.
The solving algorithm has shown a low execution runtime and good scalability of our method on various benchmark designs, i.e. ISCAS’89 and ITC’99 circuits, an FFT processor and an LDPC decoder. The coherence of the significance and the error effect, as well as the selective hardening benefits, was verified. Using this model, an FFT processor is designed. It shows huge gains regarding output quality with the same error generation rate (power overhead).
This work can further extend to analysis the impact when input data and circuit’s states are not completely random. Besides, the workload dependent error characteristic can also be introduced into this model to address aging-related errors [@hamdioui2013reliability; @reddy2005impact].
Microarchitecture-level power optimization exploiting application opportunities {#sec:arch}
===============================================================================
This chapter performs microarchitecture-level power saving when considering the opportunities from applications. It proposes, in the context of general-purpose and domain-specific processors (embedded CPU, MCU or DSP), a fine-grained hardware switching scheme to select the proper device for low power computing. This scheme exploits word-length optimization opportunities for a multiplication unit. This scheme reduces the power of the multiplication unit from an OpenRISC processor by 23.7%, which is equivalent to a 9.5% power saving for the whole execution unit. The work in this chapter is published in [@huang16el-hardware-switch].
The rest of this chapter is structured as follows: Section \[sec:arch\_intro\] pinpoints the opportunity in the power-hungry multiplier for an embedded processor. Section \[sec:arch\_arch\] reviewed the power consumption waste issue in an OpenRISC processor. Section \[sec:arch\_hs\] proposes the fine-grained hardware switch scheme and applied it to the multiplier unit. Section \[sec:arch\_profile\] profiles a variety of benchmark algorithms to find out the possible power benefit of this scheme. Section \[sec:arch\_verify\] verifies the benefits in energy saving by netlist simulation. Section \[sec:arch\_con\] concludes the chapter.
Processor power waste in using unsuitable execution units {#sec:arch_intro}
---------------------------------------------------------
Energy consumption is one of the most critical metrics for embedded signal processing systems. Traditionally, designers optimize the fixed-point word length that provides just-necessary precision for minimizing the power consumption. On the other hand, driven by the increasing demand for computing re-programmability, general-purpose computing devices, e.g. DSP, ASIP, and application processors, are becoming more favorable.
In these systems, designers are constrained to perform the arbitrary word-length optimization, since processors typically sacrifice hardware costs to cater for the most complicated computing cases. In the meantime, a lot of lightweight computations that can be performed in low-energy operation devices, are executed on these over-complicated and power-hungry hardware, which leads to energy waste consequently.
In general-purpose processors, subword SIMD exploits the over-reserved word-length by applying parallelism in data-path processing. Employing SIMD reduces the number of operations, and hence decreases energy consumption. However, It requires dedicated hardware as well as software tuning to enable these SIMD intrinsic functions. Subword soft-SIMD [@kraemer2007interactive], on the other hand, relies purely on software to exploit the sub-word parallelism. Nevertheless, in this scheme, guard bits are needed to be inserted, which is non-trivial for software developers [@fsoftsimd; @catthoor2010exploiting].
Contribution of this chapter {#sec:arch_contribution}
----------------------------
This chapter introduces an alternative low precision computation unit besides the traditional full precision unit. A hardware word-length detector is used to switch the hardware units, in a fine-grained manner, to reduce the computational cost when the full precision computation is not necessary.
Without degrading the output quality, this work detects small word-length computations and executes them in an extra reduced precision unit. This mechanism radically reduces the activation chance of the full precision unit. As a result, the dynamic power consumption decreases notably.
The detection and execution units are both implemented with hardware at the microarchitecture level. Consequently, this technique requires neither modification on compiler nor software. The mechanism is applied to the multiplication unit. An alternative low-precision multiplier is therefore proposed. It leads to significant power saving, as the power consumption of a multiplier is $O(n^2)$ regarding the word-length $n$.
This proposal is applied to OpenRISC, an open-source embedded microprocessor. This work implements the multiplier with proposed fine-grained hardware switch scheme. It verifies the energy improvement with algorithm profiling and gate-level simulation.
Targeted embedded processing platform {#sec:arch_arch}
-------------------------------------
OpenRISC [@lampretopenrisc], RISC-V [@waterman2011risc], Sparc [@sparc1994sparc] are among the most famous open-source computing platforms. They are suitable to study power savings at the microarchitecture level. Without losing generality, this chapter adopts a simple 32-bit OpenRISC processor, called mor1kx (Cappuccino implementation) [@openrisc].
### OpenRISC microarchitecture {#sec:arch_risc}
The schematic of the processor is shown in Fig. \[fig:arch\_top\]. The clock frequency is 1 GHz. The processor is realized in a standard 28nm CMOS technology. The execution stage consists of an ALU (Arithmetic Logic Unit), a logic computation unit, a Load/Store unit, a serial divider and a 4-cycle multiplier.
![A customized OpenRISC microarchitecture: the mor1kx Cappuccino flavor. It consists 5 pipeline stages. The 4-stage multiplier resides in the execution unit.[]{data-label="fig:arch_top"}](top_arch.pdf){width=".9\textwidth"}
### Power of the multiplication unit {#sec:arch_power}
The circuit diagram of the multiplication unit (*MUL*) of the default implementation is shown in Fig. \[fig:arch\_implementation\_ori\]. The *MUL* contains four pipeline stages with clock-gating. Clock-gating helps to save energy, as it avoids signals from toggling when the *MUL* is not in operation, for instance, when the processor is performing irrelevant instructions.
![The original multiplier in the Cappuccino implementation is 32 bits wide.[]{data-label="fig:arch_implementation_ori"}](ori.pdf){width=".6\textwidth"}
The area utilization and power consumption of the multiplier unit for each instruction are profiled in Table \[tab:arch\_mul\_compare\]. For the 32-bit multiplier, even if the word-length of multiplicands is much shorter than 32-bit, the power consumption is comparable with full-precision multiplication. The reason lies in the fact that multiplicands are represented in 2’s complement form. In this form, the most significant bits (MSB) are filled with ‘1’s or ‘0’s when the number is short, which results in lots of toggling during positive-to-negative or negative-to-positive transitions. Nevertheless, if proper multiplier units are used, e.g. 8-bit multipliers for 8-bit multiplicand, the power consumption will be reduced accordingly.
---------------------------------------- ---------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Multiplier Cell area
(l)[3-7]{} size \[$\mu mm^2$\] NOP 4-bit 8-bit 16-bit 32-bit
MUL MUL MUL MUL
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-2]{} (l)[3-7]{} 4-bit 109 12.152 48.022 N/A N/A N/A
8-bit 289 16.497 100.417 111.18 N/A N/A
16-bit 1030 49.511 234.2 278.934 349.657 N/A
32-bit 1744 50.737 391.350 451.808 531.32 567.924
---------------------------------------- ---------------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: Multiplier area and power consumption during each instruction.[]{data-label="tab:arch_mul_compare"}
This phenomenon provides an excellent opportunity for power optimization in processors, as the multiplicands type are not always declared as the full-size 32-bit long integer. Moreover, even if they are declared as 32-bit long integer, the actual value can be small, e.g. between -128 and 127 (which can be represented by an 8-bit number).
Fine-grained hardware-switch scheme for multiplier (*MUL*) {#sec:arch_hs}
----------------------------------------------------------
Considering that there is huge power waste because of unnecessary gate toggling, this chapter introduces an alternative lower-cost multiplier to perform the computation for the cases when the word-length of multiplicands is short enough (see Fig. \[fig:arch\_implementation\_hs\]).
![*MUL* with the proposed hardware-switching (HS) scheme selects between a 32-bit and an 8-bit multiplier, based on the data range.[]{data-label="fig:arch_implementation_hs"}](hs.pdf){width=".9\textwidth"}
A simple size detecting unit (*size\_detect*) is deployed to detect if both multiplicands are small, by checking if the MSBs (in this example from 8-bit on) is the same (all ‘1’s or ‘0’s). If both multiplicands are short, *mul\_short* will execute the operation while the *mul\_full* is clock-gated, and vice versa. This hardware-switching (HS) scheme ensures that the signal only toggles in the proper multiplier unit, and the toggling in the other multiplier unit is minimized. The multipliers are divided into four stages by three sets of pipeline registers. Signals in the first stage always toggle even if the unit is not enabled since the logic inputs of the first stage are not clock-gated by the *size\_detect*.
The multiplier is retimed using a commercial RTL synthesizing compiler, which minimizes the power cost of the first pipeline stage. It moves more computations into the second stage, reducing the gate toggling incurred power consumption during irreverent operations in the first stage.
The cell area of the HS multiplier is 2053 $\mu mm^2$, which is 18% higher than the Original multiplier. The area overhead is due to the introduction of the short multiplier and the corresponding MUX circuit.
The power consumption of the *Original* and the *HS* multiplier is compared in Fig. \[fig:arch\_power\]. It is broken down into 3 parts: *mul\_full*, *mul\_short*, and *mul\_rest* (rest parts in the multiplier). During NOPs, both multipliers consume less than 40 $\mu W$, which mainly attributes to clock gating cells. For the HS multiplier, if the multiplicand is shorter than 8 bits, the *mul\_full* unit is clock-gated, and the processing is assigned to the low-power *mul\_short*. Therefore, the overall power consumption is significantly lower than the original multiplier. This advantage diminishes when all the multiplicands are larger than 8 bits. In that situation, the *HS* multiplier suffers from the power penalty of the *size\_detect* and the MUX unit.
![*HS* saves power when the multiplication inputs are small. During nops, the difference is marginal. The multiplicands are randomly generated to be either 8-bit or 32-bit, with the accordingly possibility.[]{data-label="fig:arch_power"}](power.pdf){width=".98\columnwidth"}
Algorithm profile {#sec:arch_profile}
-----------------
The power savings only happen when using the low-precision multiplier. In order to measure the power consumption benefits of the HS multiplier, it is important to track the utilization frequency of the multiplication operation (\#multiplication/\#instructions), and the statistical chances that both multiplicands are short. These statistics depend heavily on application algorithms and the input data.
For the benchmark, *Cormark* 1.0 [@coremark] and ten other common algorithms for software radio and multimedia processing are profiled. *Cormark* focuses on benchmarking CPU cores of embedded systems. The selected algorithms cover a broad range of typical applications in embedded processing, e.g. FFT, filtering, JPG decoding, cryptography, and error correction. The input data are set to represent the typical usage scenario.
### Utilization frequency of *MUL*
Fig. \[fig:arch\_utilization\] shows the utilization frequency of the multiplier. In average, 1.2% of the instructions is a multiplication. The processor actually takes more than 1.2% of execution time in multiplication, as each multiplication takes four cycles.
Since each multiplication takes four cycles, the processor will take around 4.8% of the cycles for multiplications.
![The utilization frequency of the multiplier unit is around 1.2%. So optimization on the multiplication unit is profitable.[]{data-label="fig:arch_utilization"}](utilization.pdf){width=".9\columnwidth"}
### Word-length distribution for *MUL*
The word-length distribution of the multiplicands is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:arch\_chance\]. The data is obtained by the cycle-accurate OpenRISC simulator. The multiplicands are recorded for each multiplication. There is a trade-off to choose how large the *mul\_short* should be. If the criterion for short input is more strict, i.e. \# of bits is larger, the activation chance of the *mul\_short* unit will increase, which leads to a lower power consequently. On the other hand, a larger *mul\_short* unit itself consumes more power. Therefore, designers are suggested to profile the multiplication size coverage for typical applications and the corresponding power consumptions.
![The chance that both multiplicands are short increases when the criteria for ‘short’ gets loose.[]{data-label="fig:arch_chance"}](chance.pdf){width=".98\columnwidth"}
Based on algorithm-level benchmark results (Fig. \[fig:arch\_chance\]), a 9-bit multiplier is used for the *mul\_short*. With this setting, the *mul\_short* unit performs more than 80% of the multiplication for *Coremark*, *JPG\_DEC*, *AES*, and *Interleave*; around 40% multiplication for *IIR\_FILTER*, *FEC*, *Polyfit*, and *CFO*; around 5% for *FFT* and *PLL*.
This result shows that the HS scheme best fits algorithms that heavily use *short\_integer* data-types for multiplications. In this scenario, the *size\_detect* takes the role of the compiler to choose the suitable multiplication hardware. Moreover, for algorithms that use only full-width *integer* data-type, e.g. *IIR\_FILTER* and *Polyfit*, the textit[mul\_short]{} still performs around 40% of the multiplications. This is due to the fact that the varying input data has a very high tendency of falling into the short-size range, even though they are defined to be very wide to avoid the overflow in the worst case.
Power saving validation of the proposed fine-grained hardware switch scheme {#sec:arch_verify}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mor1kx is synthesized at 1GHz in a standard 28nm CMOS process. The derived netlist, together with its corresponding delay file (.sdf) and parasitic parameters, are simulated with the instructions from the most realistic and representative stimuli – *Cormark*.
### Area comparison
The area and power metrics with *Original* or *HS* (with 9-bit *mul\_short*) schemes are shown in Fig. \[fig:arch\_metrics\_area\] and Fig. \[fig:arch\_metrics\_power\]. For the processor with HS scheme, the extra *mul\_short* and *size\_detect* results in 23.0% area overhead for the multiplier unit, which is equivalent to 11.5% area overhead for the whole execution unit.
![The proposed *HS* scheme results to more area.[]{data-label="fig:arch_metrics_area"}](compare_area.pdf){width=".46\columnwidth"}
### Power savings
The power consumption of the *mul\_full* is reduced from 31.167 $\mu W$ to 12.344 $\mu W$, since its execution ratio is greatly reduced. It accounts for a total of 23.7% power saving for the multiplier unit and 9.5% power saving for the execution unit. In summary, the fine-grained hardware switch scheme introduces redundant area, which saves execution power for low-precision computations.
![The power consumption of the *HS*reduces substantially. The results are based on gate-level simulation with the Coremark benchmark.[]{data-label="fig:arch_metrics_power"}](compare_power.pdf){width=".46\columnwidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:arch_con}
----------
The HS scheme proposed in this chapter exploits word-length opportunities to reduce dynamic power consumption. It is achieved by utilizing an alternative short multiplier when the circuit detects the inputs are short enough.
The proposed scheme does not affect the software nor the compiler since the detection and switching are implemented at hardware level. It best fits processors which frequently perform short multiplications. In such processors, the multiplier unit power is significantly reduced.
In this chapter, the hardware switch scheme does not alter the final output of the program, since the opportunistic hardware switch is only enabled if the input size is small enough to fit into the low-precision unit. In the future, for programs with soft quality requirements, the activation of the low-precision unit can be extended to scenarios that the data size is marginally larger than the low-precision unit. Therefore, the occurrence of low-precision activation is increased, and hence more power saving could be achieved, though at the cost of degraded output quality.
In this regards, more cross-level optimization between the microarchitecture and the algorithm-level is encouraged. One such example of circuit and algorithm interplay is explained in Chapter \[sec:algo\].
Algorithm-level error-resilient design mitigating circuit-level errors {#sec:algo}
======================================================================
This chapter proposes a method for cross-level error interplay between the circuit-level and the algorithm-level. Traditionally, circuit-level results need to be error-free. This confines the variability design margin shaving methods to error-free approaches, e.g. Canary FF. In contrast, this chapter promotes to embrace some circuit errors, for a more aggressive margin shaving. Errors produced at the circuit-level are mitigated at the algorithm-level. In particular, a *computation-skip* scheme is discussed. The error mitigation scheme, together with the Canary FF that serves for benchmark purposes, is applied to a hardware CORDIC accelerator. The typical applications for CORDIC are QR decomposition and Cartesian to polar coordinate vector translation. The CORDIC accelerator is processed and verified in a standard 28nm CMOS process with only standard-cells. Using only standard-cells, this work eliminates the traditional semi- (or even fully-) customized design effort for in-situ error detection circuits. The work in this chapter is published in [@huang14sips-error-resilient; @huang16jsps-error-resilient].
The rest of this chapter is structured as follows: Section \[sec:algo\_intro\] describes the background and the contributions. Section \[sec:algo\_implement\] explains the design implementation trade-offs of the error-resilient circuits. It pinpoints the advantages of the proposed *computation-skip* scheme. Section \[sec:algo\_case\] takes a CORDIC hardware accelerator for case-study. Section \[sec:algo\_con\] concludes the chapter.
Motivatuion to algorithm-level error resilience {#sec:algo_intro}
-----------------------------------------------
Integrated circuits are designed with inherent guardbands, i.e. using worst PVT (Process, supply Voltage noise $V_{dd}$ and Temperature) corners, to ensure correct functionality for all chips with the presence of dynamic temperature and $V_{dd}$ noise fluctuation. However, typical usage patterns usually operate at the nominal PVT condition. The over-pessimistic margin leads to power waste. Nowadays, digital circuits aiming for low-energy consumption usually adjust the $V_{dd}$ ($V_{dd}$ scaling) to exploit the design margin. The energy consumption will reduce quadratically to the $V_{dd}$. Nevertheless, the circuit setup-timing constraints must be met, otherwise data errors will occur.
### Review of error-resilient techniques
In-situ timing-error detection circuits have been proposed to detect setup timing-errors when reducing $V_{dd}$ [@razor03; @canary04; @bowman09; @nicolaidis2013adda; @bubble13]. A canary FF [@canary04] generates a warning when the timing is critical. This enables dynamically adjusting the $V_{dd}$ and/or $f_{clk}$ for microprocessors. A circuit with canary FFs gradually reduces its $V_{dd}$, at the training phase, until the first occurrence of warning. This ensures correct functionality during operating, as no errors, but only warnings, occur. This scheme is regarded conservative, as a delay margin (between warnings and actual timing-errors) still exists. Razor like techniques, e.g. Razor [@razor03], DSTB & TDTB [@bowman09], and Bubble Razor [@bubble13], exploit the margin even further, by detecting actual timing-errors. This condition is called VOS (Voltage-OverScaling), as the voltage is scaled beyond the safety region. The corresponding error correction schemes, i.e. global clock gating [@razor03], counter-flow [@razor03], instruction-replay [@bowman09], and Bubble Razor [@bubble13], correct errors by issuing extra instructions. Therefore, the circuit can operate around the operating condition that produces sparse errors. These schemes, although applicable to general-purpose computers, result in throughput penalty when timing-errors are detected. Another common drawback of the previously proposed works in this class is the utilization of customized circuit design methodologies (mostly for error detection circuits), which is not a classical digital design flow.
TIMBER [@timber10; @constantin2015exploiting] delays the clock for 1-phase to compensate the time borrowing for a timing-error at the circuit-level. However, this technique requires substantial effort in adjusting the clock phase for error recovery. This is very challenging for the timing closure with commercial EDA tools [@tam2000clock; @bowman201616].
Another class of methods to handle VOS errors is arithmetic noise tolerance (ANT) technique [@Shim2004; @hegde2004voltage; @karakonstantis2009system; @6241554; @6636082]. ANT techniques detect errors by algorithmic comparison, and correct them without extra cycle penalty, by linear prediction [@hegde2004voltage], reduced precision redundancy [@Shim2004] or adaptive error cancellation [@wang2003low]. However, a major drawback of regular ANT techniques is the non-generic algorithmic error detection. They require careful ad-hoc design. Another common problem of most ANT schemes is the requirements of dedicatedly selected data-path, e.g. specific adder micro-architectures [@6636082]. This prevents data-path synthesis optimization that modern EDA offers.
Contributions of this chapter
-----------------------------
A common drawback of the previously proposed work is the utilization of customized circuit design methodologies (mostly for error detection circuits), which is not a classical digital design flow. Besides, although extensive measurements are performed for Razor-like error recovery circuits, seldom applications address the relation between $V_{dd}$ drop and output quality for normal DSP blocks [@6241554; @6636082]. Furthermore, the design margin reduction effectiveness is not verified with deeply scaled sub-28nm technologies.
In contrast, this work proposes a power reduction method (named as *computation-skip* scheme) for a DSP accelerator. It demonstrates the power reduction and implementation feasibility of the mentioned techniques in deeply scaled technologies. The *computation-skip* scheme handles errors at the algorithm-level that were created at the circuit-level. It mitigates the timing-error during $V_{dd}$ scaling for recursive application, at the cost of output SNR degradation without throughput drop. The proposed *computation-skip* scheme can be applied to signal processing algorithms with a recursive structure. In these algorithms, signals will be processed by the same combinational logic for multiple times. Examples are CORDIC, Viterbi, LDPC decoding, loop counter and genetic algorithms. The *computation-skip* scheme is compared with existing in-situ error correction schemes in Table \[tab:algo\_summary\].
The major advantage of this scheme, compared with other FF based techniques and the temporal clock adjusting schemes, is the 0-cycle overhead during error correction. On the other hand, comparing with other ANT techniques, the *computation-skip* scheme simplifies the error-detection design by adopting the FF based approach.
From the implementation point of view, the state-of-the-art canary FF error detection scheme, as well as the newly proposed *computation-skip* scheme, were implemented and verified on silicon. Both circuits were processed in 28nm CMOS with standard digital design flow. This eliminates the conventional semi- (or even fully-) customized design effort for in-situ error detection circuits.
Error resilient circuits implementations {#sec:algo_implement}
----------------------------------------
The circuit-level implementations of error resilient circuits are described in this section. This section describes the concept of Canary FF circuits. Moreover, it explains the design trade-offs of the computation-skip scheme.
A conventional pipeline circuit diagram is outlined in Fig. \[fig:algo\_conv\]. The signal arrival time for the $D$ port of an MSFF (Master-Slave Flip-Flop) is constrained by i) its hold-time plus the fast corner timing variation guard-band, and ii) its setup time plus the slow corner PVT guard-band. These corner-based guard-bands limit the capability of power saving.
![The conventional pipeline scheme requires worst-case design margins.[]{data-label="fig:algo_conv"}](conv.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
### Circuits with Canary FF
An in-situ *canary FF* based circuit applies a second *shadow MSFF* to detect dangerous (slow) timing at critical $V_{dd}$ or $f_{clk}$ (Fig. \[fig:algo\_canary\]). When the signal arrival on $D$ is critical, its delayed signal $D\prime$ will violate its constraint. As a consequence, the *main MSFF* and the *shadow MSFF* capture different values. This triggers a local warning ($W_{local}$) since the *shadow MSFF* has failed. Because the *main MSFF* does not fail, the situation is only reported as a warning, rather than an error. This critical operation condition is hence called the PoFW (Point of the First Warning). However, if signal delays are enlarged under worse conditions, *main MSFF* will fail, and functionality errors will occur. The operation condition that the first error emerges is called the PoFF (Point of the First Failure).
The width between the PoFW and the PoFF is the error detection window, which is tuned by the delay element. The circuit usually operates around the PoFW condition. The error detection window in *canary FF* allows infrequent warnings and also ensures correct circuit functionality. The PVT slow guardband is exploited as each chip operates with just needed energy.
![Circuits with in-situ *canary FF* that shave worst-case design margins.[]{data-label="fig:algo_canary"}](canary.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
### Circuits with *computation-skip* scheme {#sec:algo_cscircuit}
The *computation-skip* error resilient scheme [@huang16jsps-error-resilient] utilizes DSTB (Double Sampling with Time Borrowing) [@bowman09] for error detection (Fig. \[fig:algo\_cs\]). A DSTB (Fig. \[fig:algo\_cs\]) consists of an enable-high *latch*, an *shadow MSFF*, and an *XOR comparator*.
If a signal arrives late than the clock rising edge, the latch captures the correct signal (with time borrowing) while the shadow MSFF captures an incorrect one, an error flag $E_{local}$ is produced. The operating condition that the first error emerges is PoFF. If the chip only operates around the PoFF, the circuit behaves similarly to *canary FF* based circuits. However, by investing the signal processing algorithms, a further design margin can be exploited. [@huang16jsps-error-resilient] proposed that for recursive applications, e.g. CORDIC and Viterbi, a part of computations can be approximated, or even totally skipped, under the worst-case condition. The final output is slightly degraded, which can often be tolerated or even compensated by the upper layer of the system, e.g. by using more quantization bits or stronger ECC. The system can thus decide whether to continue to work with the degraded circuit or to improve the operating condition (reducing $f_{clk}$ and increasing $V_{dd}$) to prevent further degradations.
![Circuits with *computation-skip* scheme, which utilizes *DTSBs* for error-detection, eliminate worst-case design margins.[]{data-label="fig:algo_cs"}](cs.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:algo\_cs\] shows the timing diagram of a circuit with *computation-skip* scheme. Comparing with *canary FF*, it eliminates not only the PVT slow guard-band but also the delay margin between PoFW and PoFF. More importantly, a path with long propagation delay can borrow time from the next upcoming clock cycle, relaxing its timing constraint by a duty cycle of the clock ($\tau \cdot t_{clk}$). To compensate for the time borrowing, a short version of the upcoming computational path, i.e. a *computation-skip* path, is selected to meet the constraint. However, a disadvantage for circuits using DSTB or Razor is the minimum delay requirement. This requirement overburdens the hold time fixing during layout. Unfortunately, this disadvantage is also present in this *computation-skip* scheme. Bubble Razor [@bubble13] eliminates the minimum delay issue by adopting a two-phase latch design. However, these two-phase latches are still not fully compatible to mainstream EDA tools.
Once a timing violation is detected by the DSTB, $Q$ is fed to the MUX by the *computation-skip* path. This is because re-computing the next logic with the late-arrived correct $Q$ is impossible, due to the setup timing constraint for the following cycle. As a consequence, the correct signals from the previous clock are preserved. More importantly, further timing violation is eliminated by bypassing with the *computation-skip* path. Note that only part of the *logic* is skipped by the *computation-skip* path. This avoids heavy quality degradations of skipping the whole logic.
This mitigation can be regarded as a naive implementation for the approximated version of the logic. For recursive applications, the bypassing can be as simple as a direct copy of the previous signal. Another benefit of the bypassing is that no accumulating approximation errors are introduced. The skipping only leads to less performed iterations. The skipped computations are delayed into future cycles. If extra cycles are allowed in the future, errors can be totally eliminated. However, this work aims to maintain a constant throughput. No time penalties are permitted. Therefore, the *computation-skip* error mitigation scheme alleviates timing-errors into insufficient iteration errors.
### *Computation-skip* scheme settings
The *computation-skip* scheme tolerates longer propagation delay in data-path than a nominal circuit. In other words, the circuit can even operate at $V_{dd}$ that lead to setup timing violations, or sub-critical $V_{dd}$, to save energy.
The detailed timing constraint is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:algo\_timing\]. By tuning the clock duty cycle factor $\tau$, digital circuit designers can extend the nominal delay constraint $t_{max\_orignal}$ to the error mitigation timing constraint $t_{max\_em}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:algo_tmax}
t_{max\_ori} &= t_{clk}- t_{setup\_FF} \nonumber\\
t_{max\_em} &= t_{clk} + \tau \cdot t_{clk} - t_{setup\_latch}\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{clk}$ is the clock duration, $t_{setup\_FF}$ represents the setup time for a normal FF, and $t_{setup\_latch}$ represents the setup time for the main latch. During logic synthesis, the relaxed timing constraint will enable EDA tool to use smaller but slower gates, which reduces area and power consumption.
![Timing constraints for circuits with the *computation-skip* scheme. The scheme relaxes the setup constraint by accepting late arrival signals.[]{data-label="fig:algo_timing"}](timing.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
The speed constraint relaxation ratio $R$ is defined as: $$R \triangleq \frac{ 1 / t_{max\_em} }{ 1 / t_{max\_ori} }.$$ Substituting $t_{max\_em}$ and $t_{max\_ori}$ from (\[eq:algo\_tmax\]) obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:algo_rf}
R & = \frac{ t_{clk}- t_{setup\_FF} }{ t_{clk} + \tau \cdot t_{clk} - t_{setup\_latch} }\nonumber\\
& \approx \frac{1}{ 1 + \tau}.\end{aligned}$$ A lower $R$ represents loose constraint for data, and hence easier for setup timing closure.
At sub-critical $V_{dd}$ situations, circuits delay increase that the data input port of the shadow MSFF might change around clock rising edges. So these FF might become meta-stable. Therefore, paths starting from $Q_{ff}$ are guarded with positive slacks, serving as the resolution window for the FF to settle.
To find out the meta-stability resolution constant, Monte-Carlo simulation by Spice is performed on the ULVT FF. The meta-stability resolution is 20ps at nominal voltage. To mitigate the meta-stability issue, this chapter set an extra timing slack of 700ps. The worst case for MTBF estimation happens when exactly one signal at the D port of the FF changed close to the clock rising edge within setup time. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
MTBF &= \frac{e^{\frac{700~ps}{20~ps}}}{f_{clk}} \nonumber\\
&\approx 41~days, ~~~when~f_{clk} = 450~MHz.\end{aligned}$$
It is sufficiently large to guarantee mean time before failure (MTBF) requirement for the system due to meta-stability. Note that the main latch is designed to never fail at even sub-critical situations, the data-path and *computation-skip* path are immune from meta-stability, which is a big advantage for the DSTB. In reality, the system MTBF is much better than $41$ days because any other timing failure will set $E_{flag}$ to ‘1’, masking the effect of the local meta-stability fault.
As the *main latch* is still sensitive after the clock rising edge throughout the first half of the clock, if it captures the newly arrived signal too early, the signal from the previous cycle is flushed. In this situation, the error detection circuit might indicate a false error. Therefore, for the paths to the *main latch*, a short-path timing constraint is required: $$\begin{aligned}
t_{min\_em} = \tau \cdot t_{clk} + t_{hold\_latch},\end{aligned}$$ where $t_{hold\_latch}$ is the hold time for the main latch. This short path constraint is guaranteed by inserting buffers during placement & route.
The timing constraint is summarized in Tab. \[tab:algo\_timing\]. With the *computation-skip* scheme, the normal setup constraint is much relaxed with the ratio of $R$. This makes the timing much easier to meet, and hence EDA tools have the option to choose smaller and slower cells to save chip area and power consumption.
---------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Constraints Path
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-2]{} error mitigation setup $Q$ $\rightarrow$ Logic1 $\rightarrow$ Logic2 $\rightarrow$ $D$
*computation-skip* path setup $Q$ $\rightarrow$ CS path $\rightarrow$ $D$
$Q_{ff}$ control path setup $Q_{ff}$ $\rightarrow$ $D$
short-path hold $Q$ $\rightarrow$ $D$
(l)[2-2]{} Value
(l)[2-2]{} error mitigation setup $ \leq t_{clk} \cdot (1 + \tau) - t_{setup\_FF}$
*computation-skip* path setup $\leq t_{clk} \cdot (1 - \tau) - t_{setup\_FF}$
$Q_{ff}$ control path setup $\leq t_{clk} - t_{meta\_window} - t_{setup\_FF}$
short-path hold $\geq \tau \cdot t_{clk} + t_{hold\_latch}$
(l)[2-2]{} Remarks
(l)[2-2]{} error mitigation setup The timing is relaxed for normal data-path
*computation-skip* path setup Skip constraint for error recovery
$Q_{ff}$ control path setup Positive slack as meta-stability resolution
short-path hold Short path constraint for latch
---------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
: Timing constraints for the *computation-skip* error mitigation scheme.[]{data-label="tab:algo_timing"}
Case study on a CORDIC hardware accelerator {#sec:algo_case}
-------------------------------------------
A CORDIC hardware accelerator is selected for a case-study to validate the error resilient design techniques. The canary FF case and the *computation-skip* are applied to the *core1 canary* and the *core2 CS*, respectively. These two cores are synthesized and processed in a standard 28nm CMOS technology.
### CORDIC algorithm
A CORDIC [@volder1959cordic] is a simple and efficient implementation to calculate trigonometric functions. A typical application is to compute the magnitude $M$ and initial angle $\phi$ of a complex input vector \[$x_{0}$, $y_{0}$\]: $$\begin{aligned}
M & \triangleq \sqrt{x_{0}^2 + y_{0}^2} ;\nonumber\\
Cos(\phi) & \triangleq x_{0} / \sqrt{x_{0}^2 + y_{0}^2} ;\nonumber\\
Sin(\phi) & \triangleq y_{0} / \sqrt{x_{0}^2 + y_{0}^2} .\end{aligned}$$
The CORDIC operation is an iterative process: the input vector \[$x_{0}$, $y_{0}$\] is rotated recursively by micro-rotations. The *CORDIC cell* that performs one micro-rotation (iteration) is shown in Fig. \[fig:algo\_cordic\_cell\].
![A *CORDIC cell* that performs a CORIC iteration. The example word-length is 18-bit.[]{data-label="fig:algo_cordic_cell"}](cordic_cell.pdf){width="70.00000%"}
The total number of iterations for a CORDIC operation is denoted as $n$. After $n$ iterations, $y_i$ converges to 0, and the resulted $x_{n}$ is the magnitude, with a scaling factor $K\approx 0.6072$. The angle ($\phi$) is represented in the sine ($Sin_n$) and cosine ($Cos_n$) format.
Because of non-ideal in the CORDIC algorithm, the resulted $x_{n}$, $Sin_n$, and $Cos_n$ can never reach the true values ($M$, $Cos(\phi)$, $Sin(\phi)$). The computation errors can be measured as the mean square error (MSE), the error vector magnitude (EVM), the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and the effective number of bits (ENOB). The computation procedures are given below.
The MSE directly depicts the magnitude of errors: $$\begin{aligned}
MSE & = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\left[ \left( x_{0}-x_{out} \right) ^2+ \left( y_{0}-x_{out} \right) ^2 \right] \\
& = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}\left[ \left( x_{0}- k \cdot x_{n} \cdot Cos_{n} \right) ^2+ \left( y_{0}- k \cdot x_{n} \cdot Sin_{n} \right) ^2 \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the number of samples for calculation. $x_{0}$ and $y_{0}$ are inputs for sample $t$. The $x_{out}$ and $y_{out}$ terms are the reverted format of CORDIC outputs ($x_{n}$, $Sin_n$, and $Cos_n$). The EVM compares the MSE with the signal power: $$\begin{aligned}
EVM(dB) & = 10\log_{10}\frac{MSE}{P_{signal}} \\
& = 10\log_{10}\frac{MSE}{ \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \left[ x_0^2 + y_o^2 \right] }.\end{aligned}$$ The computation error is treated as noise. So the output quality can also be represented by SNR: $$\begin{aligned}
SNR(dB) & = 10\log_{10}\frac{P_{signal} }{ MSE } \\
& = 10\log_{10}\frac{ \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T} \left[ x_0^2 + y_o^2 \right] }{MSE}.\end{aligned}$$ The SNR and EVM are in inverse linear relation, as illustrated in [@shafik2006extended]. In this chapter, the output quality of the CORDIC unit is denoted as ENOB [@geerts2006design]: $$\begin{aligned}
ENOB = \frac{SNR-1.76dB}{6.02}.\end{aligned}$$.
Fig.\[fig:algo\_cordic\_enob\] shows that the ENOB for the CORDIC evolves with each iteration. This evolution characteristic provides space for trading off the iteration number during VOS. Thus, this chapter proposes to apply the proposed *computation-skip* scheme on the CORDIC application. Once a timing violation is detected, the chip skips part of the computation in the next cycle and adjusts the iteration counter. Due to the requirements of constant CPI, the final iterations, which contribute less to the EVM, are skipped to ensure that previous computations are guaranteed even in sub-critical situations. This is equivalent to computing with reduced iterations.
![The CORDIC output ENOB evolves with numbers of iterations $n$.[]{data-label="fig:algo_cordic_enob"}](cordic_enob.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
### State-of-the-art *Core1* with Canary FF
The first implementation option (*core1*) of the CORDIC accelerator is demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:algo\_cordic\_canary\]. The internal word size is 18-bit. 16 iterations are performed for each operation. The accelerator contains four *CORDIC cells*; each performs a CORDIC iteration. Therefore, four clocks cycles are required to finish a CORDIC operation (CPI=4). Computation results are stored in the sequential cells (e.g. FF), whose outputs serve as the inputs for the next cycle. The iteration counter counts the CORDIC iterations and controls the barrel shifters in the CORDIC cells. For each cycle, the iteration counter is counted up by 4, meaning that 4 CORDIC iterations are finished in each cycle. Aiming for a high-performance design specification, the operating frequency is 450 MHz by design. This requires intensive gate up-sizing, as the speed target is challenging if worst-case design margins are considered.
![*Core1* hardware CORDIC accelerator replaces output FF with *Canary FF*.[]{data-label="fig:algo_cordic_canary"}](cordic_canary.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
The *canary FF* were built out of two MSFF, a *delay cell*, and a *XOR gate* (see Fig. \[fig:algo\_canary\]). The delay of the *delay cell* is 150 ps, or 7% of the clock period, under nominal conditions. EDA is disallowed from changing the *canary FF*, otherwise the *delay cells* will be deleted (optimized) for timing relaxation (and thus timing-error detection capabilities are lost). Besides, only the timing constraints for paths to *main MSFF*, not for paths to *shadow MSFF* (disallowing timing checks), are guaranteed, to avoid over-constraining.
The design was implemented in standard RTL. Afterward, the most timing-critical FF are replaced by *canary FF*. Only the 9 MSBs from *CORDIC cell 4* are substituted since they are associated with the longest delays, as suggested by the EDA tool (STA checks performed with Primetime). This reduces the overall area overhead (of applying *canary FF*) to 1.3%, compared with the alternative 7% full substitute overhead.
### Proposed *Core2* with *computation-skip* scheme
The second implementation option (*core2*) is presented in Fig. \[fig:algo\_cordic\_cs\]. Similar to the *core1*, FF that connect to *CORDIC cell 4* are replaced by *DSTB*.
Knowing that the output quality depends on the \# of CORDIC iterations finished, the *computation-skip* approach introduced a skipping path that shorts the *CORDIC cell 3 and 4* when a short propagation delay is required. It is activated whenever the time is borrowed in the previous clock cycle (*DSTB* will set a timing-error flag). Once the skip path is activated, the iteration counter is counted up by 2 (instead of 4), to provide correct right-shift commands for future iterations. The 9 MSBs of the *CORDIC cell 4* were substituted by *DSTB* to reduce substitution overhead. As the remaining 9 LSBs will fail under aggressive conditions, MSFF of these LSBs were replaced by latches to enable time borrowing. In summary, all outputs of *CORDIC cell 4* allow time borrowing and only the 9 MSBs are responsible for timing-error detection.
![*Core2* features the proposed *computation-skip* scheme.[]{data-label="fig:algo_cordic_cs"}](cordic_cs.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
When a setup timing violation (for the previous cycle) is detected at the beginning of the current cycle, the circuit skips the last two CORDIC iterations (cell 3 and cell 4), due to insufficient processing time. Therefore, the iteration counter is counted up by two instead of by four. As a consequence, the intended four CORDIC iteration computation will eventually conduct two iterations. These skipped computations will be performed in later stages, as the iteration counter is only counted up by two. As a result, only the final computations are skipped because of the constraint of fixing the CPI to 4.
Fig.\[fig:algo\_timing\_cordic\] shows the timing diagram of the proposed CORDIC processor. When no error is detected, a complete CORDIC operation takes four cycles, computing 16 iterations. When one error is detected for cycle 2, the DSTB latches the late-arriving data and triggers the *computation-skip* path in cycle 3. After four cycles, only 14 iterations instead of 16 are performed. This result serves as a reduced-quality output to maintain the throughput. When the timing situation is very severe that all cycles fail, the performed iteration number is 12. This is because the *computation-skip* path (red in Fig.\[fig:algo\_timing\_cordic\]) are constrained to never fail.
![Example timing diagrams of the proposed *computation-skip* CORDIC. It shows 3 cases: 1) no error detected; 2) error detected in one cycle (cycle 2); 3) every cycle triggers the $E_{flag}$. Timing-errors leads to reduced iterations. []{data-label="fig:algo_timing_cordic"}](timing_cordic.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The timing constraints, as specified in Table \[tab:algo\_timing\], were applied during synthesis and layout. The following explains these constraints in the CORDIC context.
- The max time borrow constraint was set to 0 for the latches in *DSTB*. This ensures no time borrowing under the nominal condition.
- Max delay for paths through *CORDIC cell 3 and 4* ($Q$ $\rightarrow$ *cell3* $\rightarrow$ $D$), which is also called error mitigation setup in Table \[tab:algo\_timing\], is $t_{clk} \cdot (1 + \tau) - t_{setup\_FF}$. The max delay is relaxed as they are designed for a better-than-worst-case situation, with the unlikely worst situations protected by time borrowing and the computation-skip. This enables area and power saving by gate-downsizing. The clock duty-cycle $\tau$ is set to 25%, which results in 34% area saving.
- Max delay for *computation-skip* paths ($Q$ $\rightarrow$ skip path $\rightarrow$ $D$) is $t_{clk} \cdot (1 - \tau) - t_{setup\_FF}$. This constraint ensures computation skip during timing-borrowing.
- Max delay for paths started from the *MSFF* in *DSTB* ($Q_{ff} \rightarrow D$) is $t_{clk} - t_{meta\_window} - t_{setup\_FF}$. As the *MSFF* in *DSTB* might fail under aggressive operating conditions, $t_{meta\_window}$ = 700 ps is reserved for meta-stability resolution. To ensure stability resolution, ULVT MSFF are used instead of SVT ones, as they have higher loop gains and hence lower resolution time constant (20 ps).
- Minimum delay for paths to *DSTB* ($Q$ $\rightarrow$ $D$) is $\tau \cdot t_{clk} + t_{hold\_latch}$. This is achieved by automatic delay cell inserting during routing. This accounts for 8% area overhead.
### Pre-silicon analysis
To make a fair comparison between *core1 canary* and *core2 CS*, they are designed to fail (produce errors) at the same frequency and voltage condition. This is achieved by synthesizing the circuit delay of the CS core (Cons.1 in Fig. \[fig:algo\_timing\]) the same as the clock delay of the Canary core.
Fig. \[fig:algo\_region\] shows the synthesizing frequency and energy consumption relation for the conventional CORDIC (without the modifications into $Canary$ nor $CS$). Without many surprises, higher clock frequency leads to automatically gate-upsizing (by the synthesizing EDA tools), and hence the power consumption is increased.
![450 MHz is selected for the operating condition. The figure shows the normalized energy consumption per CORDIC operation for the conventional CORDIC. The energy is measured with simulated gate-level toggling information.[]{data-label="fig:algo_region"}](region.pdf){width="0.85\linewidth"}
This chapter chooses 450 MHz as the nominal operation frequency for both *core1 canary* and *core2 CS*, as shown in Fig. \[fig:algo\_region\]. The reasons are i) the speed meets the high-speed requirement, and ii) the gate-upsizing is moderate, and hence the energy consumption is not increased dramatically, compared with over-relaxed situations (e.g., 200 MHz).
Both designs are synthesized at the frequency of 450 MHz. After synthesize, placement and routing, the cell areas of the original CORDIC and its variants, *core1 canary* and *core2 CS*, are shown in Fig.\[fig:algo\_area\]. The conventional CORDIC suffers from tight timing constraint to meet the worst-case corner, making the area very large. The *core1 canary* CORDIC utilizes more area. This is because its sequential logic area is almost doubled by replacing normal MSFF with *canary FF*.
For *core2 CS*, when $\tau$ is large, the area increase because of timing constraint (light blue bar in Fig. \[fig:algo\_area\]) is very small since the timing constraint is relaxed. This also exhibits a wider range of $V_{dd}$ drop monitoring. However, higher $\tau$ calls for more delay cells to fix the short path issue, which leads to more area cost. For a balance between area (and hence energy) and $V_{dd}$ drop monitoring, $\tau$=25% is chosen in this chapter. $\tau$=25% also makes the clock generation easy because it can be accomplished with a 4x frequency divider. According to Fig.\[fig:algo\_area\], the delay cells account for 8% of the total area when $\tau$=25%.
![Cell area breakdown of the conventional and the proposed hardware CORDIC accelerators designed at 450 MHz. The *core2 CS* is designed with different duty cycle ($\tau$). The area increase due to tight timing is computed agaist the cell area under 1/10 clock frequency (45 MHz). *cs* reduces area by loosen the timing constraint.[]{data-label="fig:algo_area"}](area.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
### Post-silicon Measurement
The CORDIC accelerators were processed in a standard 28nm CMOS technology. A micro-graph of the chip is shown in Fig. \[fig:algo\_die\]. The complete chip measures 1 \* 0.2 $mm^2$. The area for the *core1 canary* is 0.022 $mm^2$. The area for *core2 CS* is 0.016 $mm^2$. The area reduction comparing to *core1* is due to the relaxed timing constraints.
![Die photo and chip information.[]{data-label="fig:algo_die"}](die.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
To measure the output SNR and ENOB, random stimuli are generated in a desktop computer and send to an FPGA controller. The FPGA then writes/reads the data in the on-chip memory serially, before/after a CORDIC execution. Matlab and Python scripts are used for ENOB computation. For energy consumption measurement, testing vectors are stored in the on-chip memory. So the chip is filled with data and will run continuously. This makes the energy consumption results realistic.
The test chip was measured at 450 MHz. Fig. \[fig:algo\_violation\] shows the timing violations for both cores. The violations are regards as warnings for *core1 canary*. For *core2 CS*, they are actual errors. The *core1 canary* produces a warning when $V_{dd}$ is lower or equal to 0.785V (PoFW). For *core2 CS*, when $V_{dd}$ is lower than 0.805V (PoFF) or higher than 1.020V (PoFF), timing violations are asserted. The prior case is because of timing failure in the error mitigation path. The later case is because of the short path failure.
![Measured timing violation ratio. A violation is observed if any path violates the timing. For *canary*, the first timing violation condition is PoFW. For the proposed CS (*computation-skip*), the first timing violation condition is PoFF.[]{data-label="fig:algo_violation"}](violation.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
![Measured CORDIC ENOB. For *canary*, the PoFD coincides with the PoFF. For the proposed CS (*computation-skip*), the PoFF does not result to PoFD, as the timing-errors are mitigated by the *computation-skip* scheme.[]{data-label="fig:algo_enob"}](enob.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
To quantify the error degradation, the notion of PoFD (Point of the First noticeable Degradation) is introduced. It represents the critical situation when noticeable degradations are observed at outputs. Note that PoFD does not always coincide with the PoFF, as errors might be mitigated gracefully. Fig. \[fig:algo\_enob\] shows the ENOB as a measure of the output SNR. The ENOB is unaltered until the 0.785V (PoFW), as no actual timing-error is introduced. The PoFD for *core1 canary* is 0.765V. For *core2 CS*, when $V_{dd}$ is lower than 0.805V (PoFF), *computation-skip* paths are activated and thus the ENOB slightly drops. The PoFD for *core2 CS* is marked on 0.765V. The PoFD for both cores are equal. This is because they are designed with the same frequency constraint, and are experiencing similar PVT conditions. Beyond the PoFD, the *computation-skip* paths and control paths both fails and hence the error tolerance capability becomes invalid. If the $V_{dd}$ is higher than 1.040V, the ENOB decreases, due to minimum delay violations for DSTB. In summary, the ENOB performance is comparable for *core1* and *core2*, except for the high $V_{dd}$ situation.
The energy consumption per CORDIC operation per effective bit is shown in Fig. \[fig:algo\_energy\]. Under the nominal condition (0.9V), the *core2 CS* reduces energy consumption per ENOB by 28%, compared to the *core1 canary* (6.6 pJ/bit), which is attributed to relaxed timing constraint. For both cores, reducing the $V_{dd}$ decreases the energy/ENOB. Going beyond the PoFDs leads to drastic energy/ENOB increase. The *core1 canary* saves 25% energy at the PoFW (0.785V), comparing with the 0.9V nominal case. This is error-free power saving that shaves the design margin. For the *core2 CS*, the energy reduction is measured at 42% at 0.805V (PoFF), where the ENOB is imperceptibly reduced. The energy/ENOB for *core2 CS* keeps reducing when going beyond PoFF ($V_{dd}$ $\leq$ 0.805V), despite the fact that the ENOB is slightly reduced due to computation skips. The minimum energy/ENOB is 3.5 pJ/bit at 0.770V, which is 46% lower than the nominal *core1 canary*. The corresponding ENOB is reduced from 13.7 bits to 13.5 bits.
![Comparison of the *core1 canary* (implementing the baseline state-of-the-art technique) and *core2 CS* (implementing the proposed scheme) CORDIC accelerators during voltage scaling. *core2* saves power by timing constraint relaxation, error-free adaptive scaling, and error-resilient VOS.[]{data-label="fig:algo_energy"}](energy.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:algo_con}
----------
The CMOS variability margin leaves great room for energy savings. The timing-errors incurred by supply voltage over-scaling is most easily detected at the circuit-level. By providing this information to the algorithm-level, energy saving is achieved with gracefully output quality degradation.
In this chapter, error resilient techniques to set $V_{dd}$ for variability margin saving, i.e., Canary, Razor, TIMBER, ANT, and computation-skip, are analyzed. In particular, the *computation-skip* scheme is discussed to mitigate timing-errors introduced by VOS. This scheme suits for evolutionary algorithms. It relaxes the timing constraint for a conventional circuit and hence saves power. The error flag can provide statistical timing-error rate, which indicates the output quality as well as the distance to the $V_{dd}$ scaling limit.
The canary and the *computation-skip* schemes are applied to a recursive CORDIC processor. Effectively, the last CORDIC iterations are skipped once timing-errors are detected in this proposed *computation-skip* CORDIC. A 28% energy consumption per bit saving due to relaxed timing constraint (design margin shaving at design time) is observed. The energy/ENOB saving improves to 42% because of adaptive scaling (error-free design margin shaving at run-time). Moreover, a total of 46% saving is possible, with a 0.2-bit precision loss.
Application-level error-resilience on massive MIMO base stations {#sec:system}
================================================================
This chapter investigates application-level error absorption and handling. The considered errors are generated at the circuit-level and the algorithm-level errors by hardware operating at risky conditions. This chapter focuses on a massive MIMO communication system case-study. It shows that the perceived performance will hardly be affected by sparse processing failures, while the power consumption can be considerably reduced as error resilient hardware are utilized. Furthermore, this chapter assesses antenna outage impacts and proposes damage control strategies. The work in this chapter is published in [@huang17icassp-mimo-dfe].
The rest of this chapter is organized as follows: Section \[sec:system\_intro\] introduces the opportunities brought by the massive MIMO system, as well as the cross-level optimization demands. Section \[sec:system\_contri\] highlights the contribution. The system description from a functional processing point of view is presented in Section \[sec:system\_system\]. Section \[sec:system\_model\] models the algorithm-level effects of circuit-level errors, or more specifically the VOS errors and the antenna outage error. The application-level impacts on the massive MIMO system are evaluated in Section \[sec:system\_exam\]. Section \[sec:system\_improve\] proposes an approach to enhance the massive MIMO system performance under errors. Finally, the major conclusions of this chapter are summarized and relevant directions for future elaboration of the proposed concept are outlined in Section \[sec:system\_con\].
Opportunities and challenges of massive MIMO {#sec:system_intro}
--------------------------------------------
Massive MIMO is the currently most compelling sub-6 GHz physical-layer technology for future wireless access. The main concept is to use large antenna arrays at base stations to simultaneously serve many autonomous terminals, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:system\_mimo\].
![Massive MIMO exploits large antenna arrays to spatially multiplex many terminals [@larsson2017massive].[]{data-label="fig:system_mimo"}](mimo.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Since its inception about a decade ago, the massive MIMO concept has evolved from a wild “academic" idea to one of the hottest research topics in the wireless communications community, as well as the main work item in 5G standardization. The time for massive MIMO has come at this moment for two reasons: First, conventional technology has proven unable to deliver the spectral efficiencies that 5G applications are calling for. Second, the confidence in the exceptional value of the technology has spread rapidly since impressive real-life prototypes showed record spectral efficiencies, and the robust operation with low-complexity RF and baseband circuits has been substantiated [@prabhu20173].
### Massive MIMO, the highly-demanded future technology
Massive MIMO opens up a new dimension of wireless communications by using an excess of base station (BS) antennas, compared to the number of active terminals. This technique allows for very efficient spatial multiplexing, attainable using linear processing in a time-division duplex mode [@larsson2014massive].
Conceptually, massive MIMO achieve a 10x or more increase in system capacity. What is even more important is the gain in reliability due to flattening out of deep fades, hardening of the channel, and array gain. This especially benefits the cell edge users and could be essential for low power terminals as in Machine Type Communications (MTC).
This stunning improvement of massive MIMO results from the fact that much less transmitted power is needed thanks to the array gain. It also benefits from the utilization of low complexity hardware [@gunnarsson17eucnc-loussy-processing], as the individual antenna signals do not need to be of high precision [@7194033; @gustavsson2014impact; @bjornson2014massive].
### Power consumption, a design challenge in massive MIMO digital processing
However, an obvious concern is how a large number of antennas (and associated transceivers and signal processing) will affect the complexity and energy consumption of the BS. [@7114430] anticipates that the overall complexity and energy consumption in terms of J/bit can be lowered by a factor of 10 to 100 compared with current BS.
The energy consumption issue in digital systems is alleviated by the CMOS scaling. The scaling has brought steady power reduction for many generations, thanks to the decrease of the supply voltage that shows up as a quadratic factor in the dynamic power formula. However, Integrated circuits are facing ever increasing variability challenges in recent technology nodes (65nm and smaller). The process, voltage, and temperature (PVT) variability are considered as the three main contributors to circuit variability. Conventionally, to cope with this variability challenge, ICs are designed at the worst PVT corners, to ensure that they always operate correctly.
However, this approach brings considerable margins, leading to reduced peak performance and wasted power consumption. For instance, [@huang16jsps-error-resilient] shows for 28nm technology, the performance difference (in terms of speed) is as large as 2.2x between the typical case and the worst-case. To reduce the margins, dynamical scaling techniques manage power dissipation and temperature using variable $V_{dd}$. The most adventurous methods are the error resilient techniques. They scale down the $V_{dd}$ more aggressively (VOS) while accepting that errors might occur on individual chips. These methods have been proven to enable significant energy savings while maintaining excellent performance for wireless communication [@huang16jsps-error-resilient; @hegde2004voltage].
In this context, considerable energy reduction potential is expected for massive MIMO if its low accuracy need is extended to the CMOS implementation of digital signal processing – to the point of sporadically processing distortion or even full failure of one or a few individual antenna signals. It, therefore, opens the door to much narrower design margins (comparing with the traditional semiconductor specification set at design-time). The circuits can operate at the lower supply voltage (and hence power).
Contribution of this chapter {#sec:system_contri}
----------------------------
This work combine the results form error resilient hardware with the inherent antenna redundancy in massive MIMO. It focuses on the TDD option of 3GPP LTE in a massive MIMO context. [@bjornson2014massive] demonstrated the resilience to analog non-ideal hardware (e.g. nonlinearity).
To embrace unreliable hardware, this work proposes to consider the digital computation as a faulty process. It demonstrates that if a limited number of circuit-level and algorithm-level computational errors can be tolerated at the application-level, the safety margins can be reduced significantly. This will bring considerable power saving with minor performance degradation.
Apart from demonstrating the inherent error resilience, this work also proposed methods to detect extensive errors and adjust the massive MIMO application to prevent further quality loss.
Masive MIMO system introduction {#sec:system_system}
-------------------------------
In a massive MIMO system, the BS is equipped with $M$ antennas and serves $K$ single-stream users simultaneously, each equipped with a single antenna. Unless otherwise specified, $M$ = 100 and $K$ = 10 is set as typical values in this chapter. Fig. \[fig:system\_system\] illustrates the BS architecture of a massive MIMO system.
The BS consists of central digital modem functionality, the per-antenna processing including (I)FFT operations for OFDM (de)modulation, digital front-end (DFE), analog front-end (AFE) and power amplifier (PA). The signal processing complexity and power consumption of the inner-modem digital processing scale linearly with $K$, while the (I)FFT, the DFE, and the AFE complexity all scale linearly with $M$, and the pre-coder scales with $M*K$.
The massive MIMO digital processing complexity [@7114430] is summarized by billion complex floating-point arithmetic operations per second in Table \[tab:system\_compare\]. The data transfer overhead is included. For a typical massive MIMO system, the digital processing effort is dominated by the per-antenna functionality (mainly FFT and DFE filtering operations). This is due to the linear dependence of system power consumption to the massive BS antenna number $M$.
The digital modem is split in the outer modem (processing information bits through channel coding/decoding) and the inner modem (in multi-carrier systems performing frequency-domain operations such as channel estimation and massive MIMO precoding). To determine the signal processing demands for a typical BS, the complexity of the digital components of massive MIMO [@7114430] is summarized in Table \[tab:system\_compare\]. These complexity values estimate the number of billion complex floating-point arithmetic operations performed per second for each specific digital signal processing operation. They have been multiplied by an overhead factor (see [@7114430]) to take data transfers (in memories and registers) into account. Because they take a big portion of the power consumption of digital systems.
------------------------------------ --------------------- ------------------- ----------------
***Subcomponent*** ***Downlink (DL)*** ***Uplink (UL)*** ***Training***
***\[GOPS\]*** ***\[GOPS\]*** ***\[GOPS\]***
(l)[1-1]{} (l)[2-4]{} Inner modern 175 520 290
Outer Modern 7 40 0
DFE incl. (I)FFT 920 920 920
------------------------------------ --------------------- ------------------- ----------------
: Complexity of digital components for a 100x10 massive MIMO system in each phase, with 20 MHz bandwidth, 3 bps/Hz (16-QAM, 3/4 coding rate, training not included)[]{data-label="tab:system_compare"}
The workload of the massive MIMO is partitioned into downlink (DL), uplink (UL), and training phases. The training phase uses the UL signals to perform channel estimation. Therefore, its digital processing components are similar to the UL phase. For a typical massive MIMO system, the digital processing effort (see Table \[tab:system\_compare\]) is dominated by the per-antenna functionality (mainly FFT and DFE filtering operations) [@7114430]. Note that the downlink data traffic is usually larger (5 to 20 times more traffic than UL). In terms of overall complexity, a BS spends more effort on the UL phase.
To minimize the area cost and the energy budget of the BS, this chapter focuses on demonstrating the possibilities of accepting intermittent digital hardware errors in the DFE (incl. FFT). The hardware error effects are considered within the context of DL massive MIMO. The reasons are i) The DL data size is usually larger, which makes the DL the dominant power consumer. ii) The DFE for UL has a lot of similarities to the DL, and thus exhibits similar effects on errors.
Digital hardware error impacts on signal quality {#sec:system_model}
------------------------------------------------
This section illustrates the most common sources of errors in digital signal processing. The impact of these circuit errors on the (I)FFT and other DFE hardware are then modeled for the later application-level assessment. Accordingly, the unreliability of the circuits is becoming a non-negligible issue [@rabeay].
For the massive MIMO system, the digital hardware errors in (I)FFT & DFE introduced by silicon unreliability and by adventurous design methodologies result in incorrect bit results during signal processing. This can be regarded as digital distortion noise. This work introduces a new metric to signal to digital distortion ratio (SDDR) to describe the quality of signal: $$SDDR = 10 \cdot log \frac{{\sigma_s}^2}{ {\sigma_d}^2 },$$ where ${\sigma_s}^2$ and ${\sigma_d}^2$ are the powers of error-free DFE output, and the noise power of digital distortion due to circuit unreliability, respectively. The digital distortion noise results from circuit-level errors. Based on its mechanism, it is categorized into two class, i.e., VOS (temporary and local errors), and antenna outage (hard and full antenna errors).
The error-free output of a DFE, $y_s$, is contaminated by the VOS distortion $n_d$. Therefore, the final contaminated DFE output $$\tilde y=
\begin{cases}
y_s, & \text{if}\ error-free \\
y_s + n_d, & \text{if}\ VOS~errors \\
0~(fixed~value), & \text{if}\ antenna~outage
\end{cases}$$ The VOS errors $n_d$ of is modeled with a zero-mean Gaussian distribution [@liu2010computation] with ${\sigma_d}^2$ as the error power. The effect of VOS can thus be molded with SDDR. For the scenario of antenna outage, the DFE output stuck at a fixed value (1 or 0). The information from the input signal $y_s$ is completely lost. The rest of this section discuss the VOS and antenna outage effects at the algorithm-level.
Regardless of the DFE contamination class, the received signals at the MIMO receiver ($y$) are $$\begin{bmatrix}
y_1 \\
\vdots \\
y_K
\end{bmatrix}
=
\begin{bmatrix}
h_{1,1} & \cdots & h_{1,M} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
h_{K,1} & \cdots & h_{K,M}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\tilde y_1 \\
\vdots \\
\tilde y_M
\end{bmatrix}
+
\begin{bmatrix}
n_1 \\
\vdots \\
n_N
\end{bmatrix}$$ $$y = H \tilde y + n,$$ where $H$ denotes MIMO channel matrix. The vector of received symbols $y$ is distorted by the noise vector $n$. Note that the hardware distortion $n_d$ and $n$ are different in nature, as $n_d$ impacts individual transmitter antenna, $n$ suffers from the channel and receiver.
### VOS (Voltage-OverScaling) impacts {#sec:system_vos}
Section \[sec:variation\_voltage\] reviewed the techniques to scale down the voltage to exploit design margins and save power consumption. In this chapter, their impacts on SDDR is re-evaluated, in the context of the Massive MIMO digital front-end.
The power saving consists of two part: error-free power saving and error-resilient power saving. The error-free part can be achieved usually by the Razor techniques. For instance, [@bull2011power] reports 30% and 52% power consumption saving on a typical die and a fast die, respectively; [@fojtik2012bubble] achieves 54% saving on a typical die and 60% saving on a fast one. The infrequent errors timing-errors are fully resolved by the micro-architectural level error correction schemes, and produce no errors to the signal output.
The error-resilient techniques, as reviewed in Section \[sec:variation\_ant\], reduces the power consumption of digital signal processors by gracefully sacrificing the SDDR, admitting that a certain amount of errors might occur. For example, Chapter \[sec:algo\] saves 45% power consumption for CORDIC applications, at the cost of 1 ENoB degradation. However, if the supply voltage is further reduced for more aggressive power savings, the SDDR is reduced dramatically. e.g. lower than 0 dB, because a lot of setup paths are failed and the circuit cannot operate correctly.
In summary, state-of-the-art algorithm-level error-resilient techniques save around 40% power, at the cost of potential sparse antenna processing distortion. The SDDR depends on the operating $V_{dd}$, the process variability and the environment temperature. This means that even with the same design, different (I)FFT & DFEs of the massive MIMO might exhibit vastly different SDDR behavior. When the circuit is mainly subject to random SEU errors, designs can choose to either carry on using the erroneous signal, or selectively harden the most critical component using the knowledge presented in Chapter \[sec:model\]. In addition, error mitigation techniques, e.g. the recursive mitigation scheme presented in Chapter \[sec:algo\], are encouraged in this work to avoid dramatic SDDR degradation.
If the SDDR of an individual functional block cannot be sustained in a cost efficient way, application-level redundancy is preferred. Section \[sec:system\_exam\] analyzes the massive MIMO application-level effects of VOS errors and assures that circuit degradation on a small portion of antennas can be absorbed in the massive MIMO system.
### Antenna outage impacts
Another hardware failure scenario for the DFE is the antenna outage (antenna is completely non-operational). This happens when the power supply systems are broken, or when a circuit controlling signal is corrupted, e.g. failure to wake-up the digital circuit.
In an antenna outage scenario, the DFE output is stuck at a fixed value, which is assumed to be the maximum value (DFE output Y = maximum). The SDDR of the outage antenna is -$\infty$, as the signals from the victim antennas are completely lost. This model is regarded as one of the most pessimistic hardware failures. Note that the -$\infty$ SDDR does not imply infinite noise to the whole system, as only the victim antennas are affected and their PA powers are normalized among all antennas. Therefore, several antenna outages will not fail the system entirely.
Random antenna error impacts assessment {#sec:system_exam}
---------------------------------------
Consider a TDD massive MIMO system in DL with $M$ = 100 and $K$ = 10, where the channel estimation and the minimum mean square error (MMSE) MIMO pre-coding are free from digital hardware errors. The performances over a Rayleigh 20-tap i.i.d. channels are simulated. The system is OFDM-based according to LTE parameters, i.e., 1200 loaded subcarriers in a 20 MHz band.
The channel is estimated through uplink pilots associated to the different user equipments (UE) in a round robin fashion, i.e., one pilot every 10 subcarriers for a given UE. Since the channel estimation is assumed to be perfect. The simulation in this work cannot take advantage of the MMSE pre-coding that would limit the digital distortion errors. This is because the digital distortion is not present in the channel training phase. SNR is defined based on a total transmit power normalized to 0 dB per user. The emitted power is normalized for each antenna. The simulations do not apply error correction coding (ECC), except for Fig. \[fig:system\_ldpc\] where the effects of coding on digital hardware errors are studied.
### Error effects on uncoded QPSK 100x10 massive MIMO
This subsection discusses the effect of digital hardware errors, when some per-antenna digital processing units are suffering from errors.
Assume that due to local PVT variation and semiconductor aging effects, a portion of the antenna IFFT & DFE are suffering from slight VOS hardware errors, i.e. SDDR = 10 dB for victim antennas, and no digital hardware errors occur for the remaining antennas.
The system bit error rate (BER) degradation because of antenna errors is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:system\_10db\]. The BER performance drops slightly as more antennas are affected. Nevertheless, the degradation is small even with 50% antennas affected.
![Slight VOS digital distortion errors, i.e. SDDR = 10 dB, only degrades the system BER marginally. This is observed by the massive MIMO system BER vs. channel SNR plot. Randomly chosen victim antennas are suffering from VOS errors. The remaining antennas are free from these errors. The pre-coding scheme is MMSE.[]{data-label="fig:system_10db"}](10db.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Supposing the VOS distortion noise is larger as designers further exploit the design margin, the digital hardware errors become more frequent and hence the SDDR is smaller for each given antenna, e.g. 0 dB. The resulting BER performance with the same settings is shown in Fig. \[fig:system\_0db\]. For a target BER of $10^{-4}$, massive MIMO with 20% antenna failing only requires a channel SNR of -7.4 dB, as opposed to -8.4 dB for the error-free case. This shows that the massive MIMO system still will operate correctly even if a noticeable amount of antennas suffer from digital hardware errors.
![If the massive MIMO system is suffering from extensive VOS digital errors on some antennas, i.e. SDDR = 0 dB, the output is still manageable.[]{data-label="fig:system_0db"}](0db.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:system\_out\], the massive MIMO BER when applying the most pessimistic antenna outage model is shown. For the victim antennas, the useful signals are completely lost and a constant value is output from the DFE and emitted by the PA. This corresponds to an infinitely small SDDR for these victim antennas. The resulting BER performance shows larger SNR degradation for the same BER target. Nevertheless, the massive MIMO system can still cope with the antenna outage error thanks to the redundancy of antennas in the BS, at least for a failure rate up to 10%.
![The system can tolerates some antenna outage (DFE output stuck at a fixed value), i.e. SDDR = -$\infty$.[]{data-label="fig:system_out"}](out.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
### Antenna outage effects for other massive MIMO setups
This subsection discusses the BER performance of massive MIMO for different settings. To analyze the most pessimistic situation, the antenna outage model is used.
Fig. \[fig:system\_modulation\] displays that for the 100x10 massive MIMO, 10% antenna outage leads to slightly more BER degradation for QPSK, comparing with BPSK. This is due to the larger error margin for simpler modulation scheme. For the more sensitive 16-QAM modulation scheme, 10% antenna outage leads to a huge degradation in DL BER. This implies that for communication systems where channel SNR is worse and simple modulation schemes are used, the reliability requirement of the antennas can be relaxed, to simplify the (I)FFT & DFE design and reduce the power consumption budget.
![Massive MIMO system with random antenna outage errors for different modulation schemes, i.e. uncoded BPSK, QPSK and 16-QAM. Simple modulation schemes are more resilient to antenna outage.[]{data-label="fig:system_modulation"}](modulation.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The BS antenna redundancy is reduced if the load of the massive MIMO system increases (the number $K$ of served users or streams is increased). In this scenario, the tolerance for antenna outage is decreased, compared to systems with small $K$ (Fig. \[fig:system\_load\]). Nevertheless, For massive MIMO systems where $M$ $>>$ $K$, the amount of antenna redundancy is sufficient to provide opportunities for antenna unreliability.
![Massive MIMO system with random antenna outage errors for various loads, i.e. 100x10, 100x25, 100x40. Lower loads leave more spaces for error absorption.[]{data-label="fig:system_load"}](load.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
So far uncoded results were presented. However, errors in massive MIMO systems can be mostly corrected by error correction codes, e.g. convolutional codes and LDPC codes. Fig. \[fig:system\_ldpc\] shows the BER improvement when 3/4 soft decoded LDPC code is utilized in the massive MIMO system. At the targeted BER of $10^{-4}$, the SNR is 6 dB lower for the coded QPSK, compared with an uncoded case. For such BER, the SNR difference when considering antenna outage is smaller for the coded massive MIMO system, compared to the uncoded one, although a limited degradation always remains.
![Massive MIMO system with random antenna outage errors for uncoded and coded (3/4 soft LDPC) QPSK, and uncoded and coded (3/4 soft LDPC) 16-QAM. The legend denotes: i) error-free (star shapes), ii) 3% victim antennas (circle shapes), and iii) 10% victim antennas (triangle shapes). Coding and uncoded degradations are similar.[]{data-label="fig:system_ldpc"}](ldpc.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Controlled antenna outage {#sec:system_improve}
-------------------------
According to Section \[sec:system\_vos\], VOS with error-resilient techniques bring up to 40% power saving, at the risk of failures for few antennas. The simulation results from Section \[sec:system\_exam\] illustrates performances when no error detectors are equipped. In other words, the massive MIMO system is operating as usual, regardless of hardware errors. In this situation, the massive MIMO manages to sustain system performance even if several antennas are non-operational (outage) due to aggressive VOS or completely DL failure. In order to improve the reliability of the system under hardware errors, this work proposes to firstly detect hardware errors, and then either correct errors, or circumvent the defective hardware if correction is not possible. It is worth noting that the distortion originating from digital circuit failures fundamentally differs from the random noise introduced in communication channels. While CMOS process variations may feature continuous random distributions, their effects typically lead to discrete antenna error events.
Dedicated monitoring circuit can be established to detect these errors and thus these erroneous bits can be labeled unreliable and potentially be corrected. Eventually, if some circuit errors get too large or systematic, measures at the system level can be taken to discard this hardware and increase the overall robustness.
If digital hardware designs provide monitors [@razor03; @5654663; @bull2011power; @fojtik2012bubble] for each (I)FFT & DFE, the massive MIMO system can equip a closed loop for error detection and correction. The error-resilient designs shown in Chapter \[sec:algo\] can detect and mitigate some errors at the algorithm level. Signals from erroneous antennas can thus be exploited, as the errors are small. The error effects are shown in Section \[sec:system\_exam\].
Another countermeasure is to disable the victim antennas temporarily. Therefore, the channel estimation (and hence the precoding, and data transmission) are accomplished the remaining error-free antennas only. This method is equivalent to operating with a reduced number of error-free BS antennas $M$. For systems with large redundancy, e.g. using simple BPSK modulation, this method will hardly impact system quality. In Fig. \[fig:system\_disable\], erroneous antennas are taken out completely. This leads to BER worse than Fig. \[fig:system\_10db\] and Fig. \[fig:system\_0db\], where antennas are affected with moderate digital hardware errors and the signal from these victim antennas are still exploited for communication.
This shows that by detecting the degree of antennas failing (noise power), designers have the option to determine whether to exploit the victim antennas or to discard them, for better performance. The noise power can be estimated from circuit-level or algorithm-level error monitors, or from the system level measurement that combines channel noise, e.g. by evaluating the measured channel information (CSI).
![Massive MIMO system performance when victim antennas are discarded and the channel estimation and DL is carried out by the remaining error-free antennas. This situation is better than antenna outage.[]{data-label="fig:system_disable"}](disable.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
This work proposes an error detection strategy to periodically check the antenna functionality by putting one antenna in the testing-mode at one time (Fig. \[fig:system\_compare\]). During the testing mode, per antenna DSP are supplied with testing inputs. The outputs are compared with the pre-computed data. If the results are vastly different, the antenna is detected erroneous, and thus the $V_{dd}$ is increased to reduce errors and hence guarantee performance. Erroneous antennas are permanently disabled if they kept failing.
In this work, the periodical testing is scheduled when no data transmission is taken place. Moreover, it can even be performed on-the-fly during data transmission, since suppressing one (1% for massive MIMO with 100 antennas) antenna during DL into the testing-mode would not introduce huge degradation (see Fig. \[fig:system\_disable\]). This enables timely fine-grained $V_{dd}$ adjustment, which maximizes power savings. If, however, the antenna is permanently damaged and thus cannot recover by increasing $V_{dd}$, the antenna will then be labeled as defected.
![An error resilient adaptive scaling technique to manage hardware errors. This technique periodically checks DFE functionality, and adjusts $V_{dd}$ accordingly. In this figure, the second antenna is in testing-mode.[]{data-label="fig:system_compare"}](compare.pdf){width="0.65\linewidth"}
The time interval of the periodical testing depends on the nature of the error occurrence and the changing environment (Fig. \[fig:system\_duration\]). The device process variability is usually determined after manufacturing. Thus, a pre-installation $V_{dd}$ adjustment is sufficient to account for this variability. The CMOS aging effects are becoming more evident in the scaled technology, they depend on the work loads (voltage, frequency, and the relaxation duty cycle). If long-term aging is the only concern, checking the correctness of every hour is sufficient. If, however, the relaxation factor is considered, which alters the device characteristics in several-hundreds cycles, periodically checking the results by every millisecond is recommended. The temperature, which is mainly subject to the heating and dissipation efficiency, usually changes in the ranges of seconds. The voltage noise occurs in the picosecond range. Thus, voltage-noise incurred errors, if the occurrence is rare, can be absorbed in the resilient computing, without counter-measures after periodical testing. If the occurrence becomes more frequent, e.g. once in every thousand cycles, errors will be captured by the periodical testing, and hence the system can opt to either disable the unit or to increase the voltage. The SEU occurrence rate for on-ground application is low. Therefore, communication systems usually do not address this issue.
![The frequency of changing of the process, aging, temperature, and voltage noise that affect the timing errors of circuits. Effects with slow changing rate can easily be resolved by periodical checking, e.g. process and temperature. Designs should either leave margins, or mitigate errors by resilient design toward slow changing effects, e.g. voltage noise and SEU.[]{data-label="fig:system_duration"}](duration.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Conclusion {#sec:system_con}
----------
This chapter examines the opportunity of using error-prone digital signal processing components in massive MIMO systems, and proposes a strategy to maximize power savings while still offering robust operation. The (I)FFTs & DFEs in massive MIMO are the most critical digital components in terms of area and power consumption as they scale linearly with the massive BS antenna count $M$. Hardware errors in a number of antennas’ (I)FFT & DFE can be absorbed by the massive MIMO system thanks to the redundancy coming from the large antenna number. The massive MIMO system exhibits error resilience even for the worst-case antenna outage scenario.
When the hardware error distortion power is low, e.g. lower than 0 dB, the massive MIMO system should continue using the erroneous signal. The errors can be corrected at the application-level by other redundant antennas. It is proposed for systems to equip with on-chip monitors, so that they can detect hardware errors on-the-fly, and discard the error-prone antennas when their SDDR is large, e.g. when antenna outage, or when components are suffering from severe aging effects.
This provides opportunities for the digital hardware designers to embrace cost-efficient and reduced-power digital components at the expense of sacrificing individual antenna reliability, yet maintaining overall systems performance. Up to 40% power can be reduced for the considered digital processing components.
Conclusions and future work {#sec:con}
===========================
Digital circuit designs have benefited from the free lunch of technology scaling for many decades. Nevertheless, the free lunch starts to diminish as we are entering the deeply scaled era. Clever design optimizations are becoming more demanding than ever before. This work advocates a cross-layer to investigate through multiple design levels for power saving. This blurs the distinction between traditional design levels, especially in terms of handling variations, environmental and runtime uncertainties, and errors. This leads to global saving on power consumption as demonstrated in this work. This chapter concludes this thesis. Section \[sec:con\_con\] highlights the results of the thesis. Section \[sec:con\_key\] discusses the key messages from this work. Section \[sec:con\_future\] lists some future work suggests interesting further extension of this work.
Conclusions {#sec:con_con}
-----------
In an era where performance and power are heavily constrained, the conventional worst-case design methodology no longer suffices. A cross-layer optimization is encouraged to quantify the actual need from all levels at design time to avoid over-design. Therefore, circuit and system designers should work more coherently to provide just-needed quality and minimize power consumption. This work advocated for a cross-layer optimization methodology for quality-power trade-offs.
In Chapter \[sec:variation\], approaches for power and quality trade-offs were reviewed. It evaluated the device-level phenomena of PVT variations and reliability threats. It explained the limitation of the worst-case design approach. The chapter also reviewed the adaptive scaling method that uses replica circuits or in-situ error-detection flip-flops. The error-detection flip-flops offer large benefit, due to the capability of responding to fast variations and critical path activation differences. Finally, the motivation for cross-layer error resilience was presented. In a lot of applications, higher-level designs can easily absorb and handle errors that were seemingly inevitable at device and circuit-level.
#### Circuit-level: random error impact model {#circuit-level-random-error-impact-model .unnumbered}
In Chapter \[sec:model\], a circuit-level random error model was presented. The model predicts the impact of device errors on algorithms. In contrast to conventional models that require time-costly Monte-Carlo simulation, the proposed model uses an analytical approach. It ranks the flip-flop nodes in a digital circuit according to their contribution to the outcome. The contribution is defined as its *significance*. A flip-flop is significant if it tightly connects to a lot of significant flip-flops. The model is thus named as SERIAL, or SignificancE RankIng ALgorithm.
This automation eliminates the need for conventional trial-and-error searching for suitable error hardening. Circuit designers have the opportunity to selectively ensure the most important FF (e.g. FF hardening, VOS margin), without excessive hardening overheads. The efficiency and effectiveness were shown on benchmark circuits. The design principles were applied to the design of a reliable FFT processor, which cuts the hardening overhead by a half.
#### Microarchitecture-level: fine-grain hardware switch for power saving {#microarchitecture-level-fine-grain-hardware-switch-for-power-saving .unnumbered}
Chapter \[sec:arch\] proposed a microarchitecture-level fine-grain hardware-switch scheme to save power in embedded processors. This scheme exploits word-length optimization opportunities for a multiplication unit. The opportunities were justified on 11 typical signal processing applications. It is shown that half of the inputs of 32-bit multiplications are shorter than 8 bits.
Therefore, this work proposed a redundant short multiplier to perform these short applications. This leads to power saving as the toggle circuit complexity is reduced. The proposed hardware-switch scheme was validated on the OpenRISC platform. Without changing the software compiler, It brings 23.7% power saving for the multiplication unit, which accounts for 9.5% power saving for the whole execution unit.
#### Algorithm-level: computation-skip scheme to trade quality for power savings {#algorithm-level-computation-skip-scheme-to-trade-quality-for-power-savings .unnumbered}
Chapter \[sec:algo\] proposed an algorithm-level error mitigation method, computation-skip scheme. It trades quality for power savings in recursive applications without throughput penalties. Errors produced at the circuit-level are mitigated, without error accumulation, at the algorithm-level.
The chapter validated the power saving of the scheme on a CORDIC hardware accelerator. The accelerator is processed and verified in a standard 28nm CMOS process with only standard-cells. Using only standard-cells, this work eliminates the traditional semi- (or even fully-) customized design effort for in-situ error detection circuits. A 28% energy consumption per bit saving due to relaxed timing constraint (design margin shaving at design time) is observed. The energy/ENOB saving improves to 42% because of adaptive scaling (error-free design margin shaving at run-time). Moreover, a total of 46% saving is possible, with a 0.2-bit precision loss.
#### Application-level: embracing erroneous hardware in Massive MIMO systems {#application-level-embracing-erroneous-hardware-in-massive-mimo-systems .unnumbered}
Finally, Chapter \[sec:system\] investigated application-level error absorption and handling. The considered errors are generated at the circuit-level and the algorithm-level errors by hardware. The chapter focuses on a Massive MIMO communication system case-study. It shows that the perceived performance will hardly be affected by sparse processing failures, while the power consumption can be considerably reduced as error resilient hardware are utilized. Furthermore, this work assesses antenna outage impacts and proposes damage control strategies.
When the hardware error distortion power is low, e.g. lower than 0 dB, the Massive MIMO system should continue using the erroneous signal. The errors can be corrected at the application-level by other redundant antennas. It is proposed for systems to equip with on-chip monitors, so that they can detect hardware errors on-the-fly, and discard the error-prone antennas when their SDDR is large, e.g. when antenna outage, or when components are suffering from severe aging effects. This provides opportunities for the digital hardware designers to embrace cost-efficient and reduced-power digital components at the expense of sacrificing individual antenna reliability, yet maintaining overall systems performance.
Key messages {#sec:con_key}
------------
The traditional method to handle process variations, environmental and runtime uncertainties, where excessive safety margins are added, result to huge power efficiency loss. One benefit of this conventional approach is that it simplifies design – if we are uncertain about some parameters, take a reasonable worst-case assumption and make sure that works. However, this must be changed as no precious power efficiency should be wasted because of a lack of engineering effort.
There are in general two general directions to advance. First, an accurate model is desired. This model should eliminate the unnecessary pessimism. For instance, as the transistor ages according to the operating voltage and frequency, the worst-case settings for systems where the supply voltage is low should be less pessimistic [@kukner2013impact]. This enables easier timing closure and hence power saving. The more accurate the model, the more information need to consider during the modeling, this calls for cross-layer modeling. Eventually, the effort in modeling will outweigh the power gain at some point. Another roadblock for pursuing a perfectly accurate model is that the environmental and runtime uncertainties vary over time and changes very fast. An accurate model at one point becomes invalid at another time. Again, safety margins remain.
Second, adjusting to the unpredictable changes when they arise is the advocated approach in this thesis. As it is fundamentally impossible to model precisely beforehand, the logical approach is dynamical changing according to the condition. Cross-layer information is encouraged as optimization locally within design levels are not enough.
The DVFS and the more aggressive AVFS falls in the second category. With speed detectors and fine-grained voltage regulator, the time-zero and time-dependent process variations can be largely eliminated. [@fojtik2012bubble] reports 54% energy saving on an average die with this approach, without introducing any errors. Despite the remarkable benefits, the engineering challenges of i) the accuracy of speed monitor, ii) overhead of in-situ speed detection, iii) response time of the voltage-regulator are still the obstacles to mass adoption. Nevertheless, the huge energy saving has motivated engineers to exploit this opportunity, especially in the processor industry where a massive amount of chips are produced. The immense recursive benefit certainly outweighs the non-recursive engineering investment. The AVFS, realized by adaptive clocking distribution and power management, is becoming a common feature in modern processors, e.g. [@gonzalez20173]. The other demanding application for AVFS is the ultra-low power IoT terminal devices, where every microwatt matters. It is almost impossible to find a sub-threshold computing device that does not equip AVFS to manage variability.
Apart from error-free DVFS, the error is another factor for cross-layer optimization. It is a pity that engineers spend so many energy to optimize power with the error-free constraint while the constraint is not necessarily needed. In the end, the digital devices serve to provide service, not to compute correctly. This work demonstrates huge potential in the wireless communication system. In those systems, errors are corrected by the ECC as long as they are small. Traditionally, circuit-level reliability hardening (FF hardening) are employed in mission-critical circuits to ensure error-free circuit. This is however unnecessary. In Chapter \[sec:model\], a cross-layer optimization by selective FF hardening is performed on an FFT processor against random SEU. It increases reliability with much less hardening overhead. This methodology is advised in this work – when trying to improve reliably, optimize with minimum overhead, and do not assume that reliable means error-free circuits.
Similar design approaches are carried out on algorithm (Chapter \[sec:algo\]) and application-level (Chapter \[sec:system\]) designs. The error-resilient approach advances from the canary FF method (an AVFS approach) in terms of power minimization, especially for high-speed circuits. This is because error-resilience relaxes the strict timing requirement in those circuits and uses slow but power-efficient digital cells.
The massive MIMO and the 5G technology will certainly demand massive digital solutions in the future. A good news is that the massive MIMO tolerates plenty of errors thanks to the antenna redundancy. Errors include conventional channel errors, analog component non-ideality, quantization errors, VOS errors and even hardware failure. Its resilience motivates the popularity of massive MIMO technology. Moreover, it encourages low-power but erroneous hardware solutions. The DVFS with sparse errors and the algorithm-level solution in Chapter \[sec:algo\] fits into this picture perfectly.
Overall, device uncertainties, that used to be a silicon-only problem, should be solved by joint force of device and application designers. A cross-layer optimization mentality should be included in the digital circuit and system development. This called for compound knowledge from the device to the application during design.
Future work {#sec:con_future}
-----------
Cross-layer optimization for quality and power remains a hot research domain. However, it should not stay in the research domain, yet actual industrial applications and deployments are anticipated. Fortunately, an early adoption of these techniques has been observed in the industry. The author firmly believes that the cross-layer methodology will become crucial to continue increasing the performance per watt for future digital circuits and systems. The following is a suggestion for future work in this area.
- **Extending the error effects model to non-uniform distributed errors.** The circuit-level model in this thesis covers the effects when errors are randomly generated. This is readily applicable to SEU effects where the error generation is uniform. For other non-uniform errors, especially time-dependent degradations, the toggling frequency, and operating voltage information, should never be dismissed. These non-uniformed error possibilities require special consideration not only in the error generation, but also error propagation. The significance factor can be extended to vulnerability factor, which is a product of the error generation possibility and error consequences. For instance, [@mukherjee2003systematic] proposes an architecture vulnerability factor, which is the product of the error generation possibility and the error propagation possibility (but not error severity).
- **Complete hardware prototyping and system-level consideration of timing-error tolerant Massive MIMO systems.** The timing-error monitor on hardware is validated on recursive application CORDIC, and on non-recursive digital front-end. A complete system-level prototyping is possible. A key missing part is an integration with on-chip power regulators for autonomous voltage tuning. In addition, the proof of concept system-level demonstration, built with multiple chips, will allow consideration of realistic variations in environmental conditions. The considering of errors in uplink and channel estimations can also be researched. If that is considered, the co-optimization of digital front-end and channel pre-coder is much needed. It is believed by the author that the MMSE pre-coder might suppress the digital distortion errors more effectively than the ZF pre-coder. The increased channel estimation and pre-coding complexity should be carefully checked.
- **Considering workload-related CMOS aging effects.** Although the methods in this thesis can cope with the slow-changing CMOS aging effects, they cannot fully exploit the workload-related CMOS aging. Modern CMOS device is allocating more safety margins to the aging effects [@stamoulis2016capturing]. Therefore, designing circuits with workload-related aging models will promote new proposals to exploit these margins, and saves power consumption.
- **Approximate computing.** The hardware switch in this work is only activated when no arithmetic errors will be produced. This can extend to situations when some small amount of errors occurs. For instance, when the input is slightly larger than the short multiplier size, saturation or truncation can be performed. This, however, needs compiler interplay to ensure application-level correctness. Moreiver, this thesis has not covered the approximate computing hardware. An approximate computing device produces errors by design, which simplies the computation process in returen. The comparisons between the VOS and approximate multiplier [@liu2014low] can be further investigated. The VOS and approximate hardware can also work together, its impact on application-level quality should be studied.
- **Stochastic computing.** Known for its low-complexity, stochastic computing devices represents and processes information in the form of digitized probabilities. However, it was seen as impractical because of very long computation times and relatively low accuracy. However, if future technologies continue to increase uncertainty in circuit behavior, it will imply a need to better understand, and perhaps exploit, probability in computation.
- **Systematical cross-layer design methodology.** This thesis performed ad-hoc cross-layer optimizations to digital circuits and systems, which spot and optimize the power / quality bottlenecks. Ideally, a more systematical cross-layer design methodology is welcomed. This task is not easy, as changing the whole design flow requires huge interplay from IC foundries to EDA vendors, designers, and system integrator. However, if the current design flow, combined with cross-layer optimizations, can not sustain the development of digital technologies, the systematical methodology is definitely one of the most promising solutions.
- **Impacts on future semiconductor devices.** The device uncertainties and management techniques in sub-5nm novel device architecture (e.g. gate-all-around transistors, carbon nanotubes), novel materials (e.g. GaN, GaAs), novel integration (3-D chip and package) and memory technologies (e.g. M-RAM, R-RAM) can be studied. Technology engineering is trying to enhance the reliability of those new technologies. However, the progress is not always satisfying. The new device parameters in variations might demand new design methodologies.
- **Applications to other soft-output systems.** The case-study in this thesis is around the wireless communication systems. In these systems, the quality of service is never strict, as long as SNR, BER, throughput requirements (among others) are fulfilled. The knowledge gained in this thesis can also apply to the power and quality trade-offs in other soft quality systems, e.g., heuristic searching problems, approximate simulation of supercomputing tasks, and training and inference in artificial intelligence applications. In the deeply scaled semiconductor era, the advance depends more and more on the application. The digital neural network is well believed to the next killer application. The convolutional neural network, especially in computer vision applications, does not require precise solutions. The data-path error resilience power minimization can be substantial, considering the massive amount of processing carried out.
A digital front-end processor for 60 GHz polar transmitter {#ch:myappendix}
==========================================================
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
--------
A complete Digital Front-End (DFE) processor for the 60 GHz polar transmitter is presented. It avoids supply modulating, RF limiters, and AM detection circuits, compared to traditional analog-centric polar transmitter architectures.
The front-end processor consists of i) a poly-phase Cascaded Integrator-Comb (CIC) filter for spectrum shaping, ii) parallel COordinate Rotation DIgital Computers (CORDIC) for rectangular-to-polar conversion, and iii) Power Amplifier (PA) non-linearities pre-distortion units using Look-Up Tables (LUTs). It is designed in the two-phase latch-based pipeline to achieve a throughput of 4x1.76 Gsps. Implemented in a standard 28nm CMOS technology, the DFE processor occupies 0.031 $mm^2$ and consumes 39mW from 0.9V supply. This result outperforms previously reported architectures.
Introduction {#introduction}
------------
In contrast with the scarcely available spectrum in the sub-10 GHz range, the 60 GHz frequency band provides 4 channels of 2.1 GHz bandwidth each, as specified by the IEEE802.11ad standard [@11ad]. This provides up to 6.75 Gbps data rate in Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN). [@11ad]
However, due to the high free-space path loss, transmission at 60 GHz covers much less distance for a given power budget. This can be alleviated by employing phased array antennas. [@Ref10] Nevertheless, as the number of Power Amplifiers (PAs) increases, the power consumption grows drastically. The power issue is more severe given the fact that, the 60 GHz class-A linear mode PAs usually provide less than 5% efficiency.
Therefore, the polar architecture is proposed, which allows the PA to operate in the saturation region. In a polar transmission, the PHase (PH) and the AMplitude (AM) signals have separate paths before being combined by the PA. Conventional analog-centric polar modulation scheme suffers from several challenges, e.g. supply voltage linearity of the PA, AM-AM distortion, AM-PM distortion, nonlinearity of the envelope detector, and AM-PM distortion.
To cope with that, a digital-intensive transmitter architecture with the polar concept is explored at mm-waves high-bandwidth transmitters. Moreover, the polar concept is expanded to the whole transmitter, rather than only in the RF domain. The AM signal can then digitally modulate a variable-size PA. This avoids modulating the supply and also eliminates the need for an additional RF limiter and AM detection circuits, which would introduce extra nonlinearity and bandwidth limitations. Despite many advantages, the design of the digital front-end (DFE) processor is very challenging. For the 60 GHz application, the DFE processor mostly needed to work at a very high speed depending on the required oversampling factor. [@li15icassp-polar-dfe] discussed several design considerations for the polar conversion unit, without implementation.
This work presents the first DFE processor for such polar transmitter working in the 60 GHz band. It enables high-bandwidth data transmission with an output throughput of 7.04 Gsps (4x1.74 Gsps). The extensive measurement confirms the great potential of the polar architecture in an actual design. Section II discusses the system architecture. The implementation details are illustrated in Section III. In Section IV, the chip measurement results are presented.
System architecture
-------------------
Fig. \[fig:polar\_system\] shows the high-level architecture of a polar transmitter system. The system consists of a DFE processor (which is presented in this work) and an analog front-end (described in details in [@Ref10]). The DFE comprises DSP for upsampling the rectangular ($I$ & $Q$) signals, for $I$ & $Q$ signals to AM and PH signals conversion, and for pre-distortion compensation. The 802.11ad standard specifies -21 dB EVM for single carrier QAM-16 modulation. Considering the variations in this deeply scaled 28nm CMOS technology, -31dB is taken as the design goal with a design margin of 10 dB.
### Polar conversion
The rectangular to polar conversion takes in-phase $I$ and quadrature $Q$ signals, and provides the corresponding AM (A) and PH (in the form of $sin(\theta(t))$ and $cos(\theta(t))$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dirconv}
\nonumber
A(t)&=&\sqrt{I(t)^2+Q(t^2)}\\
\nonumber
sin(\theta(t))&=&sin(arctan(\frac{Q(t)}{I(t)}))\\
cos(\theta(t))&=&cos(arctan(\frac{Q(t)}{I(t)}))\end{aligned}$$
This conversion involves multiple complex computations, e.g., square root, trigonometric and division computations. With the aim of energy efficient processing, this is achieved by deep-pipelined COordinate Rotation DIgital Computers (CORDIC) [@li15icassp-polar-dfe]. Each CORDIC rotates the vector of the $I$ & $Q$ signals iteratively until the vector angle reaches zero. The resulting vector amplitude and the rotated angle are recorded as the AM and PH signals.
### Phase shaping filter
The polar conversion is a nonlinear computation, which broadens the spectrum. To avoid error vector magnitude (EVM) degradation from the spectrum overlap, signals are oversampled and digitally filtered before aliasing. Another reason for oversampling is to overcome alias generated by the RF-DAC in the analog stage. [@van2007digital] To suppress the alias below the spectrum mask, a 4xOSF is investigated in [@li15icassp-polar-dfe], in combination with an analog Butterworth baseband filter in the PH path.
For pulse shaping, we utilized the Cascaded Integrator-Comb (CIC) filter, rather than the computation-intensive raised cosine filter. The structure and the transfer function of the CIC filter are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:polar\_cic\]. The oversampling is performed after the CIC filter, rather than before it, to reduce the operating frequency of the CIC filter.
With a targeted EVM of -30 dB, the PH and AM resolutions for the combination of the phase shaping filter and the polar conversion are traded-off in Matlab (Fig. \[fig:polar\_quantization\]), which decides 5 bits for AM and 7 bits for PH.
### Pre-distortion
The DSP output signals are distorted by the analog processing functions. This is due to i) nonidealities such as bandwidth limitations of the analog components in the amplitude and phase paths, ii) delay mismatch between the amplitude and phase paths, and iii) the RF-DAC non-idealities. These distortions cause spectral regrowth and devastate the constellation diagram. Therefore, a Pre-Distortion (PD) circuit is provided.
As shown in Fig. \[fig:polar\_pre\], the pre-distortion unit is built with a lookup table (LUT), where the AM serves as the addressing index. The AM and PH signals are compensated with the derived $\Delta$ values from the LUT: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pre}
\nonumber
A(t)' &=& A(t) + \Delta A \\ \nonumber
sin(\theta'(t))&=&sin(\theta(t)+\Delta\theta(t))\\ \nonumber
&=&sin(\theta(t))cos(\Delta\theta(t))+cos(\theta(t))sin(\Delta\theta(t))\\ \nonumber
&\sim&sin(\theta(t))+cos(\theta(t))\Delta\theta(t)\\ \nonumber
cos(\theta'(t))&=&cos(\theta(t)+\Delta\theta(t))\\ \nonumber
&=&cos(\theta(t))cos(\Delta\theta(t))-sin(\theta(t))sin(\Delta\theta(t))\\
&\sim&cos(\theta(t))-sin(\theta(t))\Delta\theta(t)\end{aligned}$$
The pre-distorted AM is created by summing up the AM and the derived $\Delta A(t)$ from the LUT. Similarly, the pre-distorted PH signals are obtained by operating on respective PH signals with and the $\Delta\theta(t)$. To avoid heavy computations, the PH pre-distortion is approximated in Equation \[eq:pre\], provided that the $\Delta\theta(t)$ is small. An LUT consists of 32 entries (because the AM signal is 5-bit width). Each entry is of 8 bits width. The 3 most significant bits are assigned to the $\Delta A$, and the 5 least significant bits to the $\Delta \theta(t)$.
Implementation details {#sec:im}
----------------------
Fig. \[fig:polar\_pipeline\] shows the overall pipeline scheme. The DFE input throughput is 1.76 Gsps. The system comprises 4 parallel pipelined signal paths (each has a separate CIC filter, a CORDIC, and a pre-distortion unit), as the OSF is 4. Therefore, the output throughput is 7.04 Gsps (4x1.76 Gsps). The speed requirement is challenging, even with the 4x parallelism. Therefore, the DFE processor was implemented with a deep pipeline structure, i.e. pipelined after each addition.
Since the coefficients of the CIC filters are pre-determined, the multiplications in those filters were accomplished by shift-additions for power saving. Moreover, signals are added by customized carry-save adders and finally adding up by the vector merging adders (adding up the vectors of sums and carries) [@huang15micpro-deci-filter]. The pipeline breaks the CORDIC after each CORDIC rotation. As the AM resolution (5-bit) is less than the PH resolution (7-bit), the AM signals require fewer rotations. Therefore, they are ready before PH signals are produced. This is advantageous for the pre-distortion: by the time the PH signals are computed, the $\Delta A$ and the $\Delta \theta$ are already fetched by the AM signals from the LUT. The LUT is implemented with single-port RAMs.
To reduce the power consumption, level-triggered two-phase latches were chosen as the sequential component. The input sequential elements are rising-edge enabled flip-flops. The enabling signals for the latches are indicated by a solid line. For instance, the first latch in the pipeline is active-high, while the second latch is active-low. This complementary two-phase latch methodology eliminates often-encountered hold time problem in latch based designs. Advantageously, the proposed latch scheme allows time borrowing. For instance, the data can arrive later than the rising edge for an active-high latch, and thus borrows time from the next pipeline stage. The advantage of time-borrowing is two-fold. Firstly, it eases timing closure, because it can perform stage balancing automatically. This eliminates manually moving computation and/or logic elements from one stage to another. For the exampled 1.76 GHz high-speed, it is especially beneficial. Secondly, the opportunistic time-borrowing principle addresses process and environmental variations. Due to such variations, even if the pipeline is carefully equalized at design time, the delay of each computation stage can vary in the fabricated chip, the effect of which becomes even more severe with technology scaling. In the DFE, time-borrowing allows for a slower computation stage to opportunistically borrow time from faster ones, which averages out some of the variations.
Even with the techniques mentioned above, the speed requirement cannot be achieved for the standard 28nm technology, with 0.9V as the standard $V_{dd}$. Accordingly, we applied the following modifications during library selection. i) For the CIC filter and the CORDIC polar converter: we utilized fast but leaky Low $V_{th}$ (LVT) cells, rather than the Standard $V_{th}$ (SVT). This leakage increase should not change the overall power consumption, as the circuit power is dominated by the dynamical part (since the clock frequency is very high). Moreover, the designed $V_{dd}$ was increased to 1V for a higher speed. ii) For the pre-distortion unit: as the setup-timing requirement is not as difficult as the rest units, they were accomplished by SVT cells under 0.9V.
Therefore, we divided the design into two power domains: 1V for the CIC filter and the CORDIC polar conversion, and 0.9V for the pre-distortion unit. The pre-distortion unit can be switched off and by-passed for scenarios where linearity is sufficient, for energy saving.
Measurement results
-------------------
The DFE processor was processed in a standard 28 $nm$ CMOS technology. A micrograph of the chip is shown in Fig. \[fig:polar\_shot\]. The complete design area is as small as 0.036$mm^2$, of which the switchable pre-distortion unit utilizes 0.015$mm^2$. The cell area breakdown is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:polar\_area\].
![Cell area breakdown (in $\mu m^2$) of the proposed DFE processor. N.B.: Routing spacing not included.[]{data-label="fig:polar_area"}](area_polar){width="0.4\linewidth"}
The circuit speed was measured for a typical-case chip at 25$^{\circ}C$ room temperature (Fig. \[fig:polar\_speed\]). Due to the inserted design margin, although the chip is designed to be 1.76 GHz @ 1V, a typical chip can operate correctly @ 3 GHz with the same $V_{dd}$, implying a throughput of 4x3 GHz. Alternately, it can also operate @ 0.8V $V_{dd}$ with a fixed frequency of 1.76 GHz, which brings 33% power saving. The CIC filter and the CORDIC polar conversion consume 25mW @ 1V $V_{dd}$, 20mW @ 0.9V, or 16mW @ 0.8V. The pre-distortion unit consumes 19mW @ 0.9V. The overall leakage consumption power is less than 1mW at room temperature.
![Typical chip speed vs. $V_{dd}$ @$25^{\circ}C$.[]{data-label="fig:polar_speed"}](speed){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The power spectrum density (PSD) of the DFE outputs is shown in Fig. \[fig:polar\_psd\]. Both the in-band PSD and the alias rejection are confirmed to be compliant with the spectrum mask. The EVM of the produced signal is measured to be -30.5 dB. Fig. \[fig:polar\_constellation\] plots the constellation for 16-QAM signals. It demonstrated clearly the nice purity of the signals.
![Measurement DFE outputs PSD.[]{data-label="fig:polar_psd"}](psd){width="0.5\linewidth"}
![Measurement DFE output 16-QAM constellation, with a corresponding EVM of -30.5 dB.[]{data-label="fig:polar_constellation"}](constellation){width="0.4\linewidth"}
As this work is the first polar transmitter for high bandwidth 60 GHz system, benchmarking can be difficult. Nevertheless, Table \[tab:polar\_comp\] compares state-of-the-art digital signal processors [@polarhwang; @polarstrollo; @us4; @mehta20100] that has similar functionalities. The only work with comparable speed is [@us4], where merely the 4xOSF filtering function is provided. Even with the perfect scaling normalization, the only state-of-the-art work with comparable energy consumption is [@polarstrollo], which only performs CORDIC polar conversion. In summary, the comparisons show the proposed design has significant advantages.
$^1$ Energy = Power / Frequency / Bits.
$^2$ $E_{norm}$ = Energy x $(V_{dd}/1V)^2$ x (tech/28$nm$).
$^3$ Estimated from a total current of 105mA.
Conclusions {#conclusions}
-----------
This paper presents the first DFE processor for polar transmitter working in the 60 GHz band. It enables digital-intensive transmitter architecture with polar concept expanded to the whole transmitter, rather than conventionally only in radio frequency domain.
The DFE processor was processed in a standard 28 $nm$ technology with 0.036 $mm^2$ area. The processor provides -30.5 dB EVM, with 4x1.76 Gsps output throughput. The throughput can reach to 4x3 Gsps when 1V $V_{dd}$ is supplied. It consumes 39mW from 0.9V supply.
[^1]: It is different from the sub-threshold computing technique [@dreslinski2010near] where the $V_{dd}$ and the clock frequency are very low. In contrast, the VOS reduces $V_{dd}$, but not the clock frequency. The operating voltage of VOS is much higher than the sub-threshold region.
[^2]: Corss-layers in this work means to optimize across different design levels, which is different from the notion of “layer” from the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model.
[^3]: FFT32: 8-bit resolution, 1 butterfly unit; FFT64: 16-bit resolution, 2 parallel butterfly units
[^4]: In Chapter \[sec:system\], the output SNR is named as the Signal-to-Digital-Distortion Ratio (SDDR), to avoid the confusion with the term SNR in wireless communication society to quantify the quality of channel.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Inspired by the matching of supply to demand in logistical problems, the optimal transport (or Monge–Kantorovich) problem involves the matching of probability distributions defined over a geometric domain such as a surface or manifold. In its most obvious discretization, optimal transport becomes a large-scale linear program, which typically is infeasible to solve efficiently on triangle meshes, graphs, point clouds, and other domains encountered in graphics and machine learning. Recent breakthroughs in numerical optimal transport, however, enable scalability to orders-of-magnitude larger problems, solvable in a fraction of a second. Here, we discuss advances in numerical optimal transport that leverage understanding of both discrete and smooth aspects of the problem. State-of-the-art techniques in discrete optimal transport combine insight from partial differential equations (PDE) with convex analysis to reformulate, discretize, and optimize transportation problems. The end result is a set of theoretically-justified models suitable for domains with thousands or millions of vertices. Since numerical optimal transport is a relatively new discipline, special emphasis is placed on identifying and explaining open problems in need of mathematical insight and additional research.'
address: MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
author:
- Justin Solomon
bibliography:
- 'optimal\_transport.bib'
title: Optimal Transport on Discrete Domains
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Many tools from discrete differential geometry (DDG) were inspired by practical considerations in areas like computer graphics and vision. Disciplines like these require fine-grained understanding of geometric structure and the relationships between different shapes—problems for which the toolbox from smooth geometry can provide substantial insight. Indeed, a triumph of discrete differential geometry is its incorporation into a wide array of computational pipelines, affecting the way artists, engineers, and scientists approach problem-solving across geometry-adjacent disciplines.
A key but neglected consideration hampering adoption of ideas in DDG in fields like computer vision and machine learning, however, is *resilience* to noise and uncertainty. The view of the world provided by video cameras, depth sensors, and other equipment is extremely unreliable. Shapes do not necessarily come to a computer as complete, manifold meshes but rather may be scattered clouds of points that represent e.g. only those features visible from a single position. Similarly, it may be impossible to pinpoint a feature on a shape exactly; rather, we may receive only a fuzzy signal indicating where a point or feature of interest *may* be located. Such uncertainty only increases in high-dimensional statistical contexts, where the presence of geometric structure in a given dataset is itself not a given. Rather than regarding this messiness as an “implementation issue” to be coped with by engineers adapting DDG to imperfect data, however, the challenge of developing principled yet noise-resilient discrete theories of shape motivates new frontiers in mathematical research.
Probabilistic language provides a natural means of formalizing notions of uncertainty in the geometry processing pipeline. In place of representing a feature or shape directly, we might instead use a probability distribution to encode a rougher notion of shape. Unfortunately, this proposal throws both smooth and discrete constructions off their foundations: We must return to the basics and redefine notions like distance, distortion, and curvature in a fashion that does not rely on knowing shape with infinite precision and confidence. At the same time, we must prove that the classical case is recovered as uncertainty diminishes to zero.
The mathematical discipline of *optimal transport* (OT) shows promise for making geometry work in the probabilistic regime. In its most basic form, optimal transport provides a means of lifting distances between points on a domain to distances between probability distributions *over* the domain. The basic construction of OT is to interpret probability distributions as piles of sand; the distance between two such piles of sand is defined as the amount of work it takes to transform one pile into the other. This intuitive construction gave rise to an alternative name for OT in the computational world: The “earth mover’s distance” (EMD) [@rubner2000earth]. Indeed, the basic approach in OT is so natural that it has been proposed and re-proposed in many forms and with many names, from OT to EMD, the Mallows distance [@levina2001earth], the Monge–Kantorovich problem [@villani2003topics], the Hitchcock–Koopmans transportation problem [@hitchcock1941distribution; @koopmans1941exchange], the Wasserstein/Vaseršteĭn distance [@vaserstein1969markov; @dobrushin1970definition], and undoubtedly many others.
Many credit Gaspard Monge with first formalizing the optimal transport problem in 1781 [@monge1781memoire]. Beyond its early history, modern understanding of optimal transport dates back only to the World War II era, through the Nobel Prize-winning work of Leonid Kantorovich [@kantorovich1942translocation]. Jumping forward several decades, while many branches of DDG are dedicated to making centuries-old constructions on smooth manifolds work in the discrete case, optimal transport has the distinction of continuing to be an active area of research in the mathematical community whose basic properties are still being discovered. Indeed, the computational and theoretical literature in this area move in lock-step: New theoretical constructions often are adapted by the computational community in a matter of months, and some key theoretical ideas in transport were inspired by computational considerations and constructions.
Here, we aim to provide some intuition about transport and its relevance to the discrete differential geometry world. While a complete survey of work on OT or even just its computational aspects is worthy of a full textbook, here we focus on the narrower problem of how to “make transport work” on a discretized piece of geometry amenable to representation on a computer. The primary aim is to highlight the challenges in transitioning from smooth to discrete, to illustrate some basic constructions that have been proposed recently for this task, and—most importantly—to expose the plethora of open questions remaining in the relatively young discipline of computational OT. No-doubt incomplete references are provided to selected intriguing ideas in computational OT, each of which is worthy of far more detailed discussion.
### Additional reference. {#additional-reference. .unnumbered}
Those readers with limited experience in related disciplines may wish to begin by reading [@solomon2018computational], a shorter survey by the author on the same topic, intended for a generalist audience.
### Disclaimer. {#disclaimer. .unnumbered}
These notes are intended as a short, intuitive, and *extremely* informal introduction. Optimal transport is a popular topic in mathematical research, and interested readers should refer to surveys such as [@villani2003topics; @villani2008optimal] for more comprehensive discussion. The recent text [@santambrogio2015optimal] provides discussion targeted to the applied world. A few recent surveys also are targeted to computational issues in optimal transport [@levy2017notions; @peyre2017computational].
The author of this tutorial offers his sincere apology to those colleagues whose foundational work is undoubtedly yet accidentally omitted from this document. A “venti”-sized caffeinated beverage is humbly offered in exchange for those readers’ forgiveness and understanding.
Motivation: From Probability to Discrete Geometry
=================================================
To motivate the construction of optimal transport in the context of geometry processing, we begin by considering the case of smooth probability distributions over the real numbers ${\mathbb{R}}$. Here, the geometry is extremely simple, described by values $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ equipped with the distance metric $d(x,y):=|x-y|$. Then we expand to define the transport problem in more generality and state a few useful properties.
The Transport Problem {#sec:transport_problem}
---------------------
Define the space of probability measures over ${\mathbb{R}}$ as ${\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$. Without delving into the formalities of measure theory, these are roughly the functions $\mu\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$ assigning probabilities to sets $S\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\mu(S)\geq0$ for all measurable $S$, $\mu({\mathbb{R}})=1$, and $\mu(\cup_{i=1}^k S_i)=\sum_{i=1}^k\mu(S_i)$ for disjoint sets $\{S_i\subseteq{\mathbb{R}}\}_{i=1}^k$. If $\mu$ is absolutely continuous, then it admits a *distribution function* $\rho(x):{\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ assigning a probability density to every point: $$\mu(S)=\int_S \rho(x)\,dx.$$
Measure theory, probability, and statistics each are constructed from slightly different interpretations of the set of probability distributions ${\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$. Adding to the mix, we can think of optimal transport as a *geometric* theory of probability. In particular, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:1d\_example\], roughly a probability distribution over ${\mathbb{R}}$ can be thought of as a superposition of points in ${\mathbb{R}}$, whose weights are determined by $\rho(x)$. We can recover a (complicated) representation for a single point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ as a Dirac $\delta$-measure centered at $x$.
From a physical perspective, we can think of distributions geometrically using a physical analogy. Suppose we are given a bucket of sand whose total mass is one pound. We could distribute this pound of sand across the real numbers by stacking it all at a single point, concentrating it at a few points, or spreading it out smoothly. The height of the pile of sand expresses a geometric feature: Lots of sand at a point $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ indicates we think a feature is located at $x$.
If we wish to deepen this analogy and lift notions from geometry to the space ${\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$, perhaps the most basic object we must define is a notion of $\emph{distance}$ between two distributions $\mu_0,\mu_1\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$ that resembles the distance $d(x,y)=|x-y|$ between points on the underlying space. Supposing for now that $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ admit distribution functions $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$, respectively, a few candidate notions of distance or divergence come to mind: $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{$L_1$ distance:} & \hspace{.25in}d_{L_1}(\rho_0,\rho_1):=\int_{-\infty}^\infty |\rho_0(x)-\rho_1(x)|\,dx\\
\textrm{KL divergence:} & \hspace{.25in}d_{\mathrm{KL}}(\rho_0\|\rho_1):=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \rho_0(x)\log\frac{\rho_0(x)}{\rho_1(x)}\,dx.\end{aligned}$$ These divergences are used widely in analysis and information theory, but they are insufficient for geometric computation. In particular, consider the distributions in Figure \[fig:klbad\]. The two divergences above give the same value for any pair of different $\rho_i$’s! This is because they measure only the overlap; the ground distance $d(x,y)=|x-y|$ is never used in their computation.
Optimal transport resolves this issue by leveraging the physical analogy proposed above. In particular, suppose our sand is currently in arrangement $\rho_0$ and we wish to *reshape* it to a new distribution $\rho_1$. We take a steam shovel and begin scooping up the sand at points $x$ in $\rho_0$ where $\rho_0(x)>\rho_1(x)$ and dropping it places where $\rho_1(x)>\rho_0(x)$; eventually one distribution is transformed into the other.
[cc]{}
&
\
(a) Source and target & (b) Transport map
There are many ways the steam shovel could approach its task: We could move sand efficiently, or we could drive it miles away and then drive back, wasting fuel in the process. But assuming $\rho_0\neq\rho_1$, there is some amount of work inherent in the fact that $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are not the same. We can formalize this idea by solving for an unknown measure $\pi(x,y)$ determining how much mass gets moved from $x$ to $y$ by the steam shovel for each $(x,y)$ pair. The minimum amount of work is then $$\label{eq:w1_1d}
{\mathcal{W}}_1(\rho_0,\rho_1):=\left\{\!
\begin{array}{r@{\ }ll}
\min_\pi & \iint_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}} \pi(x,y)|x-y|\,dx\,dy & \textrm{Minimize total work}\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \pi\geq0\ \forall x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}& \textrm{Nonnegative mass}\\
& \int_{\mathbb{R}}\pi(x,y)\,dy = \rho_0(x)\,\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}& \textrm{Starts from $\rho_0$}\\
& \int_{\mathbb{R}}\pi(x,y)\,dx = \rho_1(y)\,\forall y\in{\mathbb{R}}& \textrm{Ends at $\rho_1$}.
\end{array}\right.$$ This optimization problem quantifies the minimum amount of work—measured as mass $\pi(x,y)$ times distance traveled $|x-y|$—required to transform $\rho_0$ into $\rho_1$. We can think of the unknown function $\pi$ as the instructions given to the laziest possible steam shovel tasked with dropping one distribution onto another. This amount of work is known as the *1-Wasserstein distance* in optimal transport; in one dimension, it equals the $L_1$ distance between the cumulative distribution functions of $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$. An example of $\rho_0$, $\rho_1$, and the resulting $\pi$ is shown in Figure \[fig:1dmap\].
Generalizing slightly, we can define the $p$-Wasserstein distance: $$\label{eq:wp_1d}
[{\mathcal{W}}_p(\rho_0,\rho_1)]^p:=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\min_\pi & \iint_{{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}} \pi(x,y)|x-y|^p\,dx\,dy \\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \pi\geq0\ \forall x,y\in {\mathbb{R}}\\
& \int_{\mathbb{R}}\pi(x,y)\,dy = \rho_0(x)\,\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}\\
& \int_{\mathbb{R}}\pi(x,y)\,dx = \rho_1(y)\,\forall y\in{\mathbb{R}}.
\end{array}\right.$$ In analogy to Euclidean space, many properties of ${\mathcal{W}}_p$ are split into cases $p<1$, $p=1$, and $p>1$; for instance, it satisfies the triangle inequality any time $p\geq1$. The $p=2$ case is of particular interest in the literature and corresponds to a “least-squares” version of transport that minimizes kinetic energy rather than work (see §\[sec:manyformulas\]). Generalizing even more, if we replace $|x-y|^p$ with a generic cost $c(x,y)$ we recover the *Kantorovich problem* [@kantorovich1942translocation].
It is important to note an alternative formulation of the transport problem , which historically was posed first but does not always admit a solution. Rather than optimizing for a function $\pi(x,y)$ with an unknown for every possible $(x,y)$ pair, one could consider an alternative in which instead the variable is a single function $\phi(x)$ that “pushes forward” $\rho_0$ onto $\rho_1$; this corresponds to choosing a single destination $\phi(x)$ for every source point $x$. In this case, the objective function would look like $$\label{eq:monge}
\int_{-\infty}^\infty |\phi(x)-x|^p\rho_0(x)\,dx,$$ and the constraints would ask that the image of $\rho_0$ under $\phi$ is $\rho_1$, notated $\phi_\sharp\rho_0=\rho_1$. While this version corresponds to the original version of transport proposed by Monge, sometimes for the transport problem to be solvable it is necessary to split the mass at a single source point to multiple destinations. A triumph of theoretical optimal transport, however, shows that $\pi(x,y)$ is nonzero only on some set $\{(x,\phi(x)):x\in{\mathbb{R}}\}$ whenever $\rho_0$ is absolutely continuous, linking the two problems.
Discrete Problems in One Dimension
----------------------------------
So far our definitions have not been amenable to numerical computation: Our unknowns are functions $\pi(x,y)$ with *infinite* numbers of variables (one value of $\pi$ for each $(x,y)$ pair in ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$)—certainly more than can be stored on a computer with finite capacity. Continuing to work in one dimension, we suggest some special cases where we can solve the transport problem with a finite number of variables.
Rather than working with distribution functions $\rho(x)$, we will relax to the more general case of transport between measures $\mu_0,\mu_1\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$. Define the Dirac $\delta$-measure centered at $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ via $$\delta_x(S):=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
1 & \textrm{ if }x\in S\\
0 & \textrm{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ It is easy to check that $\delta_x(\cdot)$ is a probability measure.
[cc]{}
&
\
(a) Fully discrete transport & (b) Semidiscrete transport
Suppose $\mu_0,\mu_1\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$ can be written as *superpositions* of $\delta$ measures: $$\label{eq:deltasum}
\mu_0:=\sum_{i=1}^{k_0} a_{0i} \delta_{x_{0i}}\hspace{.5in}\textrm{and}\hspace{.5in}
\mu_1:=\sum_{i=1}^{k_1} a_{1i} \delta_{x_{1i}},$$ where $1=\sum_{i=1}^{k_0}a_{0i}=\sum_{i=1}^{k_1}a_{1i}$ and $a_{0i},a_{1i}\geq0$ for all $i$. Figure \[fig:transportexamples\](a) illustrates this case; all the mass of $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ is concentrated at a few isolated points.
In the case where the source and target distributions are composed of $\delta$’s, we only can move mass between pairs of points $x_{0i}\mapsto x_{1j}$. Taking $T_{ij}$ the total mass moved from $x_{0i}$ to $x_{1j}$, we can solve for ${\mathcal{W}}_p^p$ as $$\label{eq:wp_finite}
[{\mathcal{W}}_p(\mu_0,\mu_1)]^p=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\min_{T\in{\mathbb{R}}^{k_0\times k_1}} & \sum_{ij} T_{ij} |x_{0i}-x_{1j}|^p\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& T\geq0\\
& \sum_j T_{ij} = a_{0i}\\
& \sum_i T_{ij} = a_{1j}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ This is an optimization problem in $k_0k_1$ variables $T_{ij}$: No need for an infinite number of $\pi(x,y)$’s! In fact, it is a *linear program* solvable using many classic algorithms, such as the simplex or interior point methods. There is a more subtle case where we can still represent the unknown in optimal transport using a finite number of variables. Suppose $\mu_0\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$ is a superposition of $\delta$ measures and $\mu_1\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$ is absolutely continuous, implying $\mu_1$ admits a distribution function $\rho_1(x)$: $$\label{eq:deltasum2}
\mu_0:=\sum_{i=1}^{k} a_{i} \delta_{x_{i}}\hspace{.5in}\textrm{and}\hspace{.5in}
\mu_1(S):=\int_S \rho_1(x)\,dx.$$ This situation is illustrated in Figure \[fig:transportexamples\](b); it corresponds to transporting from a distribution whose mass is concentrated at a few points to a distribution whose distribution is more smooth. In the technical literature, this setup is known as *semidiscrete* transport.
Returning to the transport problem in , in this semidiscrete case we can think of the coupling $\pi$ as decomposing into a set of measures $\pi_1,\pi_2,\ldots,\pi_k\in{\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}})$ where each term in the sum has its own target distribution: $\delta_{x_i}\mapsto \pi_i.$ As a sanity check, note that $\mu_1=\sum_i a_i\pi_i(x).$
Without loss of generality, we can assume the $x_i$’s are sorted, that is, $x_1<x_2<\cdots<x_k$. Suppose $1\leq i<j\leq k$, and hence $x_i<x_j$. In one dimension, it is easy to see that the optimal transport map $\pi$ should never “leapfrog” mass, that is, the delivery target of the mass at $x_i$ when transported to $\rho_1$ should be *to the left* of the target of mass at $x_j$, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:1dsemidiscretesolution\]. This monotonicity property implies the existence of intervals $[b_1,c_1],[b_2,c_2],\ldots,[b_k,c_k]$ such that $\pi_i$ is supported in $[b_i,c_i]$ and $c_i<b_j$ whenever $i<j$; the mass $a_i\delta_{x_i}$ is distributed according to $\rho_1(x)$ in the interval $[b_i,c_i]$.
The semidiscrete transport problem corresponds to another case where we can solve a transport problem with a finite number of variables, the $b_i$’s and $c_i$’s. Of course, in one dimension these can be read off from the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of $\rho_1$, but in higher dimensions this will not be the case. Instead, the intervals $[b_i,c_i]$ will be replaced with *power cells*, a generalization of a Voronoi diagram (§\[sec:semidiscrete\_tr\]).
While our discussion above gives two cases in which a computer could plausibly solve the transport problem, they do not correspond to the usual situation for DDG in which the geometry itself—in this case the real line ${\mathbb{R}}$—is discretized. As we will see in the discussion in future sections, there currently does not exist consensus about what to do in this case but several possible adaptations to this case have been proposed.
Moving to Higher Dimensions
---------------------------
We are now ready to state the optimal transport problem in full generality. Following [@villani2003topics §1.1.1], take $(X,\mu)$ and $(Y,\nu)$ to be probability spaces, paired with a nonnegative measurable cost function $c(x,y)$. Define a *measure coupling* $\pi\in\Pi(\mu,\nu)$ as follows:
A *measure coupling* $\pi\in{\mathrm{Prob}}(X\times Y)$ is a probability measure on $X\times Y$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(A\times Y)&=\mu(A)\\
\pi(X\times B)&=\nu(B)\end{aligned}$$ for all measurable $A\subseteq X$ and $B\subseteq Y$. The set of measure couplings between $\mu$ and $\nu$ is denoted $\Pi(\mu,\nu)$.
With this piece of notation, we can write the Kantorovich optimal transport problem as follows: $$\label{eq:transport}
\boxed{
{\mathrm{OT}}(\mu,\nu;c):=
\min_{\pi\in\Pi(\mu,\nu)}\ \iint_{X\times Y}c(x,y)\,d\pi(x,y)
}$$ Here, we use some notation from measure theory: $d\pi(x,y)$ denotes integration against probability measure $\pi$. Note if $\pi$ admits a distribution function $p(x,y)$ then we can write $d\pi(x,y)=p(x,y)\,dx\,dy$; the more general notation allows for $\delta$ measures and other objects that cannot be written as functions.
We note a few interesting special cases below:
### Discrete transportation. {#discrete-transportation. .unnumbered}
Suppose $X=\{1,2,\ldots,k_1\}$ and $Y=\{1,2,\ldots,k_2\}$. Then, $\mu\in{\mathrm{Prob}}(X)$ can be written as a vector $v\in{\mathbb{S}}_{k_1}$ and $\nu\in{\mathrm{Prob}}(Y)$ can be written as a vector $w\in{\mathbb{S}}_{k_2}$, where ${\mathbb{S}}_k$ denotes the $k$-dimensional probability simplex: $${\mathbb{S}}_k:=\left\{v\in{\mathbb{R}}^k : v\geq0\textrm{ and }\sum_i v_i=1\right\}.$$ Our cost function becomes discrete as well and can be written as a matrix $C=(c_{ij})$. After simplification, the transport problem between $v\in{\mathbb{S}}_{k_1}$ and $w\in{\mathbb{S}}_{k_2}$ given cost matrix $C$ becomes $$\label{eq:discrete_ot}
{\mathrm{OT}}(v,w;C)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\min_{T\in{\mathbb{R}}^{k_1\times k_2}} & \sum_{ij} T_{ij}c_{ij}\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& T\geq0\\
& \sum_j T_{ij}=v_i\ \forall i\in\{1,\ldots,k_1\}\\
& \sum_i T_{ij}=w_j\ \forall j\in\{1,\ldots,k_2\}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ This linear program is solvable computationally and is the most obvious way to make optimal transport work in a discrete context. It was proposed in the computational literature as the “earth mover’s distance” (EMD) [@rubner2000earth]. When $k_1=k_2:=k$ and $C$ is symmetric, nonnegative, and satisfies the triangle inequality, one can check that ${\mathrm{OT}}(\cdot,\cdot;C)$ is a distance on ${\mathbb{S}}_k$; see [@cuturi2014ground] for a clear proof of this property.
### Wasserstein distance. {#wasserstein-distance. .unnumbered}
Next, suppose $X=Y={\mathbb{R}}^n$, and take $c_{n,p}(x,y):=\|x-y\|_2^p$. Then, we recover the *Wasserstein distance* on ${\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, defined via $$\label{eq:wasserstein}
{\mathcal{W}}_p(\mu,\nu):=[{\mathrm{OT}}(\mu,\nu;c_{n,p})]^{\nicefrac{1}{p}}.$$ ${\mathcal{W}}_p$ is a distance when $p\geq1$, and ${\mathcal{W}}_p^p$ is a distance when $p\in[0,1)$ [@villani2003topics §7.1.1]. In fact, the Wasserstein distance can be defined for probability measures over a surface, Riemannian manifold, or even a Polish space via the same formula.
The Wasserstein distance has drawn considerable application-oriented interest and aligns well with the basic motivation laid out in §\[sec:intro\]. Its basic role is to lift distances between points $\|x-y\|_2^p$ to distances between distributions in a compatible fashion: The Wasserstein distance between two $\delta$-functions $\delta_x$ and $\delta_y$ is exactly the distance $\|x-y\|_2$. In §\[sec:app\], we will show how this basic property has strong bearing on several computational pipelines that need to lift geometric constructions to uncertain contexts.
One Value, Many Formulas {#sec:manyformulas}
------------------------
A remarkable property of the transport problem is the sheer number of equivalent formulations that all lead to the same value, the cost of transporting mass from one measure onto another. These not only provide many interpretations of the transport problem but also suggest a diverse set of computational algorithms for transport, each of which tackles a different way of writing down the basic problem.
### Duality. {#duality. .unnumbered}
A basic idea in the world of convex optimization is that of *duality*, that every minimization problem admits a “dual” maximization problem whose optimal value lower-bounds that of the primal. As with most linear programs, optimal transport typically exhibits *strong duality*: The optimal values of the maximization and minimization problems coincide.
To motivate duality for transport, we will start with the finite-dimensional problem . We note two simple identities: $$\max_{s\in{\mathbb{R}}} st = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
0 & \textrm{ if }t=0\\
\infty & \textrm{ otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\hspace{1in}
\max_{s\leq0} st = \left\{
\begin{array}{cl}
0 & \textrm{ if }t\geq0\\
\infty & \textrm{ otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.$$ These allow us to write as follows: $${\color{red}\min_T} {\color{blue}\max_{S\leq0,\phi,\psi}} \left[\sum_{ij} T_{ij}(c_{ij}+S_{ij})+\sum_i \phi_i \left(v_i-\sum_jT_{ij}\right) + \sum_j \psi_j\left(w_j-\sum_i T_{ij}\right)\right].$$ The dual problem is derived by simply swapping the min and the max: $$\begin{aligned}
{\color{blue}\max_{S\leq0,\phi,\psi}} {\color{red}\min_T} &\left[\sum_{ij} T_{ij}(c_{ij}+S_{ij})+\sum_i \phi_i \left(v_i-\sum_jT_{ij}\right) + \sum_j \psi_j\left(w_j-\sum_i T_{ij}\right)\right]\\
&=\max_{S\leq0,\phi,\psi}\min_T \left[\sum_{ij} T_{ij}(c_{ij}+S_{ij}-\phi_i-\psi_j)+\sum_i \phi_i v_i + \sum_j \psi_jw_j\right]\textrm{ after refactoring.}\end{aligned}$$ Since $T$ is unbounded in the inner optimization problem of the dual, the solution of the inner minimization is $-\infty$ unless $S_{ij}=\phi_i+\psi_j-c_{ij}$ for all $(i,j)$, that is, unless the coefficient of $T_{ij}$ equals zero. Since the outer problem is a maximization, clearly we should avoid an optimal value of $-\infty$ for the inner minimization. Hence, we can safely add $S_{ij}=\phi_i+\psi_j-c_{ij}$ as a constraint to the dual problem. After some simplification, we arrive at the dual of : $$\label{eq:discrete_dual}
\begin{array}{rl}
\max_{\phi,\psi} & \sum_i [\phi_i v_i + \psi_i w_i]\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \phi_i + \psi_j \leq c_{ij} \ \forall (i,j).
\end{array}$$ Although we have not justified that it is acceptable to swap a max and a min in this context, several techniques ranging from direct proof to the “sledgehammer” Slater duality condition [@slater1950lagrange] show that the optimal value of this maximization problem agrees with the optimal value of the minimization problem .
As is often the case in convex optimization, the dual of the transport problem has an intuitive interpretation. Suppose we change roles in optimal transport from the worker who wishes to minimize work to a company that wishes to maximize profit. The customer pays $\phi_i$ dollars per pound to drop off material $v_i$ to ship from location $i$ and $\psi_j$ dollars per pound to pick up material $w_j$ from location $j$. The dual problem maximizes profit under the constraint that it is never cheaper for the customer to just drive from $i$ to $j$ and ignore the service completely: $\phi_i+\psi_j\leq c_{ij}.$
We pause here to note some rough trade-offs between the primal and dual transport problems. Since both yield the same optimal value, the designer of a computational system for solving optimal transport problems has a decision to make: whether to solve the primal problem, the dual problem, or both simultaneously (the latter aptly named a “primal–dual” algorithm). There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. The primal problem directly yields the matrix $T$, which tells not just the cost of transport but how much mass $T_{ij}$ to move from source $i$ to destination $j$; the only inequality constraint is that the entire matrix has nonnegative entries. On the other hand, the dual problem has fewer variables, making it easier to store the output on the computer, but the “shadow price” variables $(\phi,\psi)$ are harder to interpret and are constrained by a quadratic number of inequalities. Currently there is little consensus as to which formulation leads to more successful algorithms or discretizations, and state-of-the-art techniques are divided among the two basic approaches.
As with many constructions in optimal transport, the dual of the measure-theoretic problem resembles the discrete case up to a change of the notation. In particular, we can write $$\label{eq:transportdual}
\boxed{
{\mathrm{OT}}(\mu,\nu;c):=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\sup_{\substack{\phi\in L^1(d\mu),\\\psi\in L^1(d\nu)}} & \int_X \phi(x)\,d\mu(x) + \int_Y \psi(y)\,d\nu(y)\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \phi(x)+\psi(y)\leq c(x,y)\\ &\ \ \ \ \textrm{ for }d\mu\textrm{-a.e.\ }x\in X,\ d\nu\textrm{-a.e.\ }y\in Y.
\end{array}\right.
}$$
It is worth noting a simplification that appears often in the transport world. Since $\mu$ and $\nu$ are positive measures and the overall problem in is a maximization, we might as well choose $\phi$ and $\psi$ as large as possible while satisfying the constraints. Suppose we fix the function $\phi(x)$ and *just* optimize for the function $\psi(x)$. Rearranging the constraint shows that for all $(x,y)\in X\times Y$ we must have $\psi(y)\leq c(x,y)-\phi(x).$ Equivalently, for all $y\in Y$ we must have $\psi(y)\leq\inf_{x\in X} [c(x,y)-\phi(x)]$. Define the *$c$-transform* $$\label{eq:c_transform}
\phi^c(y):=\inf_{x\in X} [c(x,y)-\phi(x)].$$ By the argument above we have $${\mathrm{OT}}(\mu,\nu;c)=
\sup_{\phi\in L^1(d\mu)} \int_X \phi(x)\,d\mu(x) + \int_Y \phi^c(y)\,d\nu(y).$$ This problem is unconstrained, but the transformation from $\phi$ to $\phi^c$ is relatively complicated.
We finally note one special case of this dual formula, the 1-Wasserstein distance, which has gained recent interest in the machine learning world thanks to its application in generative adversarial networks (GANs) [@arjovsky2017wasserstein]. In this case, $X=Y={\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $c(x,y)=\|x-y\|_2$. We can derive a bound as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
|\phi^c(x)-\phi^c(y)|
&=\left|
\inf_{z} [\|x-z\|_2-\phi(z)] - \inf_{z} [\|y-z\|_2 - \phi(z)]
\right|\textrm{ by definition}\nonumber\\
&\leq\sup_z |\|x-z\|_2-\|y-z\|_2|\nonumber\\&\hspace{.25in}\textrm{ by the identity }|\inf_x f(x)-\inf_x g(x)|\leq\sup_x |f(x)-g(x)|\nonumber\\
&\leq \|x-y\|_2\textrm{ by the reverse triangle inequality.}\label{eq:tri}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by definition of the $c$-transform by taking $x=y$ we have $\phi^c(y)\leq -\phi(y)$, or equivalently $\phi(y)\leq-\phi^c(y)$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{W}}_1(\mu,\nu)
&={\mathrm{OT}}(\mu,\nu;c)\textrm{ through our choice }c(x,y):=\|x-y\|_2\\
&=\sup_{\phi\in L^1(d\mu)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \phi(x)\,d\mu(x)+\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\phi^c(y)\,d\nu(y)\textrm{ by definition of the $c$-transform}\\
&\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \phi^c(x)\,[d\nu(x)-d\mu(x)]\textrm{ since }\phi(y)\leq-\phi^c(y)\ \forall y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
&\leq \sup_{\psi\in{\mathrm{Lip}}_1({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\psi(x)\,[d\nu(x)-d\mu(x)]\\
&\hspace{.2in}\textrm{ where }{\mathrm{Lip}}_1({\mathbb{R}}^n):=\{f(x): |f(x)-f(y)|\leq\|x-y\|_2\ \forall x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\}.\end{aligned}$$ ${\mathrm{Lip}}_1$ denotes the set of $1$-Lipschitz functions; the last step is derived from , which shows that $\psi^c$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
In fact, this inequality is an equality. To prove this, take $\psi$ to be any 1-Lipschitz function. Then, $$\label{eq:lipbound}
\psi^c(y)=\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n} [\|x-y\|_2-\psi(x)]\geq\inf_{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n} [\|x-y\|_2-\|x-y\|_2-\psi(y)]=-\psi(y).$$ where we have rearranged the Lipschitz property $\psi(x)-\psi(y)\leq\|x-y\|_2$ to show $-\psi(x)\geq-\|x-y\|_2-\psi(y)$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{\psi\in{\mathrm{Lip}}_1({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\hspace{-.1in}\psi(x)\,[d\nu(x)\!-\!d\mu(x)]
&\leq \sup_{\psi\in{\mathrm{Lip}}_1(\!{\mathbb{R}}^n\!)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\hspace{-.1in}[\psi(x)\,d\nu(x)+\psi^c(y)]\, d\mu(y)\textrm{ by~\eqref{eq:lipbound}}\\
&\leq \sup_{\psi\in L^1(\!d\nu\!)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\hspace{-.1in}[\psi(x)\,d\nu(x)+\psi^c(y)]\, d\mu(y)\\&\hspace{.25in}\textrm{ since the constraints are loosened}\\
&={\mathcal{W}}_1(\mu,\nu).\end{aligned}$$ This finishes motivating our final formula $$\boxed{
{\mathcal{W}}_1(\mu,\nu)=\sup_{\psi\in{\mathrm{Lip}}_1({\mathbb{R}}^n)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\psi(x)\,[d\nu(x)-d\mu(x)].
}$$ This convenient identity is used in computational contexts because the constraint that a function is 1-Lipschitz is fairly easy to enforce computationally; sadly, it does not extend to other Wasserstein ${\mathcal{W}}_p$ distances, which have nicer uniqueness and regularity properties when $p>1$.
### Eulerian transport. {#eulerian-transport. .unnumbered}
The language of fluid dynamics introduces two equivalent ways to understand the flow of a liquid or gas as it sloshes in a tank. In the *Lagrangian* framework, the fluid is thought of as a collection of particles whose path we trace as a function of time; the equations of motion roughly determine a map $\Phi_t(x)$ with $\Phi_0(x)=x$ determining the position at time $t\geq0$ of the particle located at $x$ when $t=0$. Contrastingly, *Eulerian* fluid dynamics takes the point of view of a barnacle attached to a point in the tank of water counting the number of particles that flow past a point $x$; this formulation might seek a function $\rho_t(x)$ giving the density of the fluid at a non-moving point $x$ as a function of time $t$.
So far, our formulation of transport has been Lagrangian: The transportation plan $\pi$ explicitly determines how to match particles from the source distribution $\mu$ to the target distribution $\nu$. Using a particularly clever change of variables, a landmark paper by Benamou & Brenier shows that the 2-Wasserstein distance from over Euclidean space with cost $c(x,y)=\|x-y\|_2^2$ can be computed in an Eulerian fashion [@benamou2000computational]: $$\label{eq:bbnonconvex}
{\mathcal{W}}_2^2(\rho_0,\rho_1)\!=\!\left\{\!
\begin{array}{r@{\ }l} \min_{v(x,t),\rho(x,t)} & \frac{1}{2}\int_0^1\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \rho(x,t)\,\|v(x,t)\|_2^2\,dA(x)\,dt\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \rho(x,0)\equiv \rho_0(x)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
& \rho(x,1)\equiv \rho_1(x)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
& \frac{\partial \rho(x,t)}{\partial t}=-\nabla\cdot (\rho(x,t)v(x,t))\\&\hspace{.2in}\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in(0,1)
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here, we assume that we are computing the 2-Wasserstein distance between two distribution functions $\rho_0(x)$ and $\rho_1(x)$. This is often referred to as a *dynamical* model of transport and can be extended to spaces like Riemannian manifolds [@mccann2001polar].
Formulation comes with an intuitive physical interpretation. The time-varying function $\rho(x,t)$ gives the density of a gas as a function of time $t\in[0,1]$, which starts out in configuration $\rho_0$ and ends in configuration $\rho_1$. The constraint $\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}=-\nabla\cdot (\rho v)$ is the *continuity equation*, which states that the vector field $v(x,t)$ is the *velocity* of $\rho$ as it moves as a function of time while preserving mass. Over all possible ways to “animate” the motion from $\rho_0$ to $\rho_1$, the objective function minimizes $\frac{1}{2}\rho\|v\|_2^2$ (mass times velocity squared): the total kinetic energy!
From a computational perspective, it can be convenient to replace velocity $v$ with momentum $J:=\rho \cdot v$ to obtain an equivalent formulation to : $$\label{eq:bb}
{\mathcal{W}}_2^2(\rho_0,\rho_1)\!=\!\left\{\!
\begin{array}{r@{\ }l} \min_{J(x,t),\rho(x,t)} & \frac{1}{2}\int_0^1\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \frac{\|J(x,t)\|_2^2}{\rho(x,t)}\,dA(x)\,dt\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \rho(x,0)\equiv \rho_0(x)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
& \rho(x,1)\equiv \rho_1(x)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
& \frac{\partial \rho(x,t)}{\partial t}=-\nabla\cdot J(x,t)\\&\hspace{.2in}\forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in(0,1)
\end{array}
\right.$$ This formulation is convex jointly in the unknowns $(\rho,J)$.
Dynamical formulations of transport make explicit the phenomenon of *displacement interpolation* [@mccann1994convexity; @mccann1997convexity], illustrated in Figure \[fig:displacementinterpolation\]. Intuitively, the Wasserstein distance ${\mathcal{W}}_2$ between two distribution functions $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ is “explained” by a time-varying sequence of distributions $\rho_t$ interpolating from one to the other. Unlike the trivial interpolation $\rho(t):=(1-t)\rho_0(x)+t\rho_1(x)$, optimal transport *slides* the distribution across the geometric domain similar to a geodesic shortest path between points on a curved manifold. Indeed, the intuitive connection to differential geometry is more than superficial: [@otto2001geometry; @lott2008some] show how to interpret as a geodesic in an infinite-dimensional manifold of probability distributions over a fixed domain.
Other $p$-Wasserstein distances ${\mathcal{W}}_p$ also admit Eulerian formulations. Most importantly, the $1$-Wasserstein distance can be computed as follows: $$\label{eq:beckmann}
{\mathcal{W}}_1(\rho_0,\rho_1)=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\min_{J(x)} & \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \|J(x)\|_2\,dA(x)\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \nabla\cdot J(x)=\rho_1(x)-\rho_0(x).
\end{array}
\right.$$ This problem, known as the *Beckmann problem*, has connections to traffic modeling and other tasks in geometry. From a computational perspective, it has the useful property that the vector field $J(x)$ has no time dependence, reducing the number of unknown variables in the optimization problem.
Motivating Applications {#sec:app}
=======================
Having developed the basic definition and theoretical properties of the optimal transport problem, we can now divert from theoretical discussion to mention some concrete applications of transport in the computational world. These are just a few, chosen for their diversity (and no doubt biased toward areas adjacent to the author’s research); in reality optimal transport is beginning to appear in a huge variety of computational pipelines. Our goal in this section is not to give the details of each problem and its resolution with transport, but just to give a flavor of how optimal transport can be applied as a powerful modeling tool in application-oriented disciplines as well as citations to more detailed treatments of each application.
### Operations and logistics. {#operations-and-logistics. .unnumbered}
Given its history and even its name, it comes as no surprise that a primary application of optimal transport is in the operations and logistics world, in which engineers are asked to find a minimum-cost routing of packages or materials to customers. The basic theory and algorithms for this case of optimal transport date back to World War II, in which optimal transport of soldiers, weapons, supplies, and the like were by no means theoretical problems.
A particular case of interest in this community is that of transport over a graph $G=(V,E)$. Here, shortest-path distances over the edges of $G$ provide the costs for transport, leading to a problem known to computer scientists as *minimum-cost flow without edge capacities* [@ravindra1993network]. This linear program is a classic algorithmic problem, with well-known algorithms including cycle canceling [@klein1967primal], network simplex [@orlin1997polynomial], and the Ford–Fulkerson method [@ford1956solving]. A challenge for theoretical computer scientists is to design algorithms achieving lower-bound time complexity for solving this problem; recent progress includes [@sherman2017generalized], which achieves a near-linear runtime using an approach that almost resembles a numerical algorithm rather than a discrete method.
### Histogram-based descriptors. {#histogram-based-descriptors. .unnumbered}
Some of the earliest applications of optimal transport in the computational world come from computer vision [@rubner2000earth]. Suppose we wish to perform *similarity search* on a database of photographs: Given one photograph, we wish to search the database for other photos that look similar. One reasonable way to do this is to describe each photograph as a histogram—or probability distribution—over the space of colors. Two photographs roughly look similar if they have similar color histograms as measured using optimal transport distances (known in this community as the “Earth Mover’s Distance”), giving a simple technique for sorting and searching the dataset.
This basic approach comes up time and time again in the applied world. For images, rather than binning colors into a histogram one could bin the orientations and strengths of the gradients to capture the distribution of edge features [@pele2009fast]. Recent work has proposed an embedding of the words in an English dictionary into Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ [@mikolov2013efficient], in which case the words present in a given document become a point cloud or superposition of $\delta$-functions in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$; application of the Wasserstein (“Word-Movers”) distance in this case is an effective technique for document retrieval [@kusner2015word].
### Registration. {#registration. .unnumbered}
Suppose we wish to use a medical imaging device such as the MRI to track the progress of a neurodegenerative disease. On a regular basis, we might ask the subject to return to the laboratory for a brain scan, each time measuring a signal over the volume of the MRI indicating the presence or absence of brain tissue. These signals can vary drastically from visit to visit, not just due to the progress of the disease but also due to more mundane issues like movement of the patient in the measurement device or nonrigid deformation of the brain itself.
Inspired by issues like those mentioned above, the task of computing a map from one scan to another is known as *registration*, and optimal transport has been proposed time and time again as a tool for this task. The basic idea of these tools is to use the transport map $\pi$ as a natural way to transfer information from one scan to another [@haker2004optimal]. One caveat is worth highlighting: Optimal transport does not penalize splitting mass or making non-elastic deformations in the optimal map, so long as points of mass individually do not move too far. A few recent methods attempt to cope with this final issue, e.g. by combining transport with an elastic deformation method more common in medical imaging [@feydy2017optimal] or by defining modified versions of optimal transport that are invariant to certain species of deformation [@cohen1999earth; @memoli2011gromov; @solomon2016entropic].
![Level sets of geodesic distance to the front right toe of a 3D camel model approximated using the optimal transport technique [@solomon2014earth].[]{data-label="fig:levelset"}](figures/camel.pdf){width=".3\linewidth"}
### Distance approximation. {#distance-approximation. .unnumbered}
A predictable property of the $p$-Wasserstein distance ${\mathcal{W}}_p$ for distributions over a surface or manifold $\mathcal M$ is that the distance between $\delta$-functions centered at two points $x_0,x_1\in\mathcal M$ reproduces the geodesic (shortest-path) distance from $x_0$ to $x_1$. While distances in Euclidean space are computable using a closed-form formula, distances along discretized surfaces can be challenging to compute algorithmically, requiring techniques like fast marching [@sethian1999fast], the theoretically-justified but difficult-to-implement MMP algorithm [@mitchell1987discrete], or diffusion-based approximation [@crane2013geodesics]. In this regime, fast algorithms for approximating optimal transport distances ${\mathcal{W}}_p$ restricted to $\delta$-functions actually provide a way to approximate geodesic distances while preserving the triangle inequality [@solomon2014earth]; the level sets of one such approximation are shown in Figure \[fig:levelset\].
### Blue noise and stippling. {#blue-noise-and-stippling. .unnumbered}
Certain laser printers and other devices can only print pages in black-and-white—no gray. The idea of *halftoning* is that gray values between black and white can be approximated in a perceptually reasonable fashion by patterns of black dots of varying radius or location over a white background; the halftoned image can be printed using the black-and-white printer and from a distance appears similar to the original.
![A blue noise pattern generated using [@de2012blue] (image courtesy F. de Goes, generated from photograph by F. Durand).[]{data-label="fig:bluenoise"}](figures/zebra.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
A reasonable model for halftoning involves optimal transport. In particular, suppose we think of a grayscale image as a *distribution* of ink on a white page; that is, the image can be understood as a measure $\mu\in{\mathrm{Prob}}([0,1]^2)$, where $[0,1]^2$ is the unit rectangle representing the image plane. Under the reasonable assumption that ink is conserved, we might attempt to approximate $\mu$ with a set of dots of black inks, modeled using $\delta$-functions centered at $x_i$. The intensity of the dot cannot be modulated (the printer only knows how to print in black-and-white), but the location can be moved, leading to an optimization problem to the effect: $$\min_{x_1,\ldots,x_n} {\mathcal{W}}_2^2\left( \mu, \frac{1}{n}\sum_i \delta_{x_i}\right).$$ Here, the variables are the locations of the $n$ dots approximating the image, and the Wasserstein $2$-distance is used to measure how well the dots approximate $\mu$. This basic idea is extended in [@de2012blue] to a pipeline for computing *blue noise*; an example of their output is shown in Figure \[fig:bluenoise\].
### Political redistricting. {#political-redistricting. .unnumbered}
A few recent attempts to propose political redistricting procedures have incorporated ideas from optimal transport to varying degrees of success. For example, optimal transport might provide one simplistic means of assigning voters to poling centers. The distribution of voters over a map is “transported” to a sparse set of polling places, where distributional constraints reflect the fact that each polling center can only handle so many voters; assigning each voter to his/her closest polling center might cause polling centers in city centers to become overloaded. A few papers have proposed variations on this idea to design compact voting districts e.g. for the US House of Representatives [@svec2007applying; @miller2007problem; @cohen2017balanced; @Optimaldistricts]. Many confounding—but incredibly important—factors obscure the application of this simplistic mathematical model in practice, ranging from compliance with civil rights law to the simple decision of a transport cost (e.g. geographical versus road network versus public transportation versus travel time).
### Statistical estimation. {#statistical-estimation. .unnumbered}
Parameter estimation is a key task in statistics that involves “explaining” a given dataset using a statistical model. For example, given the set of heights of people in a room $\{h_1,\ldots,h_n\}$, a simple parameter estimation task might be to estimate the mean $h_0$ and standard deviation $\sigma$ of a normal (bell curve/Gaussian) distribution $g(h | h_0,\sigma)$ from which the data was likely sampled. Principal among the techniques for parameter estimation is the *maximum likelihood estimator* (MLE). Continuing in our height data example, assuming the $n$ heights are drawn independently, the joint probability of observing the given set of heights in the room is given by the product $$P(h_1,\ldots,h_n|h_0,\sigma)=\prod_{i=1}^n g(h_i |h_0,\sigma).$$ The MLE of the data is the estimate of $(h_0,\sigma)$ that maximizes this probability value: $$(h_0,\sigma)_{\mathrm{MLE}} := \arg\max_{h_0,\sigma} P(h_1,\ldots,h_n|h_0,\sigma).$$ For algebraic reasons it is often easier to maximize the *log likelihood* $\log P(\cdots),$ although this is obviously equivalent to the formulation above.
As an alternative to the MLE, however, the *minimum Kantorovich estimator* (MKE) [@bassetti2006minimum] uses machinery from optimal transport. As the name suggests, the MKE estimates the parameters of a distribution by minimizing the transport distance between the parameterized distribution and the empirical distribution from data. For our height problem, the optimization might look like $$(h_0,\sigma)_{\mathrm{MKE}} := \arg\min_{h_0,\sigma}{\mathcal{W}}_2^2\left(
\frac{1}{n}\sum_i \delta_{h_i}, g(\cdot|h_0,\sigma)
\right)$$ The differences between MLE, MKE, and other alternatives can be subtle from the outside looking in, and the MKE is only recently being studied in applied environments in comparison to more conventional alternatives. Since it takes into account the distance measure of the geometric space on which the samples are defined, the MKE appears to be robust to geometric noise that can confound more traditional alternatives—at the price of increased computational expense. Recent applications have shown value of this estimator for training and inference in machine learning models [@montavon2016wasserstein; @bernton2017inference].
### Domain adaptation. {#domain-adaptation. .unnumbered}
Many basic statistical and machine learning algorithms make a false assumption that the “training” and “test” data are distributed equally. As an example where this is not the case, suppose we wish to make an object recognition tool that learns how to label the contents of a photograph. As training data, we use the listings on an e-commerce site like Amazon.com, which contain not only a photographs of a given object but also text describing it. But, while this training data is extremely clean, it is not representative of possible test data, e.g. gathered by a robot navigating a shopping mall: Photographs collected by the latter likely contain clutter, a variety of lighting configurations, and countless other confounding factors. Algorithms designed to compensate for the difference between training and test data are known as *domain adaptation* techniques.
One possibility is to use optimal transport to design a stable domain adaptation tool. The basic idea is to view the training data as a point cloud in some Euclidean space ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. For instance, perhaps $d$ could be the number of pixels in a photograph; the location of every point in the point cloud determines the contents of the photo, and as additional information each point is labeled with a text name. The test data is also a point cloud in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, but thanks to the confounding factors listed above perhaps these two points clouds are not aligned. [@courty2017optimal] proposes using optimal transport to align the training data to the test data and to carry the label information along, e.g. attempting to align the space of Amazon.com photos to the space of shopping mall photos. Once the training and test data are aligned, it makes sense to transfer information, classifiers, and the like from one to the other.
![Optimal transport is used to design the shape of transparent or reflective material to show a particular caustic pattern (image courtesy of EPFL Computer Graphics and Geometry Laboratory and Rayform SA).[]{data-label="fig:caustic"}](figures/brain.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"} ![Optimal transport is used to design the shape of transparent or reflective material to show a particular caustic pattern (image courtesy of EPFL Computer Graphics and Geometry Laboratory and Rayform SA).[]{data-label="fig:caustic"}](figures/einstein.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"} ![Optimal transport is used to design the shape of transparent or reflective material to show a particular caustic pattern (image courtesy of EPFL Computer Graphics and Geometry Laboratory and Rayform SA).[]{data-label="fig:caustic"}](figures/lion.pdf "fig:"){height="1.2in"}
### Engineering design. {#engineering-design. .unnumbered}
Optimal transport has found application in design tools for many engineering tasks, from reflector design [@oliker1987near; @wang1996design] to aerodynamics [@plakhov2012billiards]. One intriguing paper uses optimal transport to design transparent objects made of materials like glass, which can focus light into *caustics* via refraction [@schwartzburg2014high]. By minimizing the transport distance between the light rays by the glass and a desired black-and-white image, they can “shape” the distribution of light as it comes out of a window. An example caustic design computed using their method is shown in Figure \[fig:caustic\].
One Problem, Many Discretizations {#sec:discrete}
=================================
Computational optimal transport is a relatively new discipline, and techniques for solving the optimal transport problem and in particular computing Wasserstein distances are still a topic of active research. So far, it appears that no “one size fits all” approach has been discovered; rather, different applications and scenarios demand different numerical techniques for optimal transport.
Several desiderata inform the design of an algorithm for optimal transport:
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Efficiency:</span> While $L_1$ distances and KL divergences are computable using closed-form formulas, optimal transport distance computation requires solving an optimization problem. The cost of solving this problem relative to the cost of direct computation of transport’s simpler alternatives is largely the reason why optimal transport has not reached a higher level of popularity in the applied world. But this scenario is changing: New high-speed algorithms for large-scale transport are nearly competitive with more traditional alternatives while bringing to the table the geometric structure unique to transport world.
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Stability:</span> A theme in the numerical analysis literature is stability, the resilience of a computation to small changes in the input. Stability of the minimal transport objective value and/or its accompanying transport map can be a challenging topic. Linear program discretizations of continuum optimal transport problems tend to resemble above, a linear program whose optimal solution $T$ *provably* has the sparsity of a permutation matrix; this implies that a small perturbation of $v$ or $w$ may result in a discrete change of $T$’s sparsity structure.
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Structure preservation:</span> Transport is well-studied theoretically, and one could reasonably expect that key properties of transport in the infinite-dimensional case are preserved either exactly or approximately when they are computed numerically. For instance, Wasserstein distances enjoy a triangle inequality, and Eulerian formulations of transport have connections to gradient flows and other PDE. Provable guarantees that these structures are preserved in discretizations of transport help assure that nothing critical is lost in the process of approximating transport distances algorithmically.
One reason why there are so many varied algorithms available for numerical OT is that the problem can be written in so many different ways (see §\[sec:manyformulas\]). A basic recipe for designing a transport algorithm is to choose any one of many equivalent formulations of transport—all of which yield the same optimal value in theory—, discretize any variables that are otherwise infinite-dimensional, and design a bespoke optimization algorithm to solve the resulting problem, which now has a finite number of variables. The flexibility of choosing *which* version of transport to discretize usually is tuned to the geometry of a given application, desired properties of the resulting discretization, and ease of optimizing the discretized problem. The reality of choosing a discretization to facilitate ease of computation reflects a tried-and-true maxim of engineering: “If a problem is difficult to solve, change the problem.”
In this section, we roughly outline a few discretizations and accompanying optimization algorithms for numerical OT. Our goal is not to review all well-known techniques for computational transport thoroughly but rather to highlight the breadth of possible approaches and to give a few practical pointers for implementing state-of-the-art transport algorithms at home.
Regularized Transport
---------------------
We will start by describing *entropically-regularized transport*, a technique that has piqued the interest of the machine learning community after its introduction there in 2013 [@cuturi2013sinkhorn]. This technique has an explicit trade-off between accuracy and computational efficiency and has shown particularly strong promise in the regime where a rough estimate of transport is sufficient. This regime aligns well with the demands of “big data” applications, in which individual data points are likely to be noisy—so obtaining an extremely accurate transport value would be overkill computationally.
Regularization is a key technique in optimization and inverse problems in which an objective function is modified to encode additional assumptions and/or to make it easier to minimize. For example, suppose we wish to solve the least-squares problem $\min_x \|Ax-b\|_2^2$ for some $A\in{\mathbb{R}}^{m\times n}$ and $b\in{\mathbb{R}}^m$. When $A$ is rank-deficient or if $m<n$, an entire affine space of $x$’s achieve the minimal value. To get around this, we could apply Tikhonov regularization (also known as ridge regression), in which we instead minimize $\|Ax-b\|_2^2+\alpha\|x\|_2^2$ for some $\alpha>0$. As $\alpha\rightarrow0$ a solution of the original least-squares problem is recovered, while for any $\alpha>0$ the regularized problem is guaranteed to have a unique minimizer; as $\alpha\rightarrow\infty$, we have $x\rightarrow0$, a predictable but uninteresting value. From a high level, we can think of $\alpha$ as trading off between fidelity to the original problem $Ax\approx b$ and ease of solution: For small $\alpha>0$ the problem is near-singular but close to the original least-squares formulation, while larger $\alpha$ makes the problem easier to solve.
The variables in the basic formulation of transport are nonnegative probability values, which do not appear to be amenable to standard least-squares style Tikhonov regularization. Instead, entropic regularization uses a regularizer from information theory: the entropy of a probability distribution. Suppose a probability measure has distribution function $\rho(x)$. The (differential) entropy of $\rho$ is defined as $$\label{eq:entropy}
H[\rho]:=-\int \rho(x)\log\rho(x)\,dx.$$ This definition makes two assumptions that are needed to work with entropy, that a probability measure admits a distribution and that it is nonzero everywhere—otherwise $\log\rho(x)$ is undefined. $H[\rho]$ is a concave function of $\rho$ that roughly measures the “fuzziness” of a distribution. Low entropy indicates that a distribution is sharply peaked about a few points, while high entropy indicates that it is more uniformly distributed throughout space.
The basic approach in entropically-regularized transport is to add a small multiple of $-H[\pi]$ to regularize the transport plan $\pi$ in the OT problem. We will start by discussing the discrete problem , which after entropic regularization can be written as follows: $$\label{eq:entropic_ot}
{\mathrm{OT}}_\alpha(v,w;C):=\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\min_{T\in{\mathbb{R}}^{k_1\times k_2}} & \sum_{ij} T_{ij}c_{ij}+\alpha\sum_{ij} T_{ij}\log T_{ij}\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \sum_j T_{ij}=v_i\ \forall i\in\{1,\ldots,k_1\}\\
& \sum_i T_{ij}=w_j\ \forall j\in\{1,\ldots,k_2\}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ We are able to drop the $T\geq0$ constraint because $\log T_{ij}$ in the objective function prevents negative $T$ values.
The objective function from can be refactored slightly: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{ij} T_{ij}c_{ij}+\alpha\sum_{ij} T_{ij}\log T_{ij}
&=\alpha\sum_{ij} T_{ij} \left(\frac{c_{ij}}{\alpha}+\log T_{ij}\right)\nonumber\\
&=\alpha \sum_{ij} T_{ij} \log \frac{T_{ij}}{e^{-c_{ij}/\alpha}}\nonumber\\
&=\alpha {{\textrm{KL}}}(T|K_\alpha).\label{eq:kl}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we define a *kernel* $K_\alpha$ via $(K_\alpha)_{ij}:=e^{-c_{ij}/\alpha}$. ${{\textrm{KL}}}$ denotes the Kullback–Leibler divergence [@kullback1951information], a distance-like (but asymmetric) measure of the similarity between $T$ and $K$ from information theory; the definition of $K_\alpha$ is singular when $\alpha=0$, indicating that the connection to ${{\textrm{KL}}}$ is only possible in the $\alpha>0$ regime.
[c@c]{}
&
\
(a) Projection & (b) Alternating projection
Equation gives an intuitive explanation for entropy-regularized transport illustrated in Figure \[fig:klprojection\](a). The matrix $K$ does not satisfy the constraints of the regularized transport problem . Thinking of ${{\textrm{KL}}}$ roughly as a distance measure, our job is to find the *closest projection* (with respect to ${{\textrm{KL}}}$) of $K$ onto the set of $T$’s satisfying the constraints $\sum_j T_{ij}=v_i$ and $\sum_i T_{ij}=w_j$. With this picture in mind, Figure \[fig:klprojection\](b) illustrates the Sinkhorn algorithm for entropy-regularized transport derived below, which alternates between projecting onto one of these sets and then the other.
Continuing in our derivation, we return to to derive first-order optimality conditions. Since is an equality-constrained differentiable minimization problem, it can be solved using a standard multi-variable calculus technique: the method of Lagrange multipliers. There are $k_1+k_2$ constraints, so we need $k_1+k_2$ Lagrange multipliers, which—following the derivation of —we store in vectors $\phi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{k_1}$ and $\psi\in{\mathbb{R}}^{k_2}$. The Lagrange multiplier function here is: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(T;\phi,\psi)
&:=
\sum_{ij} T_{ij}c_{ij}+\alpha\sum_{ij} T_{ij}\log T_{ij}
\\&\hspace{.25in}+
\sum_i \phi_i \left(v_i-\sum_j T_{ij}\right)
+
\sum_j \psi_j \left(w_j-\sum_i T_{ij}\right)
\\
&=\langle T,C\rangle + \alpha \langle T,\log T\rangle + \phi^\top (v-T{\mathbbm 1}) + \psi^\top(w-T^\top {\mathbbm 1})\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ indicates the element-wise inner product of matrices, the log is element-wise, and ${\mathbbm 1}$ indicates the vector of all ones. Taking the gradient with respect to $T$ gives the following first-order optimality condition:[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
&0=\nabla_T\Lambda
= C + \alpha {\mathbbm 1}{\mathbbm 1}^\top + \alpha\log T - \phi{\mathbbm 1}^\top - {\mathbbm 1}\psi^\top \\
&\implies \log T
= \frac{(\phi-\alpha{\mathbbm 1}){\mathbbm 1}^\top}{\alpha} + \frac{{\mathbbm 1}\psi^\top}{\alpha} +\log K_\alpha\textrm{ where }K_\alpha :=\exp[-C/\alpha]\\
&\implies \boxed{T
={\mathrm{diag}}[p] K_\alpha {\mathrm{diag}}[q]}\textrm{ where }p:=\exp\left[\frac{\phi-\alpha{\mathbbm 1}}{\alpha}\right]\textrm{ and }
q:=\exp\left[\frac{\psi}{\alpha}\right].\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathrm{diag}}[v]$ indicates the diagonal matrix whose diagonal is $v$. The key result is the boxed equation, which gives a formula for the unknown transport matrix $T$ in terms of two unknown vectors $p$ and $q$ derived by changing variables from the Lagrange multipliers $\phi$ and $\psi$. There are multiple choices of $p$ and $q$ in terms of $\phi$ and $\psi$ that all give the same “diagonal rescaling” formula including some that are more symmetric, but this detail is not important.
Next we plug the new relationship $T={\mathrm{diag}}[p] K_\alpha {\mathrm{diag}}[q]$ into the constraints of to find $$\label{eq:sinkhorn_relationships}
\begin{array}{r@{\ }l}
p\otimes (K_\alpha q)&=v\\
q\otimes (K_\alpha^\top p)&=w.
\end{array}$$ Here, $\otimes$ denotes the elementwise (Hadamard) product of two vectors or matrices. These formulas determine the unknown vector $p$ in terms of $q$ and vice versa.
The formulas directly suggest a state-of-the-art technique for entropy-regularized optimal transport, known as the *Sinkhorn (or Sinkhorn–Knopp) algorithm* and dating back to an early technique for matrix rescaling [@sinkhorn1967concerning]. This extremely succinct algorithm successively updates estimates of $p$ and $q$. Iteration $k$ is given by the update formulas ($\oslash$ denotes elementwise division) $$\begin{aligned}
p^{k+1}&\gets v\oslash (K_\alpha q^k)\\
q^{k+1}&\gets w\oslash (K_\alpha^\top p^{k+1}).\end{aligned}$$ It can be implemented in fewer than ten lines of code! The basic approach is to update $p$ in terms of $q$ using the first relationship, then $q$ in terms of $p$ using the second relationship, then $p$ again, and so on. Using essentially the geometric intuition provided in Figure \[fig:klprojection\](b) for this technique and explored in-depth in [@benamou2015iterative], one can prove that ${\mathrm{diag}}[p] K_\alpha {\mathrm{diag}}[q]$ converges asymptotically to the optimal $T$ at a relatively efficient rate regardless of the initial guess.
Several advantages distinguish the Sinkhorn method from its peers in the numerical optimization world. Most critically, beyond its ease of implementation, this algorithm is built from simple linear algebra operations—matrix-vector multiplies and elementwise arithmetic—that parallelize well and can be carried out extremely quickly on modern processing hardware. One modern spin on Sinkhorn shows how to shave off even more calculations while preserving its favorable convergence rate [@altschuler2017].
Beyond inspiring a huge body of follow-on work in machine learning and computer vision, the Sinkhorn rescaling algorithm provides a means to adapt optimal transport to discrete domains suggested in [@solomon2015convolutional]. So far, our description of the Sinkhorn method has been generic to *any* cost matrix $C$. Adding geometric structure to the problem gives it a strong interpretation using heat flow and suggests a faster way to carry out Sinkhorn iterations on discrete domains. Suppose that the transport cost $C$ is given by squared pairwise distances along a discretized piece of geometry such as a triangulated surface, denoted $\Sigma$; this corresponds to computing a regularized version of the 2-Wasserstein distance . The dual variables $p$ and $q$ can be thought of as *functions* over $\Sigma$, discretized e.g. using one value per vertex. Then, the kernel $K_\alpha$ has elements $$(K_\alpha)_{ij}=e^{-d(x_i,x_j)^2/\alpha},$$ where $d(x_i,x_j)$ denotes the shortest-path (geodesic) distance along the domain from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$.
To start, if our domain is flat, or Euclidean, then $(K_\alpha)_{ij}=e^{-\|x_i-x_j\|_2^2/\alpha}$ for points $\{x_i\}_i\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$. Considered as a function of the $x_i$’s, we recognize $K_\alpha$ up to scale as a *Gaussian* (or normal distribution, or bell curve) in distance. Multiplication by $K_\alpha$ is then *Gaussian convolution*, an extremely simple operation that can be carried out algorithmically using methods like the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). In other words, rather than explicitly computing and storing the matrix $K_\alpha$ as an initial step and computing matrix-vector products $K_\alpha p$ and $K_\alpha q$ (note $K_\alpha$ is symmetric in this case) in every iteration of the Sinkhorn algorithm, in this case we can replace these products with convolutions $g_\sigma \ast p$ and $g_\sigma \ast q$, where $\ast$ denotes convolution and $g_\sigma$ is a Gaussian whose standard deviation is determined by the regularizer $\alpha$. This is *completely equivalent* to the Sinkhorn method that explicitly computes the matrix-vector product, while eliminating the need to store $K_\alpha$ and improving algorithmic speed thanks to fast Gaussian convolution. Put more simply, in the Euclidean case **multiplication by $K_\alpha$ is more efficient than storing $K_\alpha$** since we can carry out the former implicitly.
When $\Sigma$ is curved, we can use a mathematical sleight of hand modifying the entropic regularizer to improve computational properties while maintaining convergence to the true optimal transport value as the regularizer goes to zero. We employ a well-known property of geodesic distances introduced in theory in [@varadhan1967behavior] and applied to computing distances on discrete domains in [@crane2013geodesics]. This property, known as Varadhan’s formula, states that geodesic distance $d(x,y)$ between two points $x,y$ on a manifold can be recovered from heat diffusion over a short time: $$d(x,y)^2=\lim_{t\rightarrow0}[-2t\ln\mathcal H_t(x,y)].$$ Recall that the heat kernel $\mathcal H_t(x,y)$ determines diffusion between $x,y\in \Sigma$ after time $t$. That is, if $f_t$ satisfies the heat equation $\partial_tf_t=\Delta f_t$, where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplacian operator, then $$f_t(x)=\int_\Sigma f_0(y)\mathcal H_t(x,y)\,dy.$$
Connecting to the previous paragraph, the heat kernel in Euclidean space is exactly the Gaussian function! Hence, if we replace the kernel $K_\alpha$ with the heat kernel $\mathcal H_{\alpha/2}$ in Sinkhorn’s method, in the Euclidean case nothing has changed. In the curved case, we get a new approximation of Wasserstein distances introduced as “convolutional Wasserstein distances.”
All that remains is to convince ourselves that we can compute matrix-vector products $\mathcal H_t \cdot p$ when $\mathcal H_t$ is the heat kernel of a discretized domain $\Sigma$ that is not Euclidean. Thankfully, armed with material from other chapters in this tutorial, this is quite straightforward in the context of discrete differential geometry. In particular, the well-known cotangent approximation of the Laplacian $\Delta$ can be combined with standard ordinary differential equation (ODE) solution techniques to carry out heat diffusion in this case using sparse linear algebra. We refer the reader for [@solomon2015convolutional] for details of one implementation that uses DDG tools extensively.
Eulerian Algorithms
-------------------
Entropically-regularized transport works with the Kantorovich formulation . This may be one of the earliest and most intuitive definitions of optimal transport, but this in itself is not a strong argument in favor of tackling this formulation numerically. As a point of contrast, we now explore a *completely different* approximation of Wasserstein distances that can be useful in low-dimensional settings, built from the Eulerian (fluid mechanics) formulation of the 2-Wasserstein distance ${\mathcal{W}}_2^2$ . Historically, this method pre-dates the popularity of entropically-regularized transport and has distinct advanges and disadvantages: It explicitly computes a time-varying displacement interpolation of a density “explaining” the transport (see Figure \[fig:bb\_example\]) but in the process must solve a difficult boundary-value PDE problem. Beyond the original paper [@benamou2000computational], we recommend the excellent tutorial [@peyre2010optimal] that steps through an implementation of this technique in practice. We make a few more simplifications to the continuum formulation before discretizing it. We start by making a quick observation: for any vector $J\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $\rho>0$ we have $$\frac{\|J\|_2^2}{2\rho}=\left\{\begin{array}{rl}
\sup_{a\in{\mathbb{R}},b\in{\mathbb{R}}^n} & a\rho+b^\top J\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& a+\frac{\|b\|_2^2}{2}\leq0.
\end{array}\right.$$ This convex program not only justifies that the quotient $\nicefrac{\|J\|_2^2}{2\rho}$ is convex jointly in $J$ and $\rho$, but also it shows we can write the optimization problem with additional variables as $$\begin{array}{rl} \inf_{J,\rho}\sup_{a, b} & \int_0^1\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} [a(x,t)\rho(x,t)+b(x,t)^\top J(x,t)]\,dA(x)\,dt\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \rho(x,0)\equiv \rho_0(x)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
& \rho(x,1)\equiv \rho_1(x)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\\
& \frac{\partial \rho(x,t)}{\partial t}=-\nabla\cdot J(x,t)\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in(0,1)\\
& a(x,t)+\frac{\|b(x,t)\|_2^2}{2}\leq0\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in(0,1).
\end{array}$$ Next, we introduce a dual potential function $\phi(x,t)$ similarly to the derivation of to take care of all but the last constraint: $$\label{eq:bb_partial}
\begin{array}{r@{\ }l} \inf_{J,\rho}\sup_{a, b,\phi} & \int_0^1\!\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\!\Big[a(x,t)\rho(x,t)+b(x,t)^\top J(x,t)\!\\&\hspace{.75in}+\phi(x,t)\left(\frac{\partial\rho(x,t)}{\partial t}\!+\!\nabla\cdot J(x,t)\right)\Big]\,dA(x)\,dt\\
&+
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} [\phi(x,\!1)(\rho_1(x)\!-\!\rho(x,\!1))\!-\!\phi(x,0)(\rho_0(x)\!-\!\rho(x,\!0))]\,dA(x)\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& a(x,t)+\frac{\|b(x,t)\|_2^2}{2}\leq0\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in(0,1).
\end{array}$$ We can simplify some terms in this expression. First, using integration by parts we have $$\int_0^1 \phi(x,t)\frac{\partial\rho(x,t)}{\partial t}\,dt
=
[\rho(x,1)\phi(x,1)-\rho(x,0)\phi(x,0)]-\int_0^1 \rho(x,t)\frac{\partial\phi(x,t)}{\partial t}\,dt$$ We also can integrate by parts in $x$ to show $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \phi(x,t)\nabla\cdot J(x,t)\,dA(x)=-\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} J(x,t)^\top \nabla\phi(x,t)\,dA(x).$$ This simplification works equally well if we replace ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ with the box $[0,1]^n$ with periodic boundary conditions. Incorporating these two integration by parts formulae into our objective function yields a new one: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
\Bigg\{
\int_0^1&
\left(\rho(x,t)\left[a(x,t) - \frac{\partial\phi(x,t)}{\partial t}\right]+J(x,t)^\top [b(x,t)-\nabla \phi(x,t)]\right)
\,dt\\&
-\phi(x,0)\rho_0(x)+\phi(x,1)\rho_1(x))
\Bigg\}\,dA(x)\end{aligned}$$ We now make some notational simplifications. Define $z:=\{\rho,J\}$ and $q:=\{a,b\}$ with inner product $$\langle z,q\rangle:=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_0^1 (a(x,t)\rho(x,t)+b(x,t)^\top J(x,t))\,dt\,dA(x).$$ Furthermore, define $$\begin{aligned}
F(q)&:=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & \textrm{ if } a(x,t)+\frac{\|b(x,t)\|_2^2}{2}\leq0\ \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, t\in(0,1)\\
\infty & \textrm{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.\\
G(\phi) &:=
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}
(\phi(x,0)\rho_0(x)-\phi(x,1)\rho_1(x))
\,dA(x)\end{aligned}$$ These functions are both convex. These functions, plus our simplifications and a sign change, allow us to write in a compact fashion as: $$\label{eq:bb_slick}
-\sup_z\inf_{q,\phi} \left[
F(q) + G(\phi) + \langle z, \nabla_{x,t}\phi -q \rangle
\right],$$ where $\nabla_{x,t}\phi:=\{\nicefrac{\partial\phi}{\partial t},\nabla_x\phi\}.$
Blithely assuming strong duality, namely that we can swap the supremum and the infimum, we arrive at an alternative interpretation of . In particular, we can view $z$ as a Lagrange multiplier corresponding to a constraint $q=\nabla_{x,t}\phi$. From this perspective, we actually can find a saddle point (max in $z$, minimum in $(q,\phi)$) of the *augmented Lagrangian* $L_r$ for any $r\geq 0$: $$L_r(\phi,q,z):=F(q)+G(\phi)+\langle z, \nabla_{x,t}\phi -q \rangle+\frac{r}{2}\langle \nabla_{x,t}\phi -q, \nabla_{x,t}\phi -q \rangle.$$ The extra term here effectively adds zero to the objective function, assuming the constraint is satisfied.
The algorithm proposed in [@benamou2000computational] iteratively updates estimates $(\phi^\ell,q^\ell,z^\ell)$ by cycling through the following three steps: $$\begin{aligned}
\phi^{\ell+1} &\gets \arg\min_\phi L_r(\phi,q^\ell,z^\ell)\\
q^{\ell+1} &\gets \arg\min_q L_r(\phi^{\ell+1},q,z^\ell)\\
z^{\ell+1} &\gets z^\ell + r(q^{\ell+1}-\nabla_{x,t}\phi^{\ell+1}).\end{aligned}$$ The first two steps update some variables while holding the rest fixed to the best possible value. The third step is gradient step for $z$. This cycling algorithm and equivalent formulations has many names in the literature—including ADMM [@boyd2011distributed], the Douglas–Rachford algorithm [@douglas1956numerical; @lions1979splitting], and the Uzawa algorithm [@uzawa196810]—and is known to converge under weak assumptions.
The advantage of this algorithm is that the individual update formulae are straightforward. In particular, the $\phi$ update is equivalent to solving a Laplace equation $$\Delta_{x,t} \phi^{\ell+1}=\nabla_{x,t}\cdot(z^\ell-rq^\ell),$$ where $\Delta_{x,t}$ is the Laplacian operator in time and space. The $q$ update decouples over $x$ and $t$, amounting to projecting $\nabla_{x,t}\phi^{\ell+1}+\nicefrac{z^\ell}{r}$ onto the constraints in the definition of $F(q)$ with respect to $L_2$, a one-dimensional problem solvable analytically. And, the $z$ update is already in closed-form.
So far, we have described the Benamou–Brenier algorithm using continuum variables, but of course at the end of the day we must discretize the problem for computational purposes. The most straightforward discretization assumes $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ are supported in the unit square $[0,1]^n$, which is broken up into a $m\times m\times\cdots\times m$ grid, and further discretizes the time variable $t\in[0,1]$ into $p$ steps. Then, all degrees of freedom $(\phi,q,z)$ can be put on the grid vertices and interpolated in between using multilinear basis functions; this leads to a finite element (FEM) discretization of the problem that can be approached using techniques discussed in earlier chapters. An alternative grid-based discretization and accompanying optimization algorithm is also given in [@papadakis2014optimal].
The use of PDE language makes this dynamical formulation of transport seem attractive as potentially compatible with machinery like discrete exterior calculus (DEC) [@hirani2003discrete], which could define a discrete notion of transport on simplicial complexes like triangle meshes that discretize curved surfaces. This remains an open problem for challenging technical reasons.[^2] Principally, discretizing the objective function $\nicefrac{\|J\|_2^2}{\rho}$ on a triangle mesh is challenging because scalar quantities like $\rho$ typically are discretized on vertices or faces while vectorial quantities like $J$ are better suited for edges. Evaluating $\nicefrac{\|J\|^2}{2\rho}$ then requires averaging $J$ or $\rho$ so that the two end up on the same simplices. If this problem is overcome, it still remains to prove a triangle inequality for discretizations of the Wasserstein distance resulting from such an approach. Some recent papers with analogous constructions on graphs [@maas2011gradient; @solomon2016continuous; @erbar2017computation] suggest that such an approach may be possible.
While the Benamou–Brenier dynamical formulation of transport is the best known, it is worth noting that the Beckmann problem for the 1-Wasserstein distance ${\mathcal{W}}_1$ more readily admits discretization using the finite element method (FEM) while preserving a triangle inequality. Details of such a formulation as well as an efficient optimization algorithm are provided in [@solomon2014earth]. The reason is easier to discretize is that the time-varying aspect of transport is lost in this formulation: All that is needed is a single vector $J(x)$ per point $x$. What makes this problem easy to discretize and optimize is its downfall application-wise: Interpolation with respect to ${\mathcal{W}}_1$ between two densities $\mu_0$ and $\mu_1$ is given by the uninteresting solution $\mu_t=(1-t)\mu_0+t\mu_1$, which does not displace mass but rather “teleports” it from the source to the target.
Another PDE-based approach to optimal transport is worth noting and has strong connections to the theory of transport without connecting to fluid flow. Recall the Monge formulation of optimal transport on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ in equation , which seeks a map $\phi(x)$ that pushes forward one distribution function $\rho_0(x)$ onto another $\rho_1(x)$. A famous result by Brenier [@brenier1991polar] shows that $\phi$ can be written as the gradient of a convex potential $\Psi(x)$: $\phi(x)=\nabla\Psi(x)$. Using $H$ to denote the Hessian operator, this potential satisfies the Monge-Ampère PDE $$\det(H\Psi(x))\rho_1(\nabla\Psi(x))=\rho_0(x),$$ a second-order nonlinear elliptic equation that is extremely challenging to solve in practice. A few algorithms, e.g. [@oliker1989numerical; @loeper2005numerical; @benamou2010two; @froese2011convergent; @benamou2014numerical], tackle this nonlinear system head-on, discretizing the variables involved and solving for $\Psi$.
Semidiscrete Transport {#sec:semidiscrete_tr}
----------------------
![Power diagram from a semidiscrete transport problem (image courtesy R. Barnes). Here, semidiscrete transport is used to partition the state of New Jersey into cells with equal population; population density is shaded in red.[]{data-label="fig:semidiscrete_example"}](figures/powerdiagram.png){width=".2\linewidth"}
Our final example from the computational transport world uses yet another formulation of the transport problem. This time, our inspiration is the one-dimensional semidiscrete problem, whose solution is motivated from the formulation in equation . Our exposition of this problem closely follows the excellent tutorial [@levy2017notions].
In this setting, optimal transport is computed from a distribution whose mass is concentrated at a finite set of isolated points to a distribution with a known but potentially smooth density function. Recall that in the one-dimensional case, we learned that each point of mass in the source is mapped to an *interval* in the target. That is, the domain of the target density is partitioned into contiguous cells whose mass is assigned to a single source point. We will find that the higher-dimensional analog is spiritually identical: Each point of mass in the source density is assigned to a convex region of space in the target. This observation will suggest algorithms constructed from ideas in discrete geometry extending Voronoi diagrams and similar constructions.
As in , suppose we are computing the 2-Wasserstein distance from a discrete measure $\mu:=\sum_{i=1}^ka_i\delta_{x_i}$, whose mass is concentrated at points $x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ with weights $a_i>0$, to an absolutely continuous measure $\nu$ with distribution function $\rho(x)$. The dual formulation of transport in this case can be written $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sup_{\phi,\psi} & \sum_{i=1}^k a_i\phi(x_i) + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \psi(y)\rho(y)\,dA(y)\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \phi(x)+\psi(y)\leq c(x,y)\ \forall x,y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n.
\end{array}$$ The objective in this case “does not care” about values of $\phi(x)$ for $x\not\in\{x_i\}_{i=1}^k.$ Define $\phi_i:=\phi(x_i).$ By this observation, we can write a problem with only one continuum variable: $$\begin{array}{rl}
\sup_{\phi,\psi} & \sum_i a_i\phi_i + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \psi(y)\rho(y)\,dA(y)\\
{\textrm{s.t.}}& \phi_i+\psi(y)\leq c(x_i,y)\ \forall y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n, i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}.
\end{array}$$ In a slight abuse of notation, for the rest of this section we will think of $\phi$ as a vector $\phi\in{\mathbb{R}}^k$ rather than a function $\phi(x)$. Given the supremum, we might as well choose the largest $\psi$ possible that satisfies the constraints. Hence, $$\psi(y)=\inf_{i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}} [c(x_i,y)-\phi_i].$$ This leads to a final optimization problem in a *finite* set of variables $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_k$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{W}}_2^2(\mu,\nu)
&=
\sup_{\phi\in{\mathbb{R}}^k} \sum_i a_i\phi_i + \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \rho(y)\left(\inf_{i\in\{1,\ldots,k\}} [c(x_i,y)-\phi_i]\right)\,dA(y)\nonumber\\
&=
\sup_{\phi\in{\mathbb{R}}^k} \sum_i \left[
a_i\phi_i + \int_{{\mathrm{Lag}}_\phi^c(x_i)} \rho(y)[c(x_i,y)-\phi_i] \,dA(y)
\right]\label{eq:semidiscrete_optim}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathrm{Lag}}_\phi^c(x_i)$ indicates the *Laguerre cell* corresponding to $x_i$: $${\mathrm{Lag}}_\phi^c(x_i):=\{y\in{\mathbb{R}}^n:
c(x_i,y)-\phi_i \leq c(x_j,y)-\phi_j\ \forall j\neq i
\}.$$ The set of Laguerre cells yields the *Laguerre diagram*, a partition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ determined by the cost function $c$ and the vector $\phi$; the $\phi_i$’s effectively control the sizes of the Laguerre cells in the diagram. When $c(x,y)=\|x-y\|_2$ is a distance function and $\phi=0$, the Laguerre diagram equals the well-known Voronoi diagram of the $x_i$’s that partitions ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ into loci of points $S_i$ corresponding to those closer to $x_i$ than to the other $x_j$’s [@aurenhammer1991voronoi]. More importantly for the 2-Wasserstein distance, when $c(x,y)=\nicefrac{1}{2}\|x-y\|_2^2$, the Laguerre diagram is known as the *power diagram*, an object studied since the early days of computational geometry [@aurenhammer1987power]; an example is shown in Figure \[fig:semidiscrete\_example\].
Since comes from a simplification of the dual of the transport problem, it is concave in $\phi$; a direct proof can be found in [@aurenhammer1992minkowski]. This implies that a simple gradient ascent procedure starting from any initial estimate of $\phi$ will reach a global optimum. Define the objective function $$F(\phi):=\sum_i\left[
a_i\phi_i + \int_{{\mathrm{Lag}}_\phi^c(x_i)} \rho(y)[c(x_i,y)-\phi_i] \,dA(y)
\right].$$ The gradient can be computed using the partial derivative expression $$\label{eq:semidiscrete_grad}
\frac{\partial F}{\partial \phi_i}=a_i-\int_{{\mathrm{Lag}}_\phi^c(x_i)}\rho(y)\,dA(y).$$ This expression is predictable from the definition of $F(\phi)$; a similar formula exists for the second derivatives of $F$. Setting the gradient to zero formalizes an intuition for the optimization problem , that it resizes the Laguerre cells by modifying the $\phi_i$’s until the cell corresponding to each $x_i$ contains mass $a_i$: $$a_i=\int_{{\mathrm{Lag}}_\phi^c(x_i)}\rho(y)\,dA(y).$$ The main ingredient needed to compute the derivatives of $F$ is an algorithm for integrating $\rho$ over Laguerre cells. Hence, gradient ascent and Newton’s method applied to optimizing for $\phi$ cycle between updating the Laguerre diagram for the current $\phi$ estimate, recomputing the gradient and/or Hessian, assembling these into a search direction, and updating the current estimate of $\phi$. For squared Euclidean costs, these algorithms are facilitated by fast algorithms for computing power diagrams, e.g. [@bowyer1981computing; @watson1981computing]. While convergence of gradient descent with line search follows directly from concavity, [@kitagawa2016newton] proves that under certain assumptions a damped version of Newton’s algorithm—which employs the Hessian in addition to the gradient to accelerate convergence—exhibits global convergence.
Example techniques following this template include [@carlier2010knothe], which proposed an early technique for 2D problems; [@merigot2011multiscale], for semi-discrete transport to piecewise-linear distribution functions in 2D supported on triangle meshes improved using a multiscale approximation; and [@levy2015numerical], which proposes semi-discrete transport to distributions in 3D that are piecewise-linear on tetrahedral meshes. [@de2012blue] provides an early example of a Newton solver for 2D semidiscrete transport using power diagrams and additionally uses derivatives of transport in the support points $x_i$ and weights $a_i$ for assorted approximation problems.
Beyond providing fast algorithms for transport in the semidiscrete case, this formulation is also valuable for applications incorporating transport terms. [@de2011optimal] employs semidiscrete transport to a collection of distributions concentrated on line segments to reconstruct line drawings from point samples; [@digne2014feature] proposes a similar technique for reconstructing triangulated surfaces from point clouds in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. [@goes2014weighted] defines a version of semi-discrete transport intrinsic to a triangulated surface, which can be used for tasks like parameterizing the set of per-vertex area weights in terms of the values $\phi_i$.
Beyond Transport
================
Beyond improving tools for solving the basic optimal transport problem, some of the most exciting recent work in computational transport involves using transport as a single term in a larger model. In a recent tutorial for the machine learning community, we termed this new trend *“Wassersteinization”* [@cuturi2017primer]: using Wasserstein distances to improve geometric properties of variational models in statistics, learning, applied geometry, and other disciplines. Further extending the scope of applied transport, variations of the basic problem have been proposed to apply OT to objects other than probability distributions.
While a complete survey of these creative new applications and extensions is far beyond the scope of this tutorial, we highlight a few interesting pointers into the literature:
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Unbalanced transport:</span> One limitation of the basic model for optimal transport is that it is a distance between histograms or probability distributions, rather than a distance between functions or vectors in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$—which may not integrate to $1$ or may contain negative values. This leads to the problem of *unbalanced transport*, in which mass conservation and/or positivity must be relaxed. Models for this problem range from augmenting the transport problem with a “trash can” that can add or remove mass from distributions [@pele2009fast] to extensions of dynamical transport to this case [@chizat2016interpolating]. Making transport work for functions rather than distributions while preserving the triangle inequality and other basic properties is challenging both theoretically and from a numerical perspective.
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Barycenters:</span> The idea of displacement interpolation we motivated using suggests a generalization to more than two distributions, known as the *Wasserstein barycenter* problem [@agueh2011barycenters]. Given $k$ distributions $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_k$, the Wasserstein barycenter $\mu_{\mathrm{barycenter}}$ is defined as the minimizer of the following optimization problem $$\label{eq:barycenter}
\mu_{\mathrm{barycenter}}:=\arg\min_{\mu}\sum_{i=1}^k {\mathcal{W}}_2^2(\mu,\mu_i).$$ The Wasserstein barycenter gives some notion of *averaging* a set of probability distributions, motivated by the observation that the average $\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^k x_i$ of a set of vectors $x_i\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is the minimizer $\arg\min_x\sum_i \|x-x_i\|_2^2$. Barycenter algorithms range from extensions of the Sinkhorn algorithm [@benamou2015iterative; @solomon2015convolutional] to methods that perform gradient descent on $\mu$ by differentiating the distance ${\mathcal{W}}_2$ in its argument [@cuturi2014fast] and stochastic techniques requiring only samples from the distributions $\mu_i$ [@staib2017parallel; @claici2018stochastic]. Other algorithms are inspired by a connection to multi-marginal transport [@pass2015multi], a generalization of optimal transport involving a distribution over the product of more than two measures. The optimization problem is also one of the earliest examples of “Wassersteinization,” in the sense that it is an optimization problem for an unknown distribution $\mu$ including Wasserstein distance terms, contrasting somewhat from the optimization problems we considered in §\[sec:discrete\] in which the unknown is the transport distance itself.
Further generalizing the barycenter problem leads to a notion of the Dirichlet energy of a map from points in one space to distributions over another [@brenier2003extended; @lavenant2017harmonic], with applications in machine learning [@solomon2014wasserstein] and shape matching [@solomon2013dirichlet; @mandad2017variance]. An intriguing recent paper also proposes an inverse problem for barycentric coordinates seeking weights for that “explain” an input distribution as a transport barycenter of others [@bonneel2016wasserstein].
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Quadratic assignment:</span> The basic optimization problem for transport has an objective function that is *linear* in the unknown transport matrix, expressing a preference for transport maps that do not move any single particle of probabilistic mass very far. This model, however, does not necessarily extract *smooth* maps, wherein distance traveled by any single particle is less important than making sure that nearby particles in the source are mapped to nearby locations in the target. Such a smoothness term leads to a *quadratic* term in the transport problem and allows it to be extended to a distance between metric-measure spaces known as the Gromov–Wasserstein distance [@memoli2011gromov; @memoli2014gromov], inspired by the better-known but more rigid Gromov–Hausdorff distance. From an optimization perspective, Gromov–Wasserstein computation leads to a “quadratic assignment” problem, known in the most general case to be NP-hard [@sahni1976p]; practical instances of the problem in shape matching, however, can be tackled using spectral [@memoli2009spectral] or entropy-based [@solomon2016entropic] approximations and have shown promise for applications in shape matching. [@peyre2016gromov] proposes a method for averaging metric spaces using a barycenter formulation similar to .
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Capacity-constrained transport:</span> Yet another extension of the transport problem comes from introducing *capacity constraints* limiting the amount of mass that can travel between assorted pairs of source and target points; in the measure-theoretic formulation, this amounts to constraining transport plan to be dominated by another input plan [@korman2015optimal]. This constraint makes sense in many operations-type applications and has intriguing theoretical properties, but design of algorithms and discretizations for capacity-constrained transport remains largely open although [@benamou2000computational] provides one approach again extending Sinkhorn’s algorithm.
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Gradient flows and PDE:</span> Given a function $f:M\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$ defined over a geometric space $M$ like a manifold, a *gradient flow* of $f$ starting at some $x_0\in M$ attempts to minimize $f$ via “gradient descent” from $x(0):=x_0$ expressed as an ordinary differential equation (ODE) $x'(t)=-\nabla f(x(t)).$ Since OT puts a geometry on the space of distributions ${\mathrm{Prob}}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ over ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, we can define an analogous procedure that flows probability distributions to reduce certain functionals [@jordan1998variational; @santambrogio2017euclidean]. For instance, gradient flow on the entropy functional in the Wasserstein metric leads to the heat diffusion equation $\nicefrac{\partial \rho}{\partial t}=-\Delta \rho$, where $\Delta$ is the Laplacian operator; that is, performing gradient descent on entropy in the Wasserstein metric is exactly the same as diffusing the initial probability distribution like an unevenly-heated metal plate. Beyond giving a variational motivation for certain PDE, this mathematical idea inspired numerical methods for solving PDE that can be written as gradient flows [@peyre2015entropic; @benamou2016augmented]. Recent work has even incorporated transport into numerical methods for PDE that cannot easily be written as gradient flows in Wasserstein space, such as those governing incompressible fluid flow [@li2010optimal; @mirebeau2015numerical; @de2015power; @merigot2016minimal]. Gradient flow properties can also be leveraged as structure to be preserved in discrete models of transport; for instance, [@maas2011gradient] proposes a model for dynamical optimal transport on a graph and checks that the gradient flow of entropy—now an ODE rather than a PDE—agrees with a discrete heat equation.
- <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matrix fields and vector measures:</span> *Vector measures* generalize probability measures by replacing scalar-valued probability values $\mu(S)\in[0,1]$ with values in other cones $\mathcal C$. For instance, a tensor-valued measure $\mu$ assigns measurable sets $S$ to $d\times d$ postive semidefinite matrices $\mu(S)\in \mathcal S_+^d$ while satisfying analogous axioms to those laid out for probability measures in §\[sec:transport\_problem\]. These tensor fields find application in diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which measures diffusivity of molecules like water in the interior of the human brain as a proxy for directionality of white matter fibers; OT extended to this setting can be used to align multiple such images. A few recent models extend OT to this case and propose related numerical methods [@ning2015matrix; @chen2017matrix; @peyre2017quantum].
Conclusion
==========
The techniques covered in this tutorial are just a few of many ways to approach discrete optimal transport. New algorithms are proposed every month, and there is considerable room for mathematical, algorithmic, and application-oriented researchers to improve existing methods or make their own for different types of data or geometry. Furthermore, mathematical properties such as convergence and approximation quality are still being established for new techniques. Many questions also remain in linking to other branches of discrete differential geometry, e.g. at the most fundamental level defining a *purely discrete* notion of optimal transport compatible with polyhedral meshes or simplicial complexes without requiring regularization and while preserving structure from the smooth case.
These challenges aside, discrete optimal transport is demonstrating that OT holds interest far beyond mathematical analysis. New discretizations and algorithms bring down OT’s complexity to the point where it can be incorporated into practical engineering pipelines and into larger models without incurring a huge computational expense. Further research into this new discipline holds unique potential to improve both theory and practice and eventually to bring insight into other branches of discrete and smooth geometry.
Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
----------------
The author acknowledges the generous support of Army Research Office grant W911NF-12-R-0011 (“Smooth Modeling of Flows on Graphs”), from the MIT Research Support Committee (“Structured Optimization for Geometric Problems”), and from the MIT–IBM Watson AI Lab (“Large-Scale Optimal Transport for Machine Learning”).
Many thanks to MIT Geometric Data Processing Group members Mikhail Bessmeltsev, Edward Chien, Sebastian Claici, David Palmer, and Dima Smirnov for proofreading this document.
[^1]: Readers uncomfortable with this sort of calculation are strongly encouraged to take a look at the useful “cheat sheet” document [@petersen2008matrix].
[^2]: Interested readers are encouraged to contact the author of this tutorial for preliminary results on this problem!
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the non-linear spatially homogeneous Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules in a close-to-equilibrium framework and show that the Cauchy problem for the fluctuation around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution enjoys a Gelfand-Shilov regularizing effect in the class $S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, implying the ultra-analyticity of both the fluctuation and its Fourier transform, for any positive time.'
address:
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Y. Morimoto, Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan</span>'
- '<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">K. Pravda-Starov, Université de Cergy-Pontoise, Département de Mathématiques, CNRS UMR 8088, 95000 Cergy-Pontoise, France</span>'
- |
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">C.-J. Xu, School of Mathematics, Wuhan university 430072, Wuhan, P.R. China\
and\
Université de Rouen, CNRS UMR 6085, Département de Mathématiques, 76801 Saint-Etienne du Rouvray, France</span>
author:
- 'Y. Morimoto, K. Pravda-Starov & C.-J. Xu'
title: 'A remark on the ultra-analytic smoothing properties of the spatially homogeneous Landau equation'
---
Introduction
============
In the work [@LMPX3], we consider the spatially homogeneous non-cutoff Boltzmann equation with Maxwellian molecules in a close-to-equilibrium framework and study the smoothing properties of the Cauchy problem for the fluctuation around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution. The Boltzmann equation describes the behavior of a dilute gas when the only interactions taken into account are binary collisions [@17]. In the spatially homogeneous case with Maxwellian molecules, it reads as the equation $$\label{e1vv}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tf=Q(f,f),\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0,
\end{cases}$$ for the density distribution of the particles $f=f(t,v) \geq 0$, $t \geq 0$, $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, with $d \geq 2$, where the non-linear term $$\label{eq1vv}
Q(f, f)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\int_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}b\Big(\frac{v-v_*}{|v-v_*|} \cdot \sigma\Big)(f'_* f'-f_*f)d\sigma dv_*,$$ stands for the Boltzmann collision operator whose cross section is a non-negative function satisfying to the assumption $$\label{sa1vv}
(\sin \theta)^{d-2}b(\cos \theta) \substack{\\ \\ \approx \\ \theta \to 0_{+} } \theta^{-1-2s},$$ for some $0 < s <1$. The notation $a\approx b$ means that $a/b$ is bounded from above and below by fixed positive constants. The term (\[sa1vv\]) is not integrable in zero $$\int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}(\sin \theta)^{d-2}b(\cos \theta)d\theta=+\infty.$$ This non-integrability plays a major role regarding the qualitative behaviour of the solutions to the Boltzmann equation and this feature is essential for the smoothing effect to be present, see the discussion in [@LMPX3] and all the references herein.
In [@LMPX3], we consider the spatially homogeneous non-cutoff Boltzmann equation with Maxwellian molecules (\[e1vv\]) in the radially symmetric case with initial density distributions $$\label{kk1}
f_0=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g_0, \quad g_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d) \textrm{ radial},\quad \|g_0\|_{L^2} \ll 1,$$ close to the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution $$\label{maxwe}
\mu_d(v)=(2\pi)^{-\frac{d}{2}}e^{-\frac{|v|^2}{2}}, \quad v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \qquad Q(\mu_d,\mu_d)=0,$$ where $|\cdot|$ is the Euclidean norm on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, in the physical 3-dimensional case $d=3$. The main result in [@LMPX3] shows that the Cauchy problem for the fluctuation $$f=\mu_3+\sqrt{\mu_3}g,$$ around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution $$\label{bs1}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tg+\mathscr{L}g=\mu_3^{-1/2}Q(\sqrt{\mu_3}g,\sqrt{\mu_3}g),\\
g|_{t=0}=g_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3),
\end{cases}$$ where $$\mathscr{L}g=-\mu_3^{-1/2}Q(\mu_3,\mu_3^{1/2}g)-\mu_3^{-1/2}Q(\mu_3^{1/2}g,\mu_3),$$ enjoys the same Gelfand-Shilov regularizing effect as the Cauchy problem defined by the evolution equation associated to the fractional harmonic oscillator $$\label{gel2vv}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tg+\mathcal{H}^sg=0,\\
g|_{t=0}=g_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3),
\end{cases}\qquad \mathcal{H}=-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4},$$ where $0<s<1$ is the positive parameter appearing in the assumption (\[sa1vv\]). More specifically, we prove that under the assumption (\[kk1\]), the Cauchy problem (\[bs1\]) admits a unique global radial solution $g \in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}_t^+,L^2({\mathbb{R}}_v^3))$, which belongs to the Gelfand-Shilov class $S_{1/2s}^{1/2s}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ for any positive time $$\label{rrr1}
\forall t >0, \quad g(t) \in S_{1/2s}^{1/2s}({\mathbb{R}}^3).$$ The definition of the Gelfand-Shilov regularity is recalled in appendix (Section \[regularity\]).
In the present work, we study the spatially homogeneous Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules $$\label{e1bisggg}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tf=Q_L(f,f),\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0.
\end{cases}$$ The Landau collision operator $Q_L(f,f)$ is understood as the limiting Boltzmann operator in the grazing collision limit asymptotic [@mou5; @mou1; @mou2; @mou3; @villani1], when $s$ tends to 1 in the singularity assumption (\[sa1vv\]). In the physical 3-dimensional case, the linearized non-cutoff Boltzmann operator with Maxwellian molecules was actually showed to be equal to the fractional linearized Landau operator with Maxwellian molecules [@LMPX2] (Theorem 2.3), $$\mathscr{L}=a(\mathcal{H},\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^2}) \mathscr{L}_L^s,$$ up to a positive bounded isomorphism on $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, $$\exists c>0, \forall f \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^3), \quad c\|f\|_{L^2}^2 \leq (a(\mathcal{H},\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^2})f,f)_{L^2} \leq \frac{1}{c}\|f\|_{L^2}^2,$$ commuting with the harmonic oscillator $\mathcal H=-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4}$ and the Laplace-Beltrami operator $$\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{2}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq j,k \leq 3 \\ j \neq k}}(v_j \partial_k-v_k \partial_j)^2,$$ on the unit sphere ${{\mathbb S}}^{2}$. In view of this link between the linearized Boltzmann and Landau operators, and in analogy with the Gelfand-Shilov smoothing result proven in [@LMPX3] for the spatially homogeneous non-cutoff Boltzmann equation, we may therefore expect that the spatially homogeneous Landau equation also enjoys specific Gelfand-Shilov smoothing properties. The purpose of this note is to confirm this insight and to check that the Cauchy problem for the fluctuation around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution associated to the spatially homogeneous Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules actually enjoys a Gelfand-Shilov regularizing effect in the class $S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, implying the ultra-analyticity of both the fluctuation and its Fourier transform, for any positive time.
The Landau equation
===================
The Landau equation written by Landau in 1936 [@landau] is the equation $$\label{e1}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tf+v\cdot\nabla_{x}f=Q_L(f,f),\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0,
\end{cases}$$ for the density distribution of the particles $f=f(t,x,v) \geq 0$ at time $t$, having position $x \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ and velocity $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, with $d \geq 2$. The term $Q_L(f,f)$ is the Landau collision operator associated to the Landau bilinear operator $$Q_L(g, f)=\nabla_v \cdot \Big(\int_{{{{\mathbb R}}}^d}a(v-v_*)\big(g(t,x,v_*)(\nabla_v f)(t,x,v)-(\nabla_v g)(t,x,v_*)f(t,x,v)\big)d v_*\Big),$$ where $a=(a_{i,j})_{1 \leq i,j \leq d}$ stands for the non-negative symmetric matrix $$\label{landau_collision1}
a(v)=|v|^{\gamma}(|v|^2\Id -v\otimes v) \in M_d({\mathbb{R}}), \quad -d<\gamma<+\infty.$$ In this work, we study the spatially homogeneous case when the density distribution of the particles does not depend on the position variable $$\label{vkk1}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tf=Q_L(f,f),\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0,
\end{cases}$$ for Maxwellian molecules, that is, when the parameter $\gamma=0$ in the assumption (\[landau\_collision1\]). At least formally, it is easily checked that the mass, the momentum and the kinetic energy are conserved quantities by this evolution equation $$\label{jen0}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)dv=M, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)vdv=MV, \quad \frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)|v|^2dv=E, \quad t \geq 0,$$ with $M > 0$, $V \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, $E > 0$. The Cauchy problem (\[vkk1\]) associated to the spatially homogeneous Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules and some quantitative features of the solutions were thoroughly studied by Villani [@villani3]. The propositions 4 and 6 of the work [@villani3] show that, for each non-negative measurable initial density distribution $f_0$ having finite mass and finite energy $$\label{jen1}
f_0 \geq 0, \quad 0<\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)dv=M<+\infty, \quad 0<\frac{1}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)|v|^2dv=E<+\infty,$$ the Cauchy problem (\[vkk1\]) admits a unique global classical solution $f(t,v)$ defined for all $t \geq 0$. Furthermore, this solution is showed to be a non-negative bounded smooth function $$f(t) \geq 0, \quad f(t) \in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d_v),$$ for any positive time $t>0$.
In this work, we study a close-to-equilibrium framework. To that end, we consider the linearization of the spatially homogeneous Landau equation $$f=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g,$$ around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution $$\label{maxwe1}
\mu_d(v)=(2\pi)^{-\frac{d}{2}}e^{-\frac{|v|^2}{2}}, \quad v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d.$$ By using that $Q_L(\mu_d,\mu_d)=0$, and setting $$\label{jan1}
\mathscr{L}_Lg=-\mu_d^{-1/2}Q(\mu_d,\mu_d^{1/2}g)-\mu_d^{-1/2}Q(\mu_d^{1/2}g,\mu_d),$$ the original spatially homogeneous Landau equation (\[vkk1\]) is reduced to the Cauchy problem for the fluctuation $$\label{boltz}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tg+\mathscr{L}_Lg=\mu_d^{-1/2}Q_L(\sqrt{\mu_d}g,\sqrt{\mu_d}g),\\
g|_{t=0}=g_0.
\end{cases}$$ An explicit computation [@LMPX2] (Proposition 2.1) shows that the linearized Landau operator with Maxwellian molecules acting on the Schwartz space is equal to $$\begin{gathered}
\mathscr{L}_L=(d-1)\Big(\mathcal{H}-\frac{d}{2}\Big)-\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}+\Big[\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}-(d-1)\Big(\mathcal{H}-\frac{d}{2}\Big)\Big]\mathbb{P}_1\\ +\Big[-\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}-(d-1)\Big(\mathcal{H}-\frac{d}{2}\Big)\Big]\mathbb{P}_2,\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathcal{H}=-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4}$ is the harmonic oscillator, $$\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{1 \leq j,k \leq d \\ j \neq k}}(v_j \partial_k-v_k \partial_j)^2,$$ stands for the Laplace-Beltrami operator on the unit sphere ${{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}$ and $\mathbb{P}_{k}$ are the orthogonal projections onto the Hermite basis defined in Section \[6.sec.harmo\]. The linearized Landau operator is a non-negative operator $$(\mathscr{L}_Lg,g)_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d_{v})} \geq 0,$$ satisfying $$\label{ker}
(\mathscr{L}_Lg,g)_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)}=0 \Leftrightarrow g=\mathbf{P}g,$$ where $\mathbf{P}g=(a+b \cdot v+c|v|^2)\mu_d^{1/2},$ with $a,c \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $b \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$, stands for the $L^2$-orthogonal projection onto the space of collisional invariants $$\label{coli}
\mathcal{N}=\textrm{Span}\big\{\mu_d^{1/2},v_1 \mu_d^{1/2},...,v_d\mu_d^{1/2},|v|^2\mu_d^{1/2}\big\}.$$
By elaborating on the solutions constructed by Villani [@villani3], the purpose of this note is to study the Gelfand-Shilov regularizing properties of the Cauchy problem (\[boltz\]) for the fluctuation around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution. For the sake of simplicity, we may assume without loss of generality that the density distribution satisfies (\[jen0\]) with $V=0$. Furthermore, by changing the unknown function $f$ to $\tilde{f}$ as $$\label{jen2.1}
f=\frac{M}{\alpha^{d}}\tilde{f}\Big(\frac{\cdot}{\alpha}\Big), \qquad \alpha=\sqrt{\frac{2E}{Md}},$$ we may reduce our study to the case when $$\label{jen1.1}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)dv=1, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)vdv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)|v|^2dv=d, \quad t \geq 0.$$ Let $f_0=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g_0 \geq 0$, with $g_0 \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap L^2({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$, be a non-negative initial density distribution having finite mass and finite energy such that $$\label{jen2.3}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)dv=1, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)vdv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)|v|^2dv=d.$$ Such an initial density distribution is rapidly decreasing with a finite temperature tail $$\frac{1}{2} \leq \frac{1}{T(f_0)}=\sup\Big\{\beta \geq 0 : \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)e^{\beta\frac{|v|^2}{2}}dv<+\infty\Big\},$$ since $$\label{j2}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)e^{\frac{|v|^2}{4}}dv=\frac{1}{(2 \pi)^{\frac{d}{4}}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\big(\sqrt{\mu_d(v)}+g_0(v)\big)dv<+\infty,$$ when $g_0 \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$. The analysis of the evolution of the temperature tail led in [@villani3] (Section 6, p. 972-974) shows that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)e^{\frac{|v|^2}{4}}dv <+\infty \Rightarrow \forall t > 0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)e^{\frac{|v|^2}{4}}dv<+\infty.$$ This implies that the fluctuation $f=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g \geq 0,$ around the Maxwellian equilibrium distribution defined by $$\label{j1}
g(t)=\mu_d^{-1/2}(f(t)-\mu_d) \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \subset \mathscr{S}'({\mathbb{R}}_v^d), \quad t>0,$$ belongs to $L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$ and therefore remains a tempered distribution for all $t>0$. The following statement is the main result contained in this note:
\[th1\] Let $f_0=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g_0 \geq 0$, with $g_0 \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap L^2({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$, be a non-negative measurable function having finite mass and finite energy such that $$\label{jen2.3}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)dv=1, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)vdv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)|v|^2dv=d.$$ Let $f(t)=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g(t)$, with $g(t) \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$ when $t > 0$, be the unique global classical solution of the Cauchy problem associated to the spatially homogeneous Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules $$\begin{cases}
\partial_tf=Q_L(f,f),\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0,
\end{cases}$$ constructed by Villani [@villani3]. Then, there exists a positive constant $\delta>0$ such that $$\exists C>0, \forall t \geq 0, \quad \|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}g(t)\|_{L^2}=\Big(\sum_{k\ge 0}e^{\delta (2k+d)t}\|\mathbb P_{k}g(t)\|_{L^2}^2\Big)^{1/2} \leq Ce^{d(d-1)t}(\|g_0\|_{L^2}+1),$$ with $\mathcal{H}=-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4},$ where $\|\cdot\|_{L^2}$ stands for the $L^2({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$-norm and $\mathbb{P}_{k}$ are the orthogonal projections onto the Hermite basis defined in Section \[6.sec.harmo\]. In particular, this implies that the fluctuation belongs to the Gelfand-Shilov space $S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ for any positive time $$\forall t>0, \quad g(t) \in S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d).$$
**Remark.** The orthogonal projection $\mathbb{P}_{k} : \mathscr{S}'({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \rightarrow \mathscr{S}({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$ is well-defined on tempered distributions since the Hermite functions are Schwartz functions.
This result shows that the Cauchy problem (\[boltz\]) enjoys an ultra-analytic regularizing effect in the Gevrey class $G^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ both for the fluctuation and its Fourier transform in the velocity variable for any positive time $$g(t),\ \widehat{g}(t) \in G^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d), \quad t>0.$$ Let us recall that the existence, uniqueness, the Sobolev regularity and the polynomial decay of the weak solutions to the Cauchy problem (\[vkk1\]) have been studied by Desvillettes and Villani for hard potentials [@desvill] (Theorem 6), that is, when the parameter satisfies $0<\gamma \leq 1$ in the assumption (\[landau\_collision1\]). Under rather weak assumptions on the initial datum, e.g. $f_0 \in L^1_{2+\delta}$, with $\delta>0$, they prove that there exists a weak solution to the Cauchy problem such that $f \in C^{\infty}([t_0,+\infty[,\mathscr{S}({\mathbb{R}}_v^d))$, for all $t_0>0$, and for all $t_0 >0$, $s>0$, $m \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\sup_{t \geq t_0}\|f(t,\cdot)\|_{H_s^m} <+\infty.$$ The Gevrey regularity $f(t,\cdot) \in G^{\sigma}$, for any $\sigma>1$, for all positive time $t>0$ of the solution to the Cauchy problem (\[vkk1\]) with an initial datum $f_0$ with finite mass, energy and entropy satisfying $$\forall t_0>0, \ m \geq 0, \quad \sup_{t \geq t_0}\|f(t,\cdot)\|_{H_\gamma^m} <+\infty,$$ was later established by Chen, Li and Xu for the hard potential case and the Maxwellian molecules case [@CLX1]. Under the same assumptions on the solution, this result was later extended to analytic regularity [@CLX2]: $$\forall t_0>0, \exists c_0, C>0, \forall t \geq t_0, \quad \|e^{c_0(-\Delta_v)^{1/2}}f(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2} \leq C(t+1),$$ in the hard potential case and the Maxwellian molecules case. Regarding specifically the Maxwellian molecules case $\gamma=0$, Morimoto and Xu established in the ultra-analyticity [@M-X2] (Theorem 1.1), $$\forall \ 0<t<T, \quad f(t,\cdot) \in G^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d),$$ $$\forall \ 0<T_0<T, \exists c_0>0, \forall \ 0<t\leq T_0, \quad \|e^{-c_0t \Delta_v}f(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2} \leq e^{\frac{d}{2}t}\|f_0\|_{L^2},$$ of any positive weak solution $f(t,x)>0$ to the Cauchy problem (\[vkk1\]) satisfying $f \in L^{\infty}(]0,T[,L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)\cap L_2^1({\mathbb{R}}^d))$, with $0<T \leq +\infty$, with an initial datum satisfying $f_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d) \cap L_2^1({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. The result of Theorem \[th1\] allows to specify further the property of ultra-analytic smoothing proven by Morimoto and Xu in the close-to-equilibrium framework [@M-X2]. This result points out the specific decay of the fluctuation both in the velocity and its dual Fourier variable. As for the Boltzmann equation, the Gelfand-Shilov regularity seems relevant to describe the regularizing properties of the Landau equation in the close-to-equilibrium framework.
Proof of Theorem \[th1\]
========================
The proof of Theorem \[th1\] is elementary and relies only on spectral arguments following the results established by Villani [@villani3]. Let $f_0=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g_0 \geq 0$, with $g_0 \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap L^2({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$, be a non-negative measurable function having finite mass and finite energy such that $$\label{jen2}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)dv=1, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)vdv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)|v|^2dv=d.$$ Following [@villani3] (p. 966), we may choose an orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ diagonalizing the non-negative symmetric quadratic form $$q(x)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)(x \cdot v)^2dv=\sum_{j,k=1}^dx_j x_k \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0(v)v_jv_kdv \geq 0,$$ where $x \cdot v =\sum_{j=1}^dx_j v_j$, $x=(x_1,...,x_d)$, $v=(v_1,...,v_d)$, stands for the standard dot product in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. In this orthonormal basis of ${\mathbb{R}}_v^d$, the unique solution to the Cauchy problem associated to the spatially homogeneous Landau equation with Maxwellian molecules (\[vkk1\]) is showed to satisfy [@villani3] (Section 5), $$\label{jen4}
\partial_tf=\sum_{j=1}^d(d-T_j(t))\partial_{j}^2f+(d-1)\nabla \cdot (vf)+\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}f,$$ with $$T_j(t)=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)v_j^2dv=1+(T_j(0)-1)e^{-4dt},$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{j5}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)dv=1, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)v_jdv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)|v|^2dv=\sum_{j=1}^dT_j(t)=d,\\
j \neq k \Rightarrow \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f(t,v)v_jv_k=0,\end{gathered}$$ when $t \geq 0$. These conditions imply that the fluctuation satisfies $g(t) \in L^1({\mathbb{R}}_v^d) \cap \mathcal{N}^{\perp}$, that is, $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}\sqrt{\mu_d(v)}g(t,v)dv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}v_j\sqrt{\mu_d(v)}g(t,v)dv=0, \quad \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}|v|^2\sqrt{\mu_d(v)}g(t,v)dv=0,$$ together with $$j \neq k \Rightarrow \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}v_jv_k\sqrt{\mu_d(v)}g(t,v)=0,$$ when $t \geq 0$. The equation (\[jen4\]) may be rewritten for the fluctuation as $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_tg=\mu_d^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^d(d-1-\alpha_je^{-4dt})\partial_j^2(\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g)+(d-1)\mu_d^{-1/2} \nabla \cdot (v\mu_d+v\sqrt{\mu_d}g)+\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}g,\end{gathered}$$ with $$\label{kk12}
\alpha_j=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}v_j^2\sqrt{\mu_d(v)}g_0(v)dv, \quad \sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j=0.$$ It follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_tg=-\Big[(d-1)\Big(-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4}-\frac{d}{2}\Big)-\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}\Big]g-e^{-4dt}\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j\Big[\partial_j^2+\frac{v_j^2}{4}-v_j\partial_j-\frac{1}{2}\Big]g\\
-e^{-4dt}\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j(v_j^2-1)\mu_d^{1/2}.\end{gathered}$$ By using that $\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j=0$, we notice that $$\begin{gathered}
\partial_tg=-\Big[(d-1)\Big(-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4}-\frac{d}{2}\Big)-\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}}\Big]g-e^{-4dt}\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j[(A_{+,j})^2g+v_j^2\mu_d^{1/2}],\end{gathered}$$ where $A_{+,j}$ is the creation operator defined in Section \[6.sec.harmo\]. We consider $$\mathbf{S}_n=\sum_{k=0}^n\mathbb{P}_k,$$ the orthogonal projection onto the $n+1$ lowest energy levels of the harmonic oscillator, where $\mathbb{P}_{k}$ stands for the orthogonal projection onto the Hermite basis defined in Section \[6.sec.harmo\]. As mentioned above, the orthogonal projection $\mathbf{S}_n$ is well-defined on tempered distributions since the Hermite functions are Schwartz functions. This gives a sense for the orthogonal projection of the fluctuation $\mathbf{S}_ng(t) \in \mathscr{S}({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)$ as a Schwartz function. Then, a direct computation shows that for all $t \geq 0$, $\delta>0$, $n \geq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \ \frac{1}{2}\partial_t(\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}^2)-\delta (\mathcal{H}(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}=\textrm{Re}(\partial_t\mathbf{S}_ng,e^{2\delta t\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\\
=& \ -(d-1)(\mathcal{H}(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}
-((-\Delta_{{{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}})(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\\
& \ +\frac{1}{2}d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}^2-e^{-4dt}\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}(v_j^2\mu_d^{1/2}),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\\
&\qquad -e^{-4dt}\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_j(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_n(A_{+,j})^2g,e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2},\end{aligned}$$ since the harmonic oscillator and the Laplace-Beltrami operator on ${{\mathbb S}}^{d-1}$ are commuting selfadjoint operators. We deduce from (\[kl1\]), (\[jen6\]) and (\[jen5\]) that $$\begin{gathered}
(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_n(A_{+,j})^2g,e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}=e^{2\delta t}((A_{+,j})^2e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n-2}g,e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\\
=e^{2\delta t}(A_{+,j}e^{t\delta\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n-2}g,A_{-,j}e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}(v_j^2\mu_d^{1/2})=e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}((A_{+,j}+A_{-,j})^2\Psi_0)=e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}(A_{+,j}^2+A_{-,j}^2+A_{+,j}A_{-,j}+A_{-,j}A_{+,j})\Psi_0\\
=(e^{2\delta t}A_{+,j}^2+e^{-2\delta t}A_{-,j}^2+A_{+,j}A_{-,j}+A_{-,j}A_{+,j})e^{\frac{d}{2}\delta t}\Psi_0=\sqrt{2}e^{(2+\frac{d}{2})\delta t}\Psi_{2e_j}+e^{\frac{d}{2}\delta t}\Psi_0.\end{gathered}$$ It follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2}\partial_t(\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}^2)+(d-1-\delta)(\mathcal{H}(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\\ \leq \frac{1}{2}d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}^2
+e^{-(4d-2\delta ) t}\sum_{j=1}^d|\alpha_j|\|A_{+,j}e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n-2}g\|_{L^2}\|A_{-,j}e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}\\ +e^{-(4-\frac{\delta}{2})dt}\sqrt{2e^{4\delta t}+1}\Big(\sum_{j=1}^d|\alpha_j|\Big)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}.\end{gathered}$$ By using that $$\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d(A_{+,j}A_{-,j}+A_{-,j}A_{+,j}),$$ we notice that $$\sum_{j=1}^d\|A_{+,j}u\|_{L^2}\|A_{-,j}u\|_{L^2} \leq \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=1}^d(\|A_{+,j}u\|_{L^2}^2+\|A_{-,j}u\|_{L^2}^2)=(\mathcal{H}u,u)_{L^2}.$$ By using that $$\|A_{+,j}e^{t\delta\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n-2}g\|_{L^2} \leq \|A_{+,j}e^{t\delta\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2},$$ we obtain that $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2}\partial_t(\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}^2)+(d-1-\delta)(\mathcal{H}(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2} \\ \leq \frac{1}{2}d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}^2
+ e^{-(4d-2\delta)t}\Big(\sup_{1 \leq j \leq d}|\alpha_j|\Big)(\mathcal{H}(e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng),e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng)_{L^2}\\
+e^{-(4-\frac{\delta}{2})dt}\sqrt{2e^{4\delta t}+1}\Big(\sum_{j=1}^d|\alpha_j|\Big)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_ng\|_{L^2}.\end{gathered}$$ We notice that $$0 < 1+\alpha_j=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}v_j^2(\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g_0)dv,$$ since the initial density distribution $f_0=\mu_d+\sqrt{\mu_d}g_0 \geq 0$ satisfies $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^d}f_0dv=1$. On the other hand, we deduce from (\[kk12\]) that $$\sum_{j=1}^d(1+\alpha_j)=d.$$ This implies that $-1 < \alpha_j < d-1$, because $d \geq 2$. We may choose the positive constant $0<\delta \leq 1$ such that $$\sup_{1 \leq j \leq d}|\alpha_j| \leq d-1-\delta.$$ It follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2}\partial_t(\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2}^2) \leq
\frac{1}{2}d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2}^2
+e^{-(4-\frac{\delta}{2})dt}\sqrt{2e^{4\delta t}+1}\Big(\sum_{j=1}^d|\alpha_j|\Big)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2}\\
\leq
\frac{1}{2}d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2}^2
+\sqrt{3}d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2} \leq
d(d-1)\|e^{t\delta\mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g\|_{L^2}^2+\frac{9}{2}d(d-1). \end{gathered}$$ We obtain that for all $t \geq 0$, $n \geq 2$, $$\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}\mathbf{S}_{n}g(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \leq e^{2d(d-1)t}\|g_0\|_{L^2}^2+\frac{9}{2}(e^{2d(d-1)t}-1),$$ which implies that for all $t \geq 0$, $$\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}g(t)\|_{L^2}^2 \leq e^{2d(d-1)t}\|g_0\|_{L^2}^2+\frac{9}{2}(e^{2d(d-1)t}-1).$$ It follows that there exists a positive constant $C>0$ such that $$\|e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}g(t)\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}_v^d)} \leq Ce^{d(d-1)t}(\|g_0\|_{L^2}+1), \quad t \geq 0,$$ and we deduce from (\[gel4\]) that for any positive time $$g(t) \in S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d), \quad t>0.$$ This ends the proof of Theorem \[th1\].
Appendix
========
The harmonic oscillator {#6.sec.harmo}
-----------------------
The standard Hermite functions $(\phi_{n})_{n\geq 0}$ are defined for $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\phi_{n}(x)=\frac{(-1)^n}{\sqrt{2^n n!\sqrt{\pi}}} e^{\frac{x^2}{2}}\frac{d^n}{dx^n}(e^{-x^2})
=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n n!\sqrt{\pi}}} \Bigl(x-\frac{d}{dx}\Bigr)^n(e^{-\frac{x^2}{2}})=\frac{ a_{+}^n \phi_{0}}{\sqrt{n!}},\end{gathered}$$ where $a_{+}$ is the creation operator $$a_{+}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\Big(x-\frac{d}{dx}\Big).$$ The family $(\phi_{n})_{n\geq 0}$ is an orthonormal basis of $L^2(\R)$. We set for $n\geq 0$, $\alpha=(\alpha_{j})_{1\le j\le d}\in\N^d$, $x\in \R$, $v\in \R^d,$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{}
\psi_n(x)&=2^{-1/4}\phi_n(2^{-1/2}x),\quad \psi_{n}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}\Bigl(\frac{x}2-\frac{d}{dx}\Bigr)^n\psi_{0},
\\
\Psi_{\alpha}(v)&=\prod_{j=1}^d\psi_{\alpha_j}(v_j),\quad \mathcal E_{k}=\text{Span}
\{\Psi_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in \N^d,\val \alpha=k},\end{aligned}$$ with $\val \alpha=\alpha_{1}+\dots+\alpha_{d}$. The family $(\Psi_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in {\mathbb{N}}^d}$ is an orthonormal basis of $L^2(\R^d)$ composed by the eigenfunctions of the $d$-dimensional harmonic oscillator $$\label{6.harmo}
\mathcal{H}=-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4}=\sum_{k\ge 0}\Big(\frac d2+k\Big)\mathbb P_{k},\quad \text{Id}=\sum_{k \ge 0}\mathbb P_{k},$$ where $\mathbb P_{k}$ is the orthogonal projection onto $\mathcal E_{k}$ whose dimension is $\binom{k+d-1}{d-1}$. The eigenvalue $d/2$ is simple in all dimensions and $\mathcal E_{0}$ is generated by the function $$\label{kl1}
\Psi_{0}(v)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{\frac{d}{4}}}e^{-\frac{\val v^2}{4}}=\mu_d^{1/2}(v),$$ where $\mu_d$ is the Maxwellian distribution defined in (\[maxwe\]). Setting $$A_{\pm,j}=\frac{ v_{j}}2\mp\frac{\p}{\p v_{j}}, \quad 1 \leq j \leq d,$$ we have $$\Psi_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha_{1}!... \alpha_{d}!}}A_{+,1}^{\alpha_{1}}... A_{+,d}^{\alpha_{d}} \Psi_{0}, \quad \alpha=(\alpha_1,...,\alpha_d)\in \N^d,$$ $$\label{jen6}
A_{+,j}\Psi_{\alpha}=\sqrt{\alpha_{j}+1}\Psi_{\alpha+e_{j}},\quad A_{-,j}\Psi_{\alpha}=\sqrt{\alpha_{j}}\Psi_{\alpha-e_{j}} \ (=0 \textrm{ if } \alpha_j=0),$$ where $(e_1,...,e_d)$ stands for the canonical basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. In particular, we readily notice that for all $t \geq 0$, $\delta>0$, $$\label{jen5}
e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}A_{+,j}=e^{\delta t}A_{+,j}e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}, \quad e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}A_{-,j}=e^{-\delta t}A_{-,j}e^{t\delta \mathcal{H}}.$$
Gelfand-Shilov regularity {#regularity}
-------------------------
We refer the reader to the works [@gelfand; @rodino1; @rodino; @toft] and the references herein for extensive expositions of the Gelfand-Shilov regularity. The Gelfand-Shilov spaces $S_{\nu}^{\mu}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, with $\mu,\nu>0$, $\mu+\nu\geq 1$, are defined as the spaces of smooth functions $f \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ satisfying to the estimates $$\exists A,C>0, \quad |\partial_v^{\alpha}f(v)| \leq C A^{|\alpha|}(\alpha !)^{\mu}e^{-\frac{1}{A}|v|^{1/\nu}}, \quad v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \ \alpha \in {\mathbb{N}}^d,$$ or, equivalently $$\exists A,C>0, \quad \sup_{v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d}|v^{\beta}\partial_v^{\alpha}f(v)| \leq C A^{|\alpha|+|\beta|}(\alpha !)^{\mu}(\beta !)^{\nu}, \quad \alpha, \beta \in {\mathbb{N}}^d.$$ These Gelfand-Shilov spaces $S_{\nu}^{\mu}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ may also be characterized as the spaces of Schwartz functions $f \in \mathscr{S}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ satisfying to the estimates $$\exists C>0, {\varepsilon}>0, \quad |f(v)| \leq C e^{-{\varepsilon}|v|^{1/\nu}}, \quad v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \qquad |\widehat{f}(\xi)| \leq C e^{-{\varepsilon}|\xi|^{1/\mu}}, \quad \xi \in {\mathbb{R}}^d.$$ In particular, we notice that Hermite functions belong to the symmetric Gelfand-Shilov space $S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. More generally, the symmetric Gelfand-Shilov spaces $S_{\mu}^{\mu}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, with $\mu \geq 1/2$, can be nicely characterized through the decomposition into the Hermite basis $(\Psi_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in {\mathbb{N}}^d}$, see e.g. [@toft] (Proposition 1.2), $$\begin{gathered}
\label{gel4}
f \in S_{\mu}^{\mu}({\mathbb{R}}^d) \Leftrightarrow f \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d), \ \exists t_0>0, \ \big\|\big((f,\Psi_{\alpha})_{L^2}\exp({t_0|\alpha|^{\frac{1}{2\mu}})}\big)_{\alpha \in {\mathbb{N}}^d}\big\|_{l^2({\mathbb{N}}^d)}<+\infty\\
\Leftrightarrow f \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d), \ \exists t_0>0, \ \|e^{t_0\mathcal{H}^{1/2\mu}}f\|_{L^2}<+\infty,\end{gathered}$$ where $(\Psi_{\alpha})_{\alpha \in {\mathbb{N}}^d}$ stands for the Hermite basis defined in Section \[6.sec.harmo\], and where $$\mathcal{H}=-\Delta_v+\frac{|v|^2}{4},$$ is the $d$-dimensional harmonic oscillator. The Cauchy problem defined by the evolution equation associated to the harmonic oscillator $$\label{gel1}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tf+\mathcal{H}f=0,\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d),
\end{cases}$$ enjoys nice regularizing properties. The smoothing effect for the solutions to this Cauchy problem is naturally described in term of the Gelfand-Shilov regularity. The characterization (\[gel4\]) proves that there is a regularizing effect for the solutions to the Cauchy problem (\[gel1\]) in the symmetric Gelfand-Shilov space $S_{1/2}^{1/2}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$ for any positive time, whereas the smoothing effect for the solutions to the Cauchy problem defined by the evolution equation associated to the fractional harmonic oscillator $$\label{gel2}
\begin{cases}
\partial_tf+\mathcal{H}^sf=0,\\
f|_{t=0}=f_0 \in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^d),
\end{cases}$$ with $0<s<1$, occurs for any positive time in the symmetric Gelfand-Shilov space $S_{1/2s}^{1/2s}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The research of the first author was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 22540187, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. The research of the second author was supported by the CNRS chair of excellence at Cergy-Pontoise University. The research of the last author was supported partially by “The Fundamental Research Funds for Central Universities” and the National Science Foundation of China No. 11171261.
[99]{} R. Alexandre, C. Villani, *On the Landau approximation in plasma physics*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 21 (2004), no. 1, 61-95 A.A. Arsen’ev, O.E. Buryak, *On a connection between the solution of the Boltzmann equation and the solution of the Landau-Fokker-Planck equation*, Math. USSR Sbornik 69 (1991), no. 2, 465-478 H. Chen, W.-X. Li, C.-J. Xu, *Gevrey regularity for solution of the spatially homogeneous Landau equation*, Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B Engl. Ed. 29 (2009), no. 3, 673-686 H. Chen, W.-X. Li, C.-J. Xu, *Analytic smoothness effect of solutions for spatially homogeneous Landau equation*, J. Differential Equations, 248 (2010), no. 1, 77-94 C. Cercignani, *The Boltzmann Equation and its Applications*, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 67 (1988), Springer-Verlag, New York P. Degond, B. Lucquin-Desreux, *The Fokker-Planck asymptotics of the Boltzmann collision operator in the Coulomb case*, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 2 (1992), no. 2, 167-182 L. Desvillettes, *On asymptotics of the Boltzmann equation when the collisions become grazing*, Transport Theory Statist. Phys. 21 (1992), no. 3, 259-276 L. Desvillettes, C. Villani, *On the spatially homogeneous Landau equation for hard potentials. I. Existence, uniqueness and smoothness*, Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 25 (2000), no. 1-2, 179-259 I.M. Gelfand, G.E. Shilov, *Generalized Functions II*, Academic Press, New York (1968) T. Gramchev, S. Pilipović, L. Rodino, *Classes of degenerate elliptic operators in Gelfand-Shilov spaces*, New developments in pseudo-differential operators, 15-31, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl. 189, Birkhäuser, Basel (2009) L.D. Landau, *Die kinetische Gleichung für den Fall Coulombscher Wechselwirkung*, Phys. Z. Sowjet. 10 (1936) 154, translation: *The transport equation in the case of Coulomb interactions*, D. ter Haar (Ed.), Collected papers of L.D. Landau, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981, 163-170 N. Lerner, Y. Morimoto, K. Pravda-Starov, C.-J. Xu, *Phase space analysis and functional calculus for the linearized Landau and Boltzmann operators*, preprint (2012) http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.3688 N. Lerner, Y. Morimoto, K. Pravda-Starov, C.-J. Xu, *Gelfand-Shilov smoothing properties of the radially symmetric spatially homogeneous Boltzmann equation without angular cutoff*, preprint (2012) http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4712 Y. Morimoto, C.-J. Xu, *Ultra-analytic effect of Cauchy problem for a class of kinetic equations,* J. Differential Equations, 247 (2009) 596-617 F. Nicola, L. Rodino, *Global pseudo-differential calculus on Euclidean spaces*, Pseudo-Differential Operators, Theory and Applications, 4, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2010) J. Toft, A. Khrennikov, B. Nilsson, S. Nordebo, *Decompositions of Gelfand-Shilov kernels into kernels of similar class*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 396 (2012), no. 1, 315-322 C. Villani, *On the spatially homogeneous Landau equation for Maxwellian molecules*, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 8 (1998), no. 6, 957-983 C. Villani, *On a new class of weak solutions to the spatially homogeneous Boltzmann and Landau equations*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 143 (1998), no. 3, 273-307
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Starting from the Hamiltonian equation of motion in QCD, we identify an invariant light-front coordinate $\zeta$ which allows the separation of the dynamics of quark and gluon binding from the kinematics of constituent spin and internal orbital angular momentum. The result is a single variable light-front Schrödinger equation for QCD which determines the eigenspectrum and the light-front wavefunctions of hadrons for general spin and orbital angular momentum. This light-front wave equation is equivalent to the equations of motion which describe the propagation of spin-$J$ modes on anti-de Sitter (AdS) space.'
author:
- 'Guy F. de Téramond'
- 'Stanley J. Brodsky'
title: 'Light-Front Holography: A First Approximation to QCD'
---
One of the most important theoretical tools in atomic physics is the Schrödinger equation, which describes the quantum-mechanical structure of atomic systems at the amplitude level. Light-front wavefunctions (LFWFs) play a similar role in quantum chromodynamics (QCD), providing a fundamental description of the structure and internal dynamics of hadrons in terms of their constituent quarks and gluons. The light-front wavefunctions of bound states in QCD are relativistic generalizations of the Schrödinger wavefunctions of atomic physics, but they are determined at fixed light-cone time $\tau = t +z/c$ – the “front form" introduced by Dirac [@Dirac:1949cp] – rather than at fixed ordinary time $t$. A remarkable feature of LFWFs is the fact that they are frame independent; i.e., the form of the LFWF is independent of the hadron’s total momentum $P^+ = P^0 + P^3$ and $\vec P_\perp.$
Light-front quantization is the ideal framework to describe the structure of hadrons in terms of their quark and gluon degrees of freedom. The simple structure of the light-front vacuum allows an unambiguous definition of the partonic content of a hadron. Given the LFWFs, one can compute observables such as hadronic form factors and structure functions, as well as the generalized parton distributions and distribution amplitudes which underly hard exclusive reactions. The constituent spin and orbital angular momentum properties of the hadrons are also encoded in the LFWFs.
A key step in the analysis of an atomic system such as positronium is the introduction of the spherical coordinates $r, \theta, \phi$ which separates the dynamics of Coulomb binding from the kinematical effects of the quantized orbital angular momentum $L$. The essential dynamics of the atom is specified by the radial Schrödinger equation whose eigensolutions $\psi_{n,L}(r)$ determine the bound-state wavefunction and eigenspectrum. In this paper, we show that there is an analogous invariant light-front coordinate $\zeta$ which allows one to separate the essential dynamics of quark and gluon binding from the kinematical physics of constituent spin and internal orbital angular momentum. The result is a single-variable light-front Schrödinger equation for QCD which determines the eigenspectrum and the light-front wavefunctions of hadrons for general spin and orbital angular momentum.
Our analysis follows from recent developments in light-front QCD [@Brodsky:2003px; @deTeramond:2005su; @Brodsky:2006uqa; @Brodsky:2008pg; @Brodsky:2008pf] which have been inspired by the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re] between string states in anti-de Sitter (AdS) space and conformal field theories (CFT) in physical space-time. The application of AdS space and conformal methods to QCD can be motivated from the empirical evidence [@Deur:2008rf] and theoretical arguments [@Brodsky:2008be] that the QCD coupling $\alpha_s(Q^2) $ has an infrared fixed point at low $Q^2.$ The AdS/CFT correspondence has led to insights into the confining dynamics of QCD and the analytic form of hadronic light-front wavefunctions. As we have shown recently, there is a remarkable mapping between the description of hadronic modes in AdS space and the Hamiltonian formulation of QCD in physical space-time quantized on the light-front. This procedure allows string modes $\Phi(z)$ in the AdS holographic variable $z$ to be precisely mapped to the light-front wave functions of hadrons in physical space-time in terms of a specific light-front variable $\zeta$ which measures the separation of the quark and gluonic constituents within the hadron. The coordinate $\zeta$ also specifies the light-front (LF) kinetic energy and invariant mass of constituents. This mapping was originally obtained by matching the expression for electromagnetic current matrix elements in AdS space with the corresponding expression for the current matrix element using light-front theory in physical space time [@Brodsky:2006uqa]. More recently we have shown that one obtains the identical holographic mapping using the matrix elements of the energy-momentum tensor [@Brodsky:2008pf], thus providing an important consistency test and verification of holographic mapping from AdS to physical observables defined on the light front.
The connection between light-front QCD and the description of hadronic modes on AdS space is physically compelling and phenomenologically successful. However, there are lingering questions in this approach that should be addressed. In particular, one wants to understand under what approximations (if any) a formal gauge/gravity correspondence can be established for physical QCD. This question is most important if QCD is to be described by the low energy limit of some (yet unknown) string theory in a higher dimensional space. In string theory a spin-$J$ hadronic state is described by a spin-$J$ field, whereas in physical QCD hadrons are composite and thus are inevitably endowed of orbital angular momentum. How can this two pictures be compatible? The mapping between string modes in AdS and LFWFs described in [@Brodsky:2006uqa; @Brodsky:2008pf] is an important step, but one must also prove that our identification of orbital angular momentum is correct and compatible with the string description in terms of eigenmodes of total spin $J$. It is also important to understand the nature and the validity of the approximations involved in establishing a gauge/gravity correspondence to find a framework to systematically improve the results.
In this letter we will show that to a first semiclassical approximation, light-front QCD is formally equivalent to the equations of motion on a fixed AdS$_5$ gravitational background. To prove this, we show that the LF Hamiltonian equations of motion of QCD lead to an effective LF equation for physical modes $\phi(\zeta)$ which encode the hadronic properties. This LF equation carries the orbital angular momentum quantum numbers and is equivalent to the propagation of spin-$J$ modes on AdS space.
We express the hadron four-momentum generator $P = (P^+, P^-,
{\mathbf{P}}_{\!\perp})$, $P^\pm = P^0 \pm P^3$, in terms of the dynamical fields, the Dirac field $\psi_+$, $\psi_\pm = \Lambda_\pm
\psi$, $\Lambda_\pm = \gamma^0 \gamma^\pm$, and the transverse field ${\mathbf{A}}_\perp$ in the $A^+ = 0$ gauge [@Brodsky:1997de] $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
P^- &\!\!\!=\!& {{\frac{1}{2}}}\! \int \! dx^- d^2 {\mathbf{x}}_\perp \, {\overline{\psi}}_+ \gamma^+
\frac{ \left( i {\mathbf{\nabla}}_{\! \perp} \right)^2 \!\! + m^2 }{ i \partial^+} \psi_+ + {\rm interactions}, \\
\nonumber
P^+ &\!\!\!=\!& \int \! dx^- d^2 {\mathbf{x}}_\perp \,
{\overline{\psi}}_+ \gamma^+ i \partial^+ \psi_+, \\ \label{eq:P}
{\mathbf{P}}_{\! \perp} &\!\!\!=\!& {{\frac{1}{2}}}\int \! dx^- d^2 {\mathbf{x}}_\perp \,
{\overline{\psi}}_+ \gamma^+ i {\mathbf{\nabla}}_{\! \perp} \psi_+,\end{aligned}$$ where the integrals are over the initial surface $x^+ = 0$, $x^\pm = x^0 \pm x^3$. The operator $P^-$ generates LF time translations $\left[\psi_+(x), P^-\right] = i \partial \psi_+(x)/\partial x^+ $, and the generators $P^+$ and ${\mathbf{P}}_\perp$ are kinematical. For simplicity we have omitted from (\[eq:P\]) the contribution from the gluon field ${\mathbf{A}}_\perp$.
The Dirac field operator is expanded as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:psiop}
\psi_+(x^- \!,{\mathbf{x}}_\perp)_\alpha = \sum_\lambda \int_{q^+ > 0} \frac{d q^+}{\sqrt{ 2
q^+}}
\frac{d^2 {\mathbf{q}}_\perp}{ (2 \pi)^3} \\ \times
\left[b_\lambda (q)
u_\alpha(q,\lambda) e^{-i q \cdot x} + d_\lambda (q)^\dagger
v_\alpha(q,\lambda) e^{i q \cdot x}\right],\end{gathered}$$ with $u$ and $v$ LF spinors [@Lepage:1980fj]. Similar expansion follows for the gluon field ${\mathbf{A}}_\perp$. Using LF commutation relations $\left\{b(q), b^\dagger(q')\right\}
= (2 \pi)^3 \,\delta (q^+ \! - {q'}^+)
\delta^{(2)} \! \left({\mathbf{q}}_\perp\! - {\mathbf{q}}'_\perp\right)$, we find $$\label{eq:Pm}
P^- \! \! = \sum_\lambda \! \int \! \frac{dq^+ d^2 {\mathbf{q}}_\perp}{(2 \pi)^3 } \,
\!\! \left(\! \frac{ {\mathbf{q}}_\perp^2 \!+ m^2}{q^+} \right) \!
b_\lambda^\dagger(q) b_\lambda(q) + { \rm interactions},$$ and we recover the LF dispersion relation $q^- = \frac{{\mathbf{q}}_\perp^2 + m^2}{q^+}$, which follows from the on shell relation $q^2 = m^2$. The LF time evolution operator $P^-$ is conveniently written as a term which represents the sum of the kinetic energy of all the partons plus a sum of all the interaction terms.
Is is convenient to define a light-front Lorentz invariant Hamiltonian $H_{LF}= P_\mu P^\mu = P^-P^+ \! - {\mathbf{P}}^2_\perp$ with eigenstates $\vert \psi_H(P^+, {\mathbf{P}}_\perp, S_z )\rangle$ and eigenmass $\mathcal{M}_H^2$, the mass spectrum of the color-singlet states of QCD [@Brodsky:1997de] $$\label{eq:HLF}
H_{LF} \vert \psi_H\rangle = {\cal M}^2_H \vert \psi_H \rangle.$$ A state $\vert \psi_H \rangle$ is an expansion in multi-particle Fock states $\vert n \rangle $ of the free LF Hamiltonian: $\vert \psi_H \rangle = \sum_n \psi_{n/H} \vert n \rangle$, where a one parton state is $\vert q \rangle = \sqrt{2 q^+} \,b^\dagger(q) \vert 0 \rangle$. The Fock components $\psi_{n/H}(x_i, {\mathbf{k}_{\perp i}}, \lambda_i^z)$ are independent of $P^+$ and ${\mathbf{P}}_{\! \perp}$ and depend only on relative partonic coordinates: the momentum fraction $x_i = k^+_i/P^+$, the transverse momentum ${\mathbf{k}_{\perp i}}$ and spin component $\lambda_i^z$. Momentum conservation requires $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i = 1$ and $\sum_{i=1}^n \mathbf{k}_{\perp i}=0$. The LFWFs $\psi_{n/H}$ provide a [*frame-independent* ]{} representation of a hadron which relates its quark and gluon degrees of freedom to their asymptotic hadronic state.
We compute $\mathcal{M}^2$ from the hadronic matrix element $\langle \psi_H(P') \vert H_{LF}\vert\psi_H(P) \rangle \! = \!
\mathcal{M}_H^2 \langle \psi_H(P' ) \vert\psi_H(P) \rangle$, expanding the initial and final hadronic states in terms of its Fock components. The computation is much simplified in the light-cone frame $P = \big(P^+, M^2/P^+, \vec{0}_\perp \big)$ where $H_{LF} = P^+ P^-$. We find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:M}
\mathcal{M}_H^2 = \sum_n \! \int \! \big[d x_i\big] \! \left[d^2 {\mathbf{k}}_{\perp i}\right]
\sum_q \Big(\frac{{\mathbf{k}}_{\perp q}^2 \! + m_q^2}{x_q} \Big) \\ \times
\left\vert \psi_{n/H} (x_i, {\mathbf{k}}_{\perp i}) \right \vert^2 + {\rm interactions} ,
\end{gathered}$$ plus similar terms for antiquarks and gluons ($m_g = 0)$. The integrals in (\[eq:M\]) are over the internal coordinates of the $n$ constituents for each Fock state with phase space normalization $$\sum_n \int \big[d x_i\big] \left[d^2 {\mathbf{k}}_{\perp i}\right]
\,\left\vert \psi_{n/H}(x_i, {\mathbf{k}}_{\perp i}) \right\vert^2 = 1.$$ The LFWF $\psi_n(x_i, \mathbf{k}_{\perp i})$ can be expanded in terms of $n-1$ independent position coordinates $\mathbf{b}_{\perp j}$, $j = 1,2,\dots,n-1$, so that $\sum_{i = 1}^n {\mathbf{b}}_{\perp i} = 0$. We can also express (\[eq:M\]) in terms of the internal coordinates ${\mathbf{b}}_{\perp j}$ with ${\mathbf{k}}_\perp^2 \to
- \nabla_{{\mathbf{b}}_\perp}^2$. The normalization is defined by $$\label{eq:Normb}
\sum_n \prod_{j=1}^{n-1} \int d x_j d^2 \mathbf{b}_{\perp j}
\vert \psi_{n/H}(x_j, \mathbf{b}_{\perp j})\vert^2 = 1.$$
To simplify the discussion we will consider a two-parton hadronic bound state. In the limit $m_q \to 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{M}^2 &\!\!=\!\!& \int_0^1 \! d x \! \int \! \frac{d^2 {\mathbf{k}}_\perp}{16 \pi^3} \,
\frac{{\mathbf{k}}_\perp^2}{x(1-x)}
\left\vert \psi (x, {\mathbf{k}}_\perp) \right \vert^2 + {\rm interactions} \\ \nonumber
&\!\!=\!\!& \int_0^1 \! \frac{d x}{x(1-x)} \int \! d^2 {\mathbf{b}}_\perp \,
\psi^*(x, {\mathbf{b}}_\perp)
\left( - {\mathbf{\nabla}}_{ {{\mathbf{b}}}_\perp}^2\right)
\psi(x, {\mathbf{b}}_\perp) \\ \label{eq:Mb} & & ~~~~~~~~ + {\rm interactions}.
\end{aligned}$$
It is clear from (\[eq:Mb\]) that the functional dependence for a given Fock state is given in terms of the invariant mass $$\mathcal{M}_n^2 = \Big( \sum_{a=1}^n k_a^\mu\Big)^2 = \sum_a \frac{{\mathbf{k}}_{\perp a}^2 \! + m_a^2}{x_a}
\to \frac{{\mathbf{k}}_\perp^2}{x(1-x)} \,,$$ the measure of the off-mass shell energy $\mathcal{M}^2 - \mathcal{M}_n^2$. Similarly in impact space the relevant variable for a two-parton state is $\zeta^2= x(1-x){\mathbf{b}}_\perp^2$. Thus, to first approximation LF dynamics depend only on the boost invariant variable $\mathcal{M}_n$ or $\zeta$ and hadronic properties are encoded in the hadronic mode $\phi(\zeta)$: $ \psi(x, {\mathbf{k}}_\perp) \to \phi(\zeta)$. We choose the normalization of the LF mode $\phi(\zeta) = \langle \zeta \vert \phi \rangle$ $$\langle\phi\vert\phi\rangle = \int \! d \zeta \,
\vert \langle \zeta \vert \phi\rangle\vert^2 = 1.$$
We write the Laplacian operator in (\[eq:Mb\]) in circular cylindrical coordinates $(\zeta, \varphi)$ with $\zeta = \sqrt{x(1-x)} \, \vert{\mathbf{b}}_\perp\vert$: $\nabla_\zeta^2 = \frac{1}{\zeta} \frac{d}{d\zeta} \left( \zeta \frac{d}{d\zeta} \right)
+ \frac{1}{\zeta^2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \varphi^2}$, and factor out the angular dependence of the modes in terms of the $SO(2)$ Casimir representation $L^2$ of orbital angular momentum in the transverse plane: $\phi(\zeta, \varphi) \sim e^{\pm i L \varphi} \phi(\zeta)$. Expressing the LFWF $ \psi(x, \zeta)$ as a product of the LF mode $\phi(\zeta)$ and a prefactor $f(x)$ $$\label{eq:psiphi}
\psi(x,\zeta) = \frac{\phi(\zeta)}{\sqrt{2 \pi \zeta}} f(x).$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\mathcal{M}^2 &\!\!=\!\!& \int \! d\zeta \, \phi^*(\zeta) \sqrt{\zeta}
\left( -\frac{d^2}{d\zeta^2} -\frac{1}{\zeta} \frac{d}{d\zeta}
+ \frac{L^2}{\zeta^2}\right)
\frac{\phi(\zeta)}{\sqrt{\zeta}} \\
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \int \! d\zeta \, \phi^*(\zeta) U(\zeta) \phi(\zeta) \\ \nonumber
&\!\!=\!\!&
\int \! d\zeta \, \phi^*(\zeta)
\left( -\frac{d^2}{d\zeta^2}
- \frac{1 - 4L^2}{4\zeta^2} +U(\zeta)\right)
\phi(\zeta),\end{aligned}$$ where the complexity of the interaction terms in the QCD Lagrangian is summed up in the addition of the effective potential $U(\zeta)$, which is then modeled to enforce confinement at some IR scale. The light-front eigenvalue equation $H_{LF} \vert \phi \rangle = \mathcal{M}^2 \vert \phi \rangle$ is thus a light-front wave equation for $\phi$ $$\label{eq:QCDLFWE}
\left(-\frac{d^2}{d\zeta^2}
- \frac{1 - 4L^2}{4\zeta^2} + U(\zeta) \right)
\phi(\zeta) = \mathcal{M}^2 \phi(\zeta),$$ an effective single-variable light-front Schrödinger equation which is relativistic, covariant and analytically tractable. From (\[eq:M\]) one can readily generalize the equations to allow for the kinetic energy of massive quarks [@Brodsky:2008pg].
As the simplest example we consider a bag-like model [@Chodos:1974je] where partons are free inside the hadron and the interaction terms effectively build confinement. The effective potential is a hard wall: $U(\zeta) = 0$ if $\zeta \le 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and $U(\zeta) = \infty$ if $\zeta > 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. However, unlike the standard bag model [@Chodos:1974je], boundary conditions are imposed on the boost invariant variable $\zeta$, not on the bag radius at fixed time. If $L^2 \ge 0$ the LF Hamiltonian is positive definite $\langle \phi \vert H_{LF} \vert \phi \rangle \ge 0$ and thus $\mathcal M^2 \ge 0$. If $L^2 < 0$ the LF Hamiltonian is unbounded from below and the particle “falls towards the center” [@LL:1958]. The critical value corresponds to $L=0$. The mode spectrum follows from the boundary conditions $\phi \! \left(\zeta = 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\right) = 0$, and is given in terms of the roots of Bessel functions: $\mathcal{M}_{L,k} = \beta_{L, k} \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. Since in the conformal limit $U(\zeta) \to 0$, Eq. (\[eq:QCDLFWE\]) is equivalent to an AdS wave equation. The hard-wall LF model discussed here is equivalent to the hard wall model of Ref. [@Polchinski:2001tt]. Likewise a two-dimensional oscillator with effective potential $U(\zeta) \sim \zeta^2$ is equivalent to the soft-wall model of Ref. [@Karch:2006pv] which reproduce the usual linear Regge trajectories.
We are now in a position to find out if the first order approximation to light-front QCD discussed above admits an effective gravity description. To examine this question it is useful to study the structure of the equation of motion of $p$-forms in AdS space, which for $p=0$ and $p = 1$ represent spin 0 and spin 1 states respectively. A $p$-form in AdS is a totally antisymmetric tensor field $\Phi_{\ell_1 \ell_2 \cdots \ell_p}$ of rank $p$ which couples to an interpolating operator $\mathcal{O}$ of dimension $d-p$ at the AdS boundary. Fermionic modes will be described elsewhere. In tensor notation the equations of motion for a p-form are expressed as the set of $p+1$ coupled equations [@l'Yi:1998eu] $$\begin{gathered}
\big[ z^2 \partial_z^2 - (d + 1 - 2 p) z \, \partial_z - z^2 \partial_\rho \partial^\rho \\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - (\mu R)^2 + d + 1 - 2 p \big] \Phi_{z \alpha_2 \cdots \alpha_p}
= 0, \\
\cdots \\
\left[ z^2 \partial_z^2 - (d - 1 -2 p) z \, \partial_z - z^2 \partial_\rho \partial^\rho
- (\mu R)^2 \right] \Phi_{\alpha_1 \alpha_2 \cdots \alpha_p} \\
= 2z \bigl( \partial_{\alpha_1} \Phi_{z \alpha_2 \cdots \alpha_p}
+ \partial_{\alpha_2} \Phi_{\alpha_1 z \cdots \alpha_p}
+ \cdots\bigr), \label{eq:eomPhi3}\end{gathered}$$ where $\mu$ is a $d\!+\!1$-dimensional mass, $\rho = 0,1, \cdots, d\!-\!1$ and $R$ is the AdS$_{d+1}$ radius. Consider the plane-wave solution $\Phi_P(x,z) _{\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_p} \! = \!
e^{- i P \cdot x} \, \Phi(z)_{\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_p}$, with four-momentum $P_\mu$, invariant hadronic mass $P_\mu P^\mu = \mathcal{M}^2$ and spin indices $\alpha$ along the 3+1 physical coordinates. For string modes with all indices along the Poincaré coordinates, $\Phi_{z \alpha_2 \cdots \alpha_p} = \Phi_{\alpha_1 z \cdots \alpha_p} = \cdots = 0$, the coupled differential equations (\[eq:eomPhi3\]) reduce to the homogeneous wave equation $$\label{eq:eomPhipz}
\left[ z^2 \partial_z^2 - (d\! -\! 1 \!- \!2 p) z \, \partial_z + z^2 \mathcal{M}^2
\! - (\mu R)^2 \right] \! \Phi _{\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_p} = 0,$$ with conformal dimension $$\Delta = \frac{1}{2} \bigl( d \! + \! \sqrt{ (d - 2 p)^2 + 4 \mu^2 R^2} \bigr).$$ and thus $(\mu R)^2 = (\Delta-p)(\Delta-d+p)$.
Thus when the polarization indices are chosen along the physical $ 3+1$ Poincaré coordinates, the p-form equation (\[eq:eomPhipz\]) becomes homogeneous and its polarization structure decouples; i.e., it is independent of the kinematical polarization structure of the indices. Thus it also describes the dynamics of a spin $J\!=\!p$-mode in AdS $\Phi(x,z) _{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_J}$, which is totally symmetric in all its indices. To prove this, consider the AdS wave equation (\[eq:eomPhipz\]) for a scalar mode $\Phi$ ($p=0$), and define a spin-$J$ field $\Phi_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_J}$ with shifted dimensions: $\Phi_J(z) = \left(z/R\right)^{-J} \Phi(z)$, and normalization [@Hong:2004sa] $$R^{d-2J-1} \int_0^{z_{max}} \! \frac{dz}{z^{d-2J-1}} \, \Phi_J^2 (z) = 1.$$ The shifted field $\Phi_J$ obeys the equation of motion $$\label{eq:eomPhiJz}
\left[ z^2 \partial_z^2 - (d\! -\! 1 \!- \!2 J) z \, \partial_z + z^2 \mathcal{M}^2
\! - (\mu R)^2 \right] \! \Phi_J = 0,$$ where the fifth dimensional mass is rescaled according to $(\mu R)^2 \to (\mu R)^2 - J(d-J)$. One can then construct an effective action in terms of high spin modes $\Phi(x,z) _{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_J}$ with only the physical degrees of freedom [@Karch:2006pv].
Upon the substitution $z \! \to\! \zeta$ and $\phi_J(\zeta) \! \sim \! \zeta^{-3/2 + J} \Phi_J(\zeta)$ in (\[eq:eomPhiJz\]) we recover for $d=4$ the QCD light-front wave equation (\[eq:QCDLFWE\]) in the conformal limit $$\label{eq:ScheqS}
\left(-\frac{d^2}{d \zeta^2} - \frac{1-4 L^2}{4\zeta^2} \right) \phi_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_J}
= \mathcal{M}^2 \phi_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_J},$$ where the fifth dimensional mass is not a free parameter but scales according to $ (\mu R)^2 = - (2-J)^2 + L^2$. In the hard-wall model there is a total decoupling of the total spin $J$. For $L^2 \ge 0$ the LF Hamiltonian is positive definite $\langle \phi_J \vert H_{LF} \vert \phi_J \rangle \ge 0$ and we find the stability bound $(\mu R)^2 \ge - (2 - J)^2$. For $J = 0$ the stability condition gives the bound $(\mu R)^2 \ge - 4$. The quantum-mechanical stability conditions discussed here are thus equivalent to the Breithelohner-Freedman stability bound in AdS [@Breitenlohner:1982jf]. The scaling dimensions are $\Delta = 2 + L$ independent of $J$ in agreement with the twist scaling dimension of a two parton bound state in QCD.
We have shown that the use of the invariant coordinate $\zeta$ in light-front QCD which is related to the fundamental constituent structure, allows the separation of the dynamics of quark and gluon binding from the kinematics of constituent spin and internal orbital angular momentum. The result is a single-variable LF Schrödinger equation which determines the spectrum and LFWFs of hadrons for general spin and orbital angular momentum. This LF wave equation serves as a semiclassical first approximation to QCD and is equivalent to the equations of motion which describe the propagation of spin-$J$ modes on AdS. Remarkably, the AdS equations correspond to the kinetic energy terms of the partons inside a hadron, whereas the interaction terms build confinement and correspond to the truncation of AdS space. As in this approximation there are no quantum corrections, there are no anomalous dimensions. This may explain the experimental success of power-law scaling in hard exclusive reactions where there are no indications of the effects of anomalous dimensions. In the hard-wall model there is total orbital decoupling from hadronic spin $J$ and thus the LF excitation spectrum of hadrons depends only on orbital and principal quantum numbers. In this model the mass dependence has the linear form: $\mathcal{M} \sim 2n + L$. In the soft-wall model the usual Regge behavior is found $\mathcal{M}^2 \sim n +
L$ where the slope in $L$ and $n$ is identical. Both models predict the same multiplicity of states for mesons and baryons as observed experimentally [@Klempt:2007cp]. As in the Schrödinger equation, the semiclassical approximation to light-front QCD described in this letter does not account for particle creation and absorption, and thus it is expected to break down at short distances where hard gluon exchange and quantum corrections become important. However, one can systematically improve the holographic approximation by diagonalizing the QCD light-front Hamiltonian on the AdS/QCD basis.
We thank Andreas Karch, Igor Klebanov, Leonardo Rastelli, Robert Shrock, Matt Strassler and James Vary for helpful conversations. This research was supported by the Department of Energy contract DE–AC02–76SF00515.
[0]{}
P. A. M. Dirac, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{}, 392 (1949). S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Lett. B [**582**]{}, 211 (2004). G. F. de Teramond and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 201601 (2005). S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 201601 (2006); Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 056007 (2008). S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, arXiv:0802.0514 \[hep-ph\]. S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Teramond, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 025032 (2008). J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) \[Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1113 (1999)\].
A. Deur, V. Burkert, J. P. Chen and W. Korsch, Phys. Lett. B [**665**]{}, 349 (2008). S. J. Brodsky and R. Shrock, Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{}, 95 (2008). S. J. Brodsky, H. C. Pauli and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rep. [**301**]{}, 299 (1998). G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D [**22**]{}, 2157 (1980). A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn and V. F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D [**9**]{}, 3471 (1974). L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Pergamon, New York, 1958), Sec. 35.
J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 031601 (2002). A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 015005 (2006). W. S. l’Yi, Phys. Lett. B [**448**]{}, 218 (1999). S. Hong, S. Yoon and M. J. Strassler, JHEP [**0604**]{}, 003 (2006). P. Breitenlohner and D. Z. Freedman, Annals Phys. [**144**]{}, 249 (1982). E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. [**454**]{}, 1 (2007).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.